A facilitator-ready, 45-minute exercise for workplace teams. Participants turn fictional meeting notes into an internal brief, then check the draft against the source. No coding is required, and no real customer or employee information is needed.
Participants: individuals or pairs. Tools: an organisation-approved AI chat tool, or the supplied flawed draft for a paper-based version. Output: a checked brief, an action list and a short verification note.
Learning objectives
By the end, participants should be able to:
- Ask for a specific output with a clear audience and boundaries.
- Distinguish source-supported facts from proposals and missing information.
- Identify unsupported claims in a fluent draft.
- Revise the output and explain why human review is still needed.
This exercise develops judgement and checking habits. It does not certify someone to use AI independently in every workplace situation.
Facilitator preparation
- Confirm the tool and account are approved for this exercise. Review local policy and current tool data controls.
- Give participants the fictional source below. Do not ask them to substitute real notes containing personal or confidential information.
- Make the flawed draft available separately so it does not get mixed into the source facts.
- Explain that outputs will vary. A model may introduce no errors, different errors or several errors. The flawed draft guarantees a useful checking activity if needed.
- Offer the paper-based version for tool-access or accessibility needs. Assess judgement rather than access to a paid account.
Fictional source pack — copy from here
Harbour Learning Collective is planning a free community AI taster session. These notes are invented for training.
Meeting: planning call, 3 May 2026.
Confirmed: the session is planned for 21 May 2026, from 10:00 to 11:00 local time. The venue is the Harbour Room at the community centre. Capacity is 24 people. Registration is free.
Priya will draft the invitation by 6 May. Mateo will check the room's accessibility by 8 May. The event coordinator has not yet been assigned.
The team proposed a NZ$300 printing budget. The finance approver has not agreed to it. Do not describe it as approved expenditure.
A local sponsor may provide refreshments. No sponsorship has been confirmed, and the team does not yet have permission to use the sponsor's logo.
There is no registration count yet. The team wants an internal planning brief, not a public announcement.
End of source pack. All organisations, people and event details above are fictional. The dates belong to the practice scenario, not to an upcoming real event.
45-minute facilitation agenda
Minutes 0–5: set the boundaries
Explain the learning objectives and the fictional scenario. Ask: “Which information is confirmed, proposed or missing?” Remind the group not to paste real work data into the exercise.
Minutes 5–10: write the request
Ask participants to write their own prompt first. They should specify the internal audience, the desired headings, a short length and an instruction not to invent information. Then compare with this starter prompt:
Using only the fictional meeting notes below, write an internal planning brief of no more than 120 words. Include Confirmed details, Actions, and Open decisions. Preserve the distinction between agreed facts and proposals. If an owner, date, approval or number is missing, say it is unknown; do not invent it. Keep sponsor references internal. After the brief, list the claims a human should check. [Paste the source pack here.]
Minutes 10–20: draft and challenge
Generate one draft. Ask participants to mark the source for every date, person, amount and status in it. If the draft looks accurate, challenge it with the flawed sample below. Do not add the flawed sample to the tool as if it were source material.
Minutes 20–30: check and repair
Work in pairs. Identify unsupported claims, correct them using the notes and mark anything still unknown. Asking the same model “Are you sure?” is not a substitute for checking the source.
Minutes 30–40: compare with the answer guide
Discuss why a plausible claim can be wrong. Compare the revised brief with the minimum facts in the answer guide. Exact wording is not important; faithful meaning is.
Minutes 40–45: record the next step
Ask each person to name one thing they changed, one claim they checked and one boundary they would apply at work. Use the companion rubric if you need a structured learning record.
Deliberately flawed draft — not source material
Harbour Learning Collective's public AI session runs on 21 May from 10:00 to 11:00 in the Harbour Room. All 24 places have been booked. Priya is the event coordinator and will send invitations on 6 May. The NZ$300 printing budget is approved. The sponsor is providing refreshments, so its logo can be included in the public announcement. Mateo has confirmed the room is accessible.
Facilitator note: this draft is intentionally incorrect. Do not present it as a reliable answer or as output from a particular AI product.
Answer guide: what must change
- 24 is capacity, not bookings. The registration count is unknown.
- Priya is drafting the invitation, not the event coordinator. No coordinator has been assigned. The notes give a draft deadline, not a sending date.
- NZ$300 is proposed, not approved. Finance approval remains an open decision.
- Refreshments are unconfirmed. Sponsorship and permission to use a logo have not been agreed.
- Accessibility is a task to check, not a completed finding. Mateo is due to check by 8 May.
- The intended output is internal. Do not turn planning notes into a public announcement or imply it is cleared for publication.
A suitable short brief could be:
Confirmed details: Free AI taster session, 21 May 2026, 10:00–11:00 local time, Harbour Room; capacity 24. Actions: Priya drafts the invitation by 6 May. Mateo checks accessibility by 8 May. Open decisions: Event coordinator unassigned; NZ$300 printing budget awaits approval; refreshments, sponsorship and logo permission unconfirmed; registrations unknown. This is an internal planning brief.
Human verification note: Before operational use, confirm details with the responsible people and obtain the relevant approvals. In this exercise, the source notes are the reference; they are not evidence about a real event.
Participant worksheet
| Question | Your notes |
|---|---|
| What audience and output did your prompt specify? | [Write here] |
| Which claims did you check against the notes? | [Write here] |
| What unsupported claim or missing detail did you notice? | [Write here] |
| What did you change, and why? | [Write here] |
| What is still unknown? | [Write here] |
| Who would review the brief before real-world use? | [Write here] |
| What would you avoid putting into an AI tool? | [Write here] |
Adapt it without losing the learning objective
For a shorter session, use only the flawed draft and checking checklist. For a longer session, ask pairs to compare two differently phrased prompts or turn the verified brief into an action table.
Keep the source fixed during comparison. Change only one prompt feature at a time where practical. Do not compare outputs from different information and call the difference a skills improvement.
For role-based practice, replace the fictional task with a similarly low-risk scenario. Preserve the distinction between confirmed facts, proposals and unknowns. Any real workplace data requires separate approval under your organisation's policy.
Continue the learning
Place the exercise inside the four-week team AI training plan, or use the human AI-skills rubric to decide what to practise next.
Want someone to facilitate the learning? Explore Caelan Huntress's existing AI workshop curriculum.