Plan resources, roles and project feasibility

Where the evidence comes from

• MyPBLWorks Project Planner
• Gold Standard: Teaching Practices | PBLWorks
• Guidance for generative AI in education and research

Strong for project planning and management; AI benefit unvalidated.

1. Reconcile the supplied constraints

   Bound one classroom project segment. Use optional D03 product, D05 calendar and D07 access outputs, or equivalent teacher documents. Bring current operational records. Remove identities and private support facts. Stop and re-scope if active work exceeds sixty minutes.

   Prompt 1 · Inventory Copy

   CONTEXT
   Teacher-approved product, audience, learning and access requirements: [paste requirements with document IDs].
   Teacher-confirmed calendar and operational records, including costs, stock, spaces, technology, permissions and constraints: [paste dated records and unresolved items].
   Scope and existing feasibility pack: [state one segment and paste pack or none].
   REQUEST
   Create a dependency inventory showing which activity needs which resource, permission or decision first. Distinguish supplied decisions, source-supported facts and proposals. Identify gaps and contradictions.
   QUALITY BAR
   Use only supplied records. Do not invent costs, availability, dates, policies, commitments or learner characteristics. Treat stale or unsupported claims as HOLD, meaning unavailable for action until a human checks them. Stop drafting dependent activities if essential learning, access or safety inputs are absent. Never book, buy, authorise spending or safety, or assign responsibilities. Keep student identities, rosters and private support facts outside AI.
   FORMAT
   Table: activity, dependency, supplied evidence ID and date, status, missing information, human decision needed. End with essential HOLD items and the exact information needed to resume.

2. Draft the operational registers

   Check the inventory against records and talk with relevant people outside AI. Supply your corrections explicitly. AI can structure a resource register and role map; only humans confirm responsibilities, spending, bookings, permissions and safety controls.

   Prompt 2 · Registers Copy

   CONTEXT
   Exact step 1 inventory approved for drafting: [paste inventory].
   Teacher edits and current source records: [paste explicit corrections, evidence IDs and retained HOLD items].
   Human-confirmed responsibilities and local risk controls: [paste role labels, agreement records and controls, or missing].
   REQUEST
   Draft the resource/budget register, role map, booking and permission tracker, and risk-control table for this segment. Improve the existing pack if supplied. Link entries to activities and dependencies.
   QUALITY BAR
   Use only approved inputs. Mark proposals separately. Costs need currency, quantity, unit cost, basis and confirmation status; calculate only from supplied figures and separate known subtotals from unknown costs. Do not turn a spending ceiling into permission to spend. Role labels require human agreement evidence; unconfirmed responsibility stays unassigned. Carry HOLD items unchanged. Never book, buy, authorise spending or safety, or assign responsibilities. Stop affected activities where permissions, safety or essential access are unresolved.
   FORMAT
   Four tables: resource/budget; role and agreement evidence; booking/permission with status and decision deadline from supplied calendar; risk, supplied control, residual uncertainty and human check. Cite input IDs on every factual row. Finish with decisions still needed.

3. Compare an equitable fallback

   Review every table with those affected, including students where appropriate, outside AI. Choose which constraints must remain. Compare a low-resource route that keeps the learning and participation expectations. Record your choice and edits before the final audit.

   Prompt 3 · Fallback comparison Copy

   CONTEXT
   Exact step 2 tables approved for comparison: [paste tables].
   Teacher edits after stakeholder and student consultation, plus evidence: [paste decisions with IDs and unresolved items].
   Learning, participation and access requirements to preserve: [paste requirements].
   Available low-resource alternatives and current constraints: [paste confirmed materials and limits].
   REQUEST
   Compare the current route with one low-resource fallback using only supplied alternatives. Identify changes needed in all four tables. Keep uncertainty visible and leave route selection to the teacher.
   QUALITY BAR
   Do not reduce learning expectations, require home purchases or assume personal devices, unpaid help or student circumstances. Check participation, accessible formats and resource sharing against supplied requirements. If no supplied alternative preserves them, return HOLD and specify missing decisions. Do not invent costs, permissions or availability. Never book, buy, authorise spending or safety, or assign responsibilities. Proposed controls require local human risk assessment before use. Copy source IDs exactly as supplied; flag an unclear ID rather than abbreviating or repairing it.
   FORMAT
   Comparison table: requirement, current route evidence, fallback evidence, gap, human decision. Then proposed register changes and HOLD items. Do not choose a winner.

4. Audit the teacher-selected pack

   Select and edit the pack yourself. Use this comparison to find omissions, then resolve them with records and responsible people. Keep unresolved activities on hold. The teacher makes the actual release decision in the school's normal process.

   Prompt 4 · Final audit Copy

   CONTEXT
   Exact step 3 comparison reviewed by the teacher: [paste comparison].
   Teacher-selected feasibility pack with all five components: [paste pack].
   Explicit teacher selection, edits and current supporting records: [paste decision record, evidence IDs and remaining HOLD items].
   REQUEST
   Audit the selected pack against the approved requirements, records and comparison. Check resource/budget register, role map, booking/permission tracker, risk controls and equitable low-resource fallback. Identify omissions, conflicts and unsupported changes.
   QUALITY BAR
   Quote each problematic line and cite the relevant supplied evidence. Distinguish a document match from external verification. Keep unknown costs separate from known totals. Flag missing agreement, stale availability, unresolved permissions, unsafe dependencies or reduced learning/access. Never book, buy, authorise spending or safety, assign responsibilities, or approve the pack. Do not rewrite it or infer approvals. Only humans can verify local facts and release activities.
   FORMAT
   Return findings table: component, quoted evidence, supported match or HOLD, reason, human action. End with unresolved blockers and a list of local checks outside AI, even if document comparison finds none.

Check before you use it

• Have humans confirmed costs, availability and spending authority against current records?
• Does each responsibility have the relevant person's agreement outside AI?
• Are booking, permission and safety dependencies resolved before affected activities proceed?
• Does the fallback preserve learning, participation and access without home purchases or assumed personal devices?
• Have you kept unknown costs and unresolved claims visible as HOLD?
• Have you removed identifying or private information and retained the final release decision yourself?