Write the internal project design brief

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 briefs; AI benefit plausible but unvalidated.

1. Assemble the decision register

   Bring approved D01 priorities, D02's project question and D03's product/audience brief, or equivalent teacher documents. Bound this to one project and six short source documents. Keep private learner records outside AI. Beyond 60 active minutes, stop and re-scope.

   Prompt 1 · Register decisions Copy

   CONTEXT
   Source-labelled teacher documents with versions and approval status: [paste approved D01, D02 and D03 outputs or equivalent documents].
   Confirmed constraints and non-sensitive class-wide design requirements: [paste approved requirements and source labels].
   Existing internal brief: [paste it or write none].
   Teacher document-precedence decisions: [state which records supersede others or write unresolved].
   
   REQUEST
   Create a decision register for purpose, learners, constraints, driving question, product/audience, quality bar, non-negotiables and open decisions. The driving question is the open question holding the project together. Locate contradictions and missing information before drafting.
   
   QUALITY BAR
   Use only the supplied records. Label approved teacher choices SUPPLIED DECISION, explicitly confirmed current facts SUPPLIED VERIFIED FACT, unapproved suggestions PROPOSAL and unsupported, stale or conflicting entries HOLD. Quote dates, policies, commitments and requirements exactly. Never infer learner needs or merge contradictory records. Private rosters, individual profiles and support/safeguarding facts stay outside AI, even under pseudonyms. If identifying material appears, STOP and ask for a safe replacement without repeating it.
   
   FORMAT
   Register table: brief field, exact supplied wording, source/version, status, conflict or missing decision. Then a HOLD list including any guessed dates, policies, partner commitments or learner needs. Do not draft a brief yet.

2. Resolve conflicts before synthesis

   Decide which records govern, checking with colleagues where needed. Approve or correct the register. Explicitly remove obsolete notes or supply confirmed replacements. A conflict list is a request for human decisions, never permission for AI to choose.

   Prompt 2 · Reconcile the register Copy

   CONTEXT
   Exact teacher-approved register and HOLD list from step 1: [paste them].
   Explicit teacher corrections, precedence and resolutions: [paste a source-labelled decision addendum].
   Original source excerpts needed to verify corrections: [paste them].
   
   REQUEST
   Apply only the supplied resolutions. Produce one reconciled register, retaining unresolved items and the disposition of every conflict. Distinguish removed obsolete content from newly confirmed information. List design questions that the teacher still needs to answer.
   
   QUALITY BAR
   Never choose between conflicting documents, infer a policy or supply learner needs. Every resolved row needs an explicit teacher decision and supporting source when it asserts a fact. Guessed dates, policies, commitments or learner needs remain HOLD until the teacher removes them or supplies confirmation. Do not proceed to a brief while such guesses remain. Missing resolutions mean HOLD, not an invented compromise. Preserve student choices and exact confirmed wording.
   
   FORMAT
   Reconciled table: brief field, retained wording/source, teacher resolution/source, status. Follow with conflict disposition, unresolved decisions and a brief-drafting gate of HOLD or NO LISTED BLOCKER. The latter is a text comparison only, never approval.

3. Draft the internal brief

   Approve the reconciled register and decide which open questions can remain labelled. Keep any unresolved high-risk guesses on hold. Ask for one internal brief or a revision of your existing brief, leaving student-facing language to a later task.

   Prompt 3 · Synthesize the brief Copy

   CONTEXT
   Exact teacher-approved reconciled register and gate from step 2: [paste them].
   Teacher edits and explicit permission to draft from this version: [paste the decision record].
   Teacher disposition of remaining open questions: [paste what stays open and what blocks use].
   Existing internal brief, if improving: [paste it or write none].
   
   REQUEST
   Write one concise internal teacher design brief from the approved register. Bring the learning purpose, project question, product, audience and quality criteria into view together. Flag a coherence gap if the supplied decisions fail to connect them; never repair it by inventing a design choice.
   
   QUALITY BAR
   Proceed only with an explicit teacher drafting decision and no unresolved guessed dates, policies, commitments or learner needs. Otherwise return STOP with the missing resolutions only. Use teacher-approved class-wide requirements without profiles or inferred needs. Preserve exact question, dates, policy wording and commitments. Show student choices and non-negotiables separately. Keep unsupported or stale information HOLD. Do not write student instructions, set grades, add lessons, resources or deadlines, or approve the design.
   
   FORMAT
   Use headings: Purpose and learning, Learners and access requirements, Constraints, Driving question, Product and audience, Quality bar, Student choices, Non-negotiables, Open decisions. Attach source/version labels to each section. End with coherence gaps and their source evidence, or say none found in supplied text.

4. Check the selected brief against decisions

   Edit and select the brief yourself. Use the final audit to locate omissions and undocumented changes. Check original records independently, then approve the internal source document outside AI. Outstanding holds prevent handoff to student-facing materials.

   Prompt 4 · Audit the internal brief Copy

   CONTEXT
   Exact teacher-selected step 3 brief: [paste it].
   Explicit teacher edits since step 3: [paste them or write none].
   Approved reconciled register, source excerpts and decision addenda: [paste the exact versions].
   Teacher-selected final internal brief: [paste it].
   
   REQUEST
   Compare the final brief with the approved decisions and trace changes from step 3 through explicit edits. Check every required section, exact question, learning/product/criteria connection, preserved student choice, constraints and open decisions. Inspect every date, policy, commitment and learner requirement.
   
   QUALITY BAR
   Quote final wording and source evidence. Label supported matches MATCH; omissions, contradictions, undocumented edits and stale or unsupported assertions HOLD. Any guessed date, policy, partner commitment or learner need is STOP and prevents downstream handoff. Open items must remain visible with their supplied disposition. Do not rewrite, infer resolutions or certify accuracy. Human verification and approval remain required even with no listed mismatch.
   
   FORMAT
   Audit table: field, exact final quotation or MISSING, source quotation/version or MISSING, MATCH/HOLD/STOP, teacher action. Then list all unresolved items and state: Human source check and approval still required; do not hand off while HOLD or STOP remains.

Check before you use it

• Can you trace each design choice to a current teacher-approved source or explicit correction?
• Have you removed or confirmed every guessed date, policy, commitment and learner requirement?
• Do purpose, question, product, audience and quality criteria agree without an invented connecting activity?
• Are student choices distinct from fixed requirements?
• Are open decisions visible and blocking items resolved before handoff?
• Have you kept individual learner information outside AI and personally approved the internal brief?