HCD.7:5 - Archetypal Grounding

HCD.7:5.1 - Twelve Participants and the 240-Hour Teacher Account

The FoundationsProgramme class design has twelve participants, thirty-two ordinary weeks, and two final weeks. An ordinary week allocates 1.5 teacher hours to group review, 3 hours to checking twelve short results, 1 hour to case and source preparation, and 1 hour to individual difficulties and assessment calibration: 6.5 hours. Each final week requires 16 hours, including individual reading, conversations, subgroup review, calibration, repeat checks, and a small delay or disagreement reserve.

The total is 32 × 6.5 + 2 × 16 = 240 teacher hours. Dividing by twelve gives a costing allocation of 20 hours per participant; it does not promise twenty individual-contact hours. The arrangement is enabled only if the two sixteen-hour peaks are reserved and ordinary feedback can arrive before the next two-week block.

With twenty-four participants, the original checking and conversation rows no longer fit. A single larger group meeting supplies no additional individual review. The supported return is to double the relevant checking capacity, divide the group with competent providers, reduce or redesign the promised contribution, or delay launch. HCD.7 does not call the larger class enabled merely because 240 total hours still appear in a budget.

HCD.7:5.2 - Supply Both Sides of Peer Learning and the Required Assessment

Participants learn to judge whether a diagnostic recommendation follows from its evidence and to revise their own work. A peer compares two permitted observation-to-conclusion fragments, identifies the relevant condition and writes a grounded comment. The author explains why to use or reject the comment, then makes the warranted revision. HCD.24 develops this bilateral exchange. The reviewer’s judgement and the author’s response are learning contributions even when no teacher time is saved.

Allocate accessible cases, criterion preparation, the peer’s reading and judgement, the author’s response and correction, and a qualified dispute window before the next block. If peers agree on an unsupported cause, a prepared teacher resolves the narrow subject question and returns its ground to both sides; each then performs the affected action again. Record the supplied help. A learner’s comment does not become an independent protected-error judgement merely because it is useful.

The teacher or designated assessor still applies the target-domain criteria to the consequential assessment result. Peer preparation can reduce search and coordination burden, while the amount saved remains to be observed. Keeping the learning purpose and the required assessor contribution distinct prevents one from silently replacing the other.

For a final attempt, the arrangement separately allocates reading, an individual conversation, possible correction, and a calibrated repeat check. If the named teacher is unavailable, a prepared colleague with compatible competence and access can be the fallback; otherwise the final week moves. A calendar placeholder or unprepared substitute is not a fallback.

HCD.7:5.3 - AI Search and Critique with Human Checking

AI may search public sources, propose examples, calculate, draft, or critique within the permitted data boundary. The learner first states the question and acceptable-result condition, then checks decisive sources, assumptions, configuration, and calculations and explains why the selected Method applies. A human assessor retains the final protected-error judgement.

The capacity account includes preparation of permitted prompts, checking consequential output, correcting failures, and a path for closed project data that cannot be sent to the tool. A narrow changed-support task can make one human contribution visible, but ordinary AI-supported work remains legitimate when the later-Work configuration includes it. Neither access nor fluent output establishes learning.

HCD.7:5.4 - Project Access Missing before Practice

A learner and teacher are available, but the planned workplace task requires project data and permission for a small safe trial that the organization has not granted. The arrangement returns the exact data, authorization, owner, affected task, and retry condition. A stipulated teaching case can preserve an earlier practice use, but it cannot be reported as the workplace result. HCD.8 can compare obtaining an alternative contribution with building an environment or provider capability when that exact gap must be closed for the selected practice.

HCD.7:5.5 - Prepare Mentor Help before Counting It as Capacity

Two prospective mentors will help groups compare rival diagnostic explanations. Give each a qualified case, the intended personal action, representative learner mistakes and the limits of the mentor’s authority. Each independently selects a response to the same two learner attempts, explains its grounds and identifies the question that would require a specialist. A prepared teacher compares their responses against the case criteria, corrects incompatible advice and observes another attempt where needed. HCD.8 supplies the obtain-or-build and operating-test work if that competence is still missing.

For the pump case, an AI suggestion asks the learner to take a fresh pressure reading. The mentor must notice that this variant already supplies the reading and allows no further worthwhile observation. They reject that suggestion, use the qualified reference to ask about the pressure implication, and leave the model-selection operation with the learner. If the subject implication itself is unresolved, the mentor returns that exact question rather than improvising a criterion.

This is an application of §4.4’s existing human-check arrangement. Access to the suggestion tool adds no qualified mentor until the person can select, adapt or reject its output in the actual task. Reserve preparation, checking, live help and fallback separately. For example, two thirty-minute mentor preparation attempts and forty minutes of teacher comparison allocate 100 provider-minutes before live delivery. Include those minutes once in the product’s fixed preparation; count live windows and subsequent maintenance where they actually fall.

Tutor CoPilot, November 2025 revision supplies a bounded example of tutor-facing suggestions built from expert reasoning with human selection and editing. Its paid professional tutors received training; the study does not establish that unprepared volunteers can replace them, nor that exit-ticket effects show distant transfer or independent tutor learning. Its tool price is not a complete support cost. The diagnostic preparation above is an authored application, not that study’s observed result.