NSTD.8:5.1 - Worked learning route: FPF onboarding

This example sketches the route that a seminar, tutorial or exercise sequence could realize. The note is optional; the important relation is between each teaching move and the next learner action.

LearningNarrativeRoute@FPFOnboarding:
  learnerUse: new practitioner can apply one FPF pattern without treating it as a recipe
  sourceArchitectureRef: FPF pattern language and monolith and source pattern organization
  sourceSpineRefs:
    - `EntityOfConcern`
    - problem frame
    - forces
    - solution as condition-bound move
    - conformance and checking
    - neighboring exits
    - quality and improvement loop
  unfoldingStructureRefs: A.22.CGUS when the route teaches unfolding from source to next use
  demonstrativeSliceRefs: first pattern-use route through one selected project case
  learningRouteArchitectureRule: interleaved pattern-use route, not monolith-reference order
  learningStepOrder:
    - failed ordinary use
    - recover object of concern
    - read forces
    - choose solution move
    - check boundary and neighboring owner
    - repair one low-value result
  interleavingPlanRefs:
    - return to `EntityOfConcern` after forces, solution, and quality checks
    - mix adjacent owner-choice cases after each new pattern
    - revisit source-return boundary in examples from at least two domains
  spacingOrRetrievalScheduleRefs:
    - short delayed retrieval at the start of the next session
    - later mixed owner-choice task after intervening material
    - final transfer task with no block label
  reconstructionTasks:
    - name the source pattern section behind each story beat
    - choose the governing pattern for a new case
    - state one source-return condition
  engagementBoundaryRef: failure story is an archetype, not evidence
  evaluationRouteRef: `NSTD.6` learning-route rows
  improvementLoopInputRef: `E.23` when a comparison identifies a worthwhile improvement

In this onboarding route, the opening failed use may be preparation rather than a failed capability assessment. The subsequent recovery of the object of concern must work with the attempted alternatives: show which object the next move governs and why the tempting alternative does not answer that question. Before the later neighbor-choice task, inspect whether those neighboring entries and their distinguishing condition are already available. If not, introduce the contrast or provide an accessible source return; merely adding another unlabeled failure would not supply it. If the entries are available, the mixed case can test their selection instead of prompting the answer.

A concrete task in an introduction to FPF-based pattern use can use two neighboring NSTD methods already available in this publication. First make the distinction available: NSTD.2 changes presentation order while preserving needed relations; NSTD.3 examines the connection the account asserts. Then give the Readme’s incident log, whose causal investigation is still open, and its draft “the change caused the failure”. Ask: “Would moving the two logged events into chronological order settle this sentence? Which question must the repair answer?”

A supplied response in this design example is: “Put the change before the failure, so the cause is clear.” That response preserves chronology but still infers cause from order. If the distinction was unavailable, provide it and work through the two claims before another selection task. If this was a deliberate preparatory attempt, subsequent instruction should use that attempted answer to explain why chronology leaves the causal question open. If both entries were already available, return to the sentence and ask what the log establishes; then use a mixed case to check whether the learner selects a connection repair rather than an ordering repair. These continuations answer different difficulties.

A later diagram or recap should connect that choice to the next use. A wrong figure return calls for correcting the attachment, not automatically redesigning the entire course. After the repair, ask the reader to recover that relation and use it under the declared support. This is a worked design example with a supplied response, not an observation of a learner or a demonstrated learning gain.

A seminar file can add timing, facilitation notes and complete exercises. This pattern keeps the examples needed to explain route design without prescribing a complete seminar.