Repair an unclear instruction
Which revision removes consequential ambiguity?
Start with a concrete question
Two authored reader interpretations expose ambiguous actors, checks and deadlines. Write your own repaired draft in your investigation notes.
Try the initial inputs, then write a prediction before changing one setting. All calculations run locally on your CPU.
What do you expect?
Before changing a setting: Which revision removes consequential ambiguity? Write what you expect and why.
Change one thing. Inspect what happens.
- Read the original note and write your interpretation.
- Compare the two reader traces.
- Choose a revision and identify exactly which ambiguity disappeared.
- Draft a different clear instruction and have a peer follow it literally.
Your settingsMechanism
Calculation belowEvidence
Compare outcomes
Follow the calculation
- “Send the revised chart to Lee after checking it with Sam. They need it tomorrow.”
- Reader A follows the authored interpretation: deliver at 9:00; review appearance only.
- Task contract: Sam verifies totals; Lee receives the verified chart; delivery by 09:00 Tuesday.
- Reader interpretations are authored counterexamples, not a behavioral prediction model.
Repair missing actors, actions, dependencies and deadlines. A text can be shorter yet leave consequential choices unresolved.
Write and test a repaired instruction
Replace the ambiguous draft. Name the actor, verification action, dependency and deadline. Keep the original meaning and explain one consequential ambiguity you removed.
80/8,000 characters. Drafts save locally and are included in backups. Importing or opening a draft never runs it.
Compare with my earlier draft
Send the revised chart to Lee after checking it with Sam. They need it tomorrow.
Explain what you changed and why in your observation notes. Text differences do not establish quality.
Inspect an example solution after your attempt
By 08:30 Tuesday, ask Sam to verify the chart totals. After Sam confirms, email the verified chart to Lee by 09:00 Tuesday. The deadline, verifier and meaning of checking are explicit. This is one possible revision, not a quality score.
This is one worked example. Test another input and explain its limitations.
Captures keep your inputs, prediction and observation. Results are recalculated from those inputs. Resetting inputs keeps your captures and challenge history.
Explain the mechanism
Repair an unclear instruction
Two authored reader interpretations expose ambiguous actors, checks and deadlines. Write your own repaired draft in your investigation notes.
Follow the mechanism
Clarity is tested against a task contract: who does what, with what evidence, and by when.
The third revision separates verification from sending and makes their dependency explicit.
Counts track named constraints, not overall writing quality; actual reader testing remains useful.
Worked example
“Send the revised chart to Lee after checking it with Sam. They need it tomorrow.”
Reader A follows the authored interpretation: deliver at 9:00; review appearance only.
Task contract: Sam verifies totals; Lee receives the verified chart; delivery by 09:00 Tuesday.
Reader interpretations are authored counterexamples, not a behavioral prediction model.
Calculation
Missing constraints count only the three authored requirements: verifier, verification action, explicit deadline.
Try a controlled comparison
Read the original note and write your interpretation.
Compare the two reader traces.
Choose a revision and identify exactly which ambiguity disappeared.
Draft a different clear instruction and have a peer follow it literally.
What this does not establish
- All messages, people, documents and outcomes here are original fictional teaching fixtures; results are not measurements of real organizations.
Try a fresh case
A task needs an owner, output, verifier and deadline. A draft names only owner and output. How many required fields are missing?
This is a public practice check. Retries support learning; matching a number does not certify independent proficiency.
Take the investigation further
Choose any extension. These are project prompts for you to carry out; they are not automatically assessed.
School investigation
Create a new case with different numbers and explain your decision to a classmate.
College investigation
Implement or analyze a fresh case, document assumptions and compare at least two alternatives.
Workplace investigation
Prepare a decision artifact with evidence, operating constraints, an owner and a follow-up measurement.
Keep the evidence, choose your next step
Completion records your own decision that you have worked through this investigation. Practice checks and independent project evidence are separate.