Concrete workplace scenario
After D30, your manager hands you the Month 1 diagnostic packet: usable evidence, a review rule, an owner/approval path, and known limitations. They ask: “Can this become reusable context instead of another one-off prompt?”
The trap is treating the D30 packet as background text. D31 must turn only supported evidence, review rule, owner, and limitation into reusable context fields.
Worked answer
Bad example first: the plausible shortcut fails
Weak example
“Write a better prompt for this work request.”
What goes wrong
The weak version contains better prompt, no reusable context field, no review point, no template seed.
Work-ready version: use the day rule
D30 evidence packet
Usable Month 1 proof that can become context.
Review rule
The human check that must travel with the field.
Limitation / do-not-carry
What should not be reused without repair.
Quick decision check
Context becomes reusable when it becomes a field rule
Use this rule before filling the build table. The goal is a reusable context asset, not another one-off prompt.
D30 evidence packet
Usable Month 1 proof that can become context.
Review rule
The human check that must travel with the field.
Limitation / do-not-carry
What should not be reused without repair.
Context-template workflow trace
Before / after: what changed in your work?
Before learning
After learning
What AI-in-workflow means today
Workplace situation
A worker must turn prompt vs context into a reusable context-template artifact instead of another one-off prompt.
Main learning job
Build context_template_seed.md so the next day can reuse a concrete field, rule, example, or testable contract.
Failure mode
Treating prompt vs context as advice instead of a reusable field or evidence-backed artifact.
D30 packet carry-forward failure story
A worker asks: “Write a client update.” AI produces a generic polished message, but it misses the project stage, audience concern, review status, and decision needed.
Diagnosis
The prompt did not fail because the model was bad. It failed because the context template was empty.
Artifact handoff
Received: D30 foundation_production_pack_and_part2_handoff.md
Hands off: D32 task_template_structure.md
Course path: Original title is Prompt vs Context; review status is reviewed course material; lesson type is normal skill page.
Micro-practice: artifact handoff → template field
Do not add fields because they look tidy. Add fields because a prior evidence or future handoff needs them.
Course-path example checkpoint
Review status mapping: reviewed course material → generation enum reviewed course material
Prompt vs Context
Turn one-off prompts into reusable context templates.
10–15 minutes
Complete one small work-like unit.
context_template_seed.md
Save a concrete portfolio increment.
Part 2 · Days 31–60 · L3
Stay inside the correct 30-day course part.
Lesson outcome
By the end, you should have a clear decision, template, map, or review note that can be reused at work.
1 · Concept — What you need to understand
This lesson focuses on one practical capability: choose the right AI use, define the context, or make a workflow step reviewable.
Good move: describe the task, the input, the expected output, and the human review point.
Common mistake: asking AI to decide everything without context, constraints, or review responsibility.
2 · Guided check — Check your understanding
Before writing the artifact, confirm what the work unit must prove and how a human would review it.
- What input is needed?
- What output should be produced?
- Where does human review happen?
- What would count as a failure?
3 · Practice — Build today’s artifact
Create or update context_template_seed.md. Keep it small, specific, and reusable. Do not paste private data or secrets.
4 · Checklist — Minimum acceptance
- Specific task or workflow step
- Clear input and output
- D30 review rule
- Saved artifact name
Learning path
Next lesson: Continue to the next daily unit when this artifact is saved.
Lesson map
1. Concept → 2. Guided check → 3. Practice → 4. Checklist → 5. Artifact.
Today artifact: context_template_seed.md. After you save it, add it to the course portfolio pack.
Manual-first judgment and AI-use window
Worker owns
The worker separates prompt wording from missing context and chooses which context fields are evidence-truth, not AI guesses.
AI may help with
AI may suggest missing context fields, but must not invent audience, evidence, deadline, or output use.
Do not export if evidence/evidence, owner/reviewer, readiness, or limitation fields are blank.
Good-enough sample row guide
Use a concrete workplace case: an operations lead preparing a weekly status update for a manager by Friday, using a evidence note, a deadline, an expected format, and a human review owner. Do not leave the artifact as labels only.
- Name the provided material or evidence pointer.
- Name the stakeholder or reviewer.
- Name the business consequence if the field is wrong.
- Name the limitation or unknown before export.
Completed row to imitate
| D30 packet carry-forward failure | Missing D30-derived field | Template seed |
|---|---|---|
| Generic client update | Reader concern + review status | “Audience: customer ops lead; concern: delay date; evidence: verified ticket notes only.” |
Build context_template_seed.md
Core path: complete three rows. Deep path: complete three rows plus summary and handoff candidate. Blank required fields create export warnings.
| No. | Work request | D30 packet carry-forward failure | Missing D30-derived field | D30 review rule | Reusable context seed | Evidence quality | Human owner / reviewer | Review readiness | Limitation / unknown |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | |||||||||
| 2 | |||||||||
| 3 |
Summary / decision
D37 context template candidate
Capture a concrete candidate for the next synthesis or handoff page.
Repair one weak field
Use this pass to find the context/template field that would fail reuse, confuse a teammate, or hide a review need before export.
Repair example
Weak row: D30 packet is pasted as background, but evidence, review rule, owner path, and limitation are not saved as fields.
Repair move: Name the D30-derived context field, review rule, owner/approval path, and do-not-carry limitation.
Better row: D30-derived seed: approved evidence source, review owner, approval path, and limitation/do-not-carry rule travel into D32 task template.
Choose the field you would be comfortable carrying into the next day.
Choose the field most likely to fail reuse or need review.
Sentence starter: The weak row is weak because ___. I will repair it by adding ___ before using AI.
Export artifact
This file is today’s work receipt. It should show which context/template field can be reused tomorrow, not just that you filled a table.
Before you export
- Does the export name the D30-derived context field, review rule, owner/approval path, and unsupported carry-forward?
- Does it separate supported evidence from limitation or do-not-carry material?
- Would D32 know which context seed can become part of the task template structure?
What this artifact proves: This file proves you can receive the D30 diagnostic handoff and convert supported evidence, review rule, owner path, and limitation into a reusable context template seed.
Weak export: D30 packet is pasted as background, but evidence, review rule, owner path, and limitation are not saved as fields.
Good export: D30-derived seed: approved evidence source, review owner, approval path, and limitation/do-not-carry rule travel into D32 task template.
Click Generate Markdown to create context_template_seed.md.