Define the authentic product and audience

Where the evidence comes from

• Gold Standard: Project Design Elements | PBLWorks
• A FRAMEWORK FOR HIGH QUALITY PROJECT BASED LEARNING

Strong for authentic product/public audience; AI benefit unvalidated.

1. Identify a use worth designing for

   Bound this to one product and audience route. Bring D01 learning priorities and D02's project question, or equivalent teacher documents. Gather non-identifying student preferences and current audience evidence. Stop and re-scope if active work exceeds 60 minutes.

   Prompt 1 · Compare uses Copy

   CONTEXT
   Learning priorities and project question: [paste approved D01 and D02 outputs or equivalent teacher documents].
   Local purpose, available materials and limits: [paste your notes].
   Current audience evidence with source labels and verification status: [paste non-sensitive records or write missing].
   Student preferences and choices still open: [paste non-identifying class-level notes].
   Existing product idea: [paste it or write none].
   
   REQUEST
   Compare two candidate product-and-audience combinations, including the existing idea if supplied. Show what each audience could actually do with the product, the subject learning it would reveal, and meaningful student decisions left open. Ask what would test each proposed use with real people.
   
   QUALITY BAR
   Use supplied learning priorities. Label each combination PROPOSAL, even when some audience facts are supplied as verified. Distinguish those facts from hoped-for participation. Never invent a partner, endorsement, commitment, cost or permission. An audience beyond the classroom need not be an external organisation. Keep unsupported or stale details HOLD. If safeguarding, privacy or consent is unresolved, return STOP with missing checks instead of options. Keep names, individual profiles and private support records outside AI.
   
   FORMAT
   Two-row table: proposal, practical use, learning made visible, student decisions, audience evidence/status, human check needed. Then list HOLD items. For STOP, list missing checks and who the teacher must consult if supplied; never invent an owner.

2. Test the route with people

   Select a candidate yourself. Ask the intended audience about usefulness, access and feedback, and ask students which choices matter. Record actual replies outside AI. Approve or edit the comparison before using it here; hypothetical routes remain proposals.

   Prompt 2 · Inspect the route Copy

   CONTEXT
   Exact teacher-approved comparison from step 1: [paste it].
   Teacher selection and explicit edits: [paste your decision record].
   Fresh audience checks and student consultation, with source labels: [paste non-identifying evidence and its limits].
   Privacy, safeguarding and consent decisions: [paste confirmed non-sensitive requirements or write unresolved].
   
   REQUEST
   Inspect only the teacher-selected route. Trace purpose, intended users, format, access, development feedback and final public sharing to supplied evidence. Identify any gap between audience interest and an actual agreement. Show whether student choices affect content, investigation or form.
   
   QUALITY BAR
   Do not select a route or certify an audience. Use SUPPLIED VERIFIED FACT only where the teacher records current verification, SUPPLIED DECISION for teacher choices, PROPOSAL for unaccepted ideas and HOLD for unknowns, conflicts or stale evidence. Quote supporting records. Missing teacher selection or unresolved privacy, safeguarding or consent means STOP: return only the missing-decision list. Do not replace student choices with cosmetic options.
   
   FORMAT
   Route table: element, supplied wording/source, status, gap, teacher action. Follow with choice check and unresolved items. For STOP, return the missing-decision list only.

3. Write the product-and-audience brief

   Resolve the route's gaps with the relevant people. Approve the route table and record corrections. Build one brief that leaves students genuine decisions. Keep a proposed fallback visibly separate from the selected route until you verify it.

   Prompt 3 · Draft the brief Copy

   CONTEXT
   Exact teacher-approved route table and choice check from step 2: [paste them].
   Teacher resolutions and edits, including selected route and student choice boundaries: [paste the decision record].
   Teacher-approved quality criteria and practical constraints: [paste them].
   Confirmed access, feedback and sharing requirements with source labels: [paste them or write missing].
   
   REQUEST
   Draft a concise product-and-audience brief for the selected route. Connect each quality criterion to the learning or audience use it serves. Separate fixed requirements from decisions students retain. Preserve the difference between feedback during development and final public sharing.
   
   QUALITY BAR
   Use only approved material. Do not add partners, dates, policies, resources or commitments. Keep each unsupported, conflicting or stale claim HOLD with a needed human check. If a selected route, meaningful student choices, quality criteria, or privacy/safeguarding/consent decisions are missing, STOP and list missing decisions instead of drafting. A fallback is a PROPOSAL unless independently confirmed in the records. No AI approval or grades.
   
   FORMAT
   Brief headings: Purpose and users, Product and format, Constraints, Quality criteria, Student decisions, Access route, Development feedback, Public sharing, Open checks. Attach source labels to consequential details. Include HOLD items even if they prevent use.

4. Audit your selected brief

   Edit and select the brief yourself. Compare it with the human records, using this audit to locate mismatches. Resolve every blocking issue outside AI before release; a clean comparison establishes neither audience participation nor operational permission.

   Prompt 4 · Audit the selected brief Copy

   CONTEXT
   Exact step 3 brief selected by the teacher: [paste it].
   Explicit teacher edits since step 3: [paste them or write none].
   Approved route table, decision records and current supporting evidence: [paste the exact approved versions].
   Teacher-selected final brief after edits: [paste it].
   
   REQUEST
   Audit the selected final brief against the supplied records. Check practical use, audience beyond the classroom, learning-linked quality criteria, meaningful student decisions, access, development feedback and public sharing. Trace changes from the step 3 brief through explicit edits.
   
   QUALITY BAR
   Quote exact final-brief wording and matching or conflicting source wording. Flag unsupported, stale or hypothetical details presented as confirmed, including any fallback. Mark unresolved safeguarding, privacy or consent STOP. Missing required elements and undocumented edits are HOLD. Do not rewrite, approve or call the result ready. The teacher and relevant people verify facts and decide release.
   
   FORMAT
   Audit table: check, exact brief quotation or MISSING, source quotation/label or MISSING, MATCH/HOLD/STOP, human action. Close with unresolved items and the reminder: Human release decision still required.

Check before you use it

• Have real people confirmed the product's use and route to an audience beyond the classroom?
• Are audience interest, confirmed participation and proposed alternatives clearly distinguished?
• Do students retain consequential choices about investigation, content or form?
• Do quality criteria make subject learning and practical usefulness visible?
• Are development feedback, access and final sharing grounded in current records?
• Have you resolved privacy, safeguarding and consent outside AI, keeping individual learner records private?