Level 1 · Guide 04
Iterate and verify instead of accepting the first answer
Do not treat Claude’s first answer as final; inspect acceptance criteria, evidence, omissions, and assumptions in order. After a revision, recheck numbers, sources, and end-to-end consistency rather than reviewing only the changed paragraph.
Product features may change. Check the last verified date and official sources.
Core concepts to know first
Focus on the decisions these terms support in real work rather than memorizing them.
Core concepts
1. The QJC six-stage iteration loop
Generation and evaluation use different questions. First create against a brief, then review against an explicit rubric, seek counterexamples, revise, and retain a short change log so iteration becomes reproducible learning. In this guide, the first observable move is to create a plan and first draft against acceptance criteria.
2. Separate generation from evaluation
Run an evidence and omission review from a separate perspective. Preserve the approved input and the evidence behind the result so a reviewer can distinguish what the source says from what Claude inferred. This directly controls the risk that self-critique can preserve the same blind spot.
3. Self-review differs from independent review
Revise, recheck the complete artifact, and record the final decision. Record the decision and the remaining uncertainty instead of hiding it in polished prose. The review must explicitly test whether fixing one sentence can break another section.
4. A change log turns repetition into learning
Treat the possibility that endless revision without a stop rule wastes review time as a required test case. The intended result is a plan, draft, critique, revision, and decision log, not an unreviewed answer that merely looks complete.
Synthetic work scenario
How this applies at work
This scenario was written for learning and is not a real customer case.
A fictional program manager drafts a partner briefing with synthetic figures. A second pass maps each claim to evidence, identifies a missing cancellation condition, and records exactly why the final draft was approved.
The scenario is newly written for this guide and is neither a customer case nor a performance claim. Its specific deliverable is a plan, draft, critique, revision, and decision log. A reviewer can reproduce the work from the synthetic inputs without access to customer, employee, health, contract, or confidential company data.
Try it yourself
Choose one small task and follow the steps. Confirm organizational policy and data boundaries before using sensitive materials.
Step 1. Create a plan and first draft against acceptance criteria
Create a plan and first draft against acceptance criteria. Use only approved synthetic material and record both the evidence and any remaining uncertainty.
Verify: Confirm that another reviewer can reproduce the input, result, evidence, and stop point.
Step 2. Run an evidence and omission review from a separate perspective
Run an evidence and omission review from a separate perspective. Use only approved synthetic material and record both the evidence and any remaining uncertainty.
Verify: Confirm that another reviewer can reproduce the input, result, evidence, and stop point.
Step 3. Revise, recheck the complete artifact, and record the final decision
Revise, recheck the complete artifact, and record the final decision. Use only approved synthetic material and record both the evidence and any remaining uncertainty.
Verify: Confirm that another reviewer can reproduce the input, result, evidence, and stop point.
Completion checklist
Check only what you verified yourself. Every item must be checked before saving completion.
Some items are still unchecked. Review the result again.
What could go wrong?
Plausible language does not guarantee accuracy. Compare the result with originals, calculations, permissions, and current information.
- Self-critique can preserve the same blind spot
- Fixing one sentence can break another section
- Endless revision without a stop rule wastes review time
Boundaries that require human review
Academy practice stops at draft, preview, or approval pending. Actions with real impact require separate owner approval outside Academy.
What AI can do
- Step 1. Create a plan and first draft against acceptance criteria
- Step 2. Run an evidence and omission review from a separate perspective
- Step 3. Revise, recheck the complete artifact, and record the final decision
What a person must approve
- Applicable law, contract, organizational security policy, and explicit approval boundaries take priority. Stop and ask the responsible owner when they conflict.
- Academy exercises never send, publish, purchase, delete, execute contracts, or change permissions. A responsible person performs any real action through a separate process.
This guide is educational and does not replace legal, security, or privacy judgment for your organization.
Questions about this guide
- When is this guide complete?
- It is complete when the stated outcome is ready and another reviewer can retrace the inputs, evidence, boundaries, and decision. The target outcome is “A plan, draft, critique, revision, and decision log.”
- May I practice with real company data?
- No. Use synthetic material in the Academy. Real data requires a separate review of policy, legal basis, contracts, minimization, retention, deletion, and the approved environment.
- What if the product screen differs from this guide?
- Product behavior can change. Check the verification date and official sources, then retest the current account and plan with a small, low-risk example.
Official sources and further reading
Recheck the current product and policy status in these primary sources.
Authorship and review
Save progress
Completion and checklist items are saved only in this browser. They do not sync to other devices or browsers.
Academy does not collect or store work materials, prompts, or outputs. It runs no separate analytics scripts beyond basic server access logs.