Chapter 11 — Supervised laboratory
Lesson map
Lesson 11 published. Map, example, EX051.
flowchart TD
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["11.1 Lab brief"]
N2["11.2 Peer review"]
N3["11.3 Reflection"]
N4["11.4 Supervisor gate"]
N5["11.5 Time box"]
N6["11.6 Pairing rule"]
N7["11.7 Lab evidence pack"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5 --> N6 --> N7
N7 --> EX["Worked example"]
EX --> Q["Exercise EX051"]
Logical drawing
flowchart LR
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["11.1 Lab brief"]
N2["11.2 Peer review"]
N3["11.3 Reflection"]
N4["11.4 Supervisor gate"]
N5["11.5 Time box"]
N6["11.6 Pairing rule"]
N7["11.7 Lab evidence pack"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5 --> N6 --> N7 --> Q["EX051"]
[Learning outcomes]
|
v
[11.1 Lab brief]
|
v
[11.2 Peer review]
|
v
[11.3 Reflection]
|
v
[11.4 Supervisor gate]
|
v
[11.5 Time box]
|
v
[11.6 Pairing rule]
|
v
[11.7 Lab evidence pack]
|
v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX051]
Learning outcomes
You will (1) run a supervised lab using only synthetic data and prior labs; (2) produce a mini report; (3) peer-review another learner's scope check; (4) reflect on mistakes.
11.1 Lab brief
Using lab_roe, lab_severity and lab_ticket outputs already produced, build a three-part mini report for HCU: authorization readiness, discovery filter result, remediation hygiene. Authorization readiness uses lab_roe; discovery filter uses lab_severity; remediation hygiene uses lab_ticket. Each part of the mini report starts with the lab output pasted verbatim, followed by the decision it supports. The mini report for ENG-CLASS-11 ties the three outputs to HCU decisions — missing emergency_contact, three of five kept at FLOOR 0.6, two of four closed-ready — not to tool praise.
11.2 Peer review
Swap scope-check notes with a peer. Score 0–3 on: exclusions present, emergency contact present, methods match ROE. The peer writes a score and a one-line reason for each item, so the supervisor can see why a draft was sent back. A peer score below three on any item means Leo fixes the draft before the supervisor gate. Exclusions, emergency contact and method mapping are the same checks that stop a real window. The emergency contact item matters most, because an empty field stopped Leo's own draft in Chapter 3's worked example.
11.3 Reflection
Write three lines: what you nearly did wrong, what caught it, what you will do next time. Each reflection line names the check that caught the mistake, such as lab_roe for the empty contact. Honest near-miss lines — almost starting with empty emergency_contact — teach more than a perfect score with no learning, and Leo's reflection after ENG-CLASS-11 becomes checklist updates for real ROEs. The supervisor reads the three lines before signing, and a reflection that claims no near-miss is sent back, because reflection is scored for learning, not for a perfect run with nothing written down.
11.4 Supervisor gate
The supervisor signs only if exclusions and emergency contact are present, the ROE is complete and no out-of-scope target appears. Without that signature, ENG-CLASS-11 stays practice only and does not enter Leo's portfolio as a completed engagement exercise. A signed lab also records the supervisor's name and date, so the portfolio shows who checked the exclusions. The gate exists to enforce exclusions before habits form, because habits formed under time pressure are hard to undo, and it makes them form under the same stop rules as ENG-440.
11.5 Time box
The lab runs in one sitting with a hard stop, practising window discipline. When the clock stops, Leo stops typing and vaults what he has. Unfinished parts become notes, not silent extra minutes. A partial mini report vaulted on time scores better than a complete one finished after the stop. The supervisor notes the stop time on the lab record, which makes any extra minutes visible. Window discipline under ENG-CLASS-11 pressure matches the Saturday 12:00 stop on ENG-440, so the habit transfers to real member-facing windows.
11.6 Pairing rule
During the supervised lab, one learner drives and one checks the ROE on every step. Roles swap halfway. The checker may halt the driver at any time; halts are scored as good catches, not as failures.
Halting the driver for an unmapped method or a missing exclusion is a success for the pair. Leo learns both roles so he can be either the careful driver or the ROE checker on a real engagement.
The pair records each halt in the operator log with the step, the ROE line it failed and who called it, so the instructor scores catches from the record rather than from memory. Swapping halfway means neither learner spends the whole lab only typing commands or only reading the ROE.
11.7 Lab evidence pack
The mini report appendix includes the raw lab outputs (lab_roe, lab_severity, lab_ticket) so the supervisor can recompute the same conclusions. The pack holds the lab_roe output, the lab_severity kept list, the lab_ticket hygiene counts and the vault path for screenshots. Screenshots of chat are optional; reproducible outputs are required, because chat screenshots without the raw outputs do not prove the same work. Supervisors who can recompute kept findings and incomplete tickets trust the mini report, and examiners and supervisors should reconstruct the exercise without asking Leo for folklore.
11.8 Cleanup
At lab end, Leo deletes local copies of synthetic evidence from the desktop and confirms the vault holds the only copy. Cleanup is part of the graded checklist: a leftover file on the desktop or leftover tokens in a personal folder fail the lab even if the report is excellent. The vault copy of classroom evidence is then deleted on the diary date that matches the thirty-day rule practised for real ROEs. The habit transfers to ENG-440, where personal copies of evidence are forbidden.
11.9 After sign-off
When the supervisor signs, Leo files the mini report under ENG-CLASS-11 and schedules a fifteen-minute debrief with his mentor to turn the reflection lines into checklist updates for the real ROE process. The debrief turns reflection into process change: if Leo nearly skipped an exclusion check, the real ROE checklist gets a stronger prompt. He files the reflection and checklist updates before the next synthetic window. Filing under ENG-CLASS-11 keeps classroom work separate from production tickets. Sign-off without those updates repeats the same near-miss; the portfolio only gains ENG-CLASS-11 when the loop is closed.
Worked example (synthetic HCU)
Leo's reflection: "Nearly scheduled without emergency contact; checklist caught it; next time I run lab_roe before proposing any window." Supervisor signs his mini report.
Synthetic case — Harborline Credit Union (HCU). The credit union, Leo Okonkwo and all figures are invented for teaching.
Errors and limits
Local policies and laws differ; follow HCU's authorization and your jurisdiction. This book never authorizes testing of real systems.
Exercises
- EX051 — Mini report parts. Name the three sections of the lab brief. Rubric: 3 = authorization readiness, discovery filter, remediation hygiene; 2 = two; 1 = one; 0 = none.
- EX052 — Peer score item. Name two peer-review scoring items. Rubric: 3 = two of exclusions, emergency contact, methods match; 2 = one; 1 = vague; 0 = none.
- EX053 — Supervisor refusal. What missing item makes the supervisor refuse to sign? Rubric: 3 = missing exclusions or emergency contact or out-of-scope target present; 2 = partial; 1 = low finding count; 0 = none.
- EX054 — Reflection quality. What makes a useful reflection line? Rubric: 3 = specific mistake, detector, next behaviour; 2 = partial; 1 = "I did fine"; 0 = none.
- EX055 — Synthetic only. Why does this lab forbid live scanning of HCU? Rubric: 3 = authorization/classroom limits; synthetic data enough for skills; 2 = partial; 1 = live is fine; 0 = none.
Synthesis
The supervised lab proves you can refuse incomplete authorizations, filter noise and close the loop — on synthetic data.
Continue studying — chapter 11 of 12
← Chapter 10 (draft) · Course chapter index · Chapter 12 (draft) →