Chapter 12 — Contained laboratory I
Lesson map
Lesson 12 published. Map, example, EX045.
flowchart TD
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["12.1 Contained setup"]
N2["12.2 Measurements"]
N3["Lab — Old and new reporting times in the contained l"]
N4["Synthesis"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4
N4 --> EX["Worked example"]
EX --> Q["Exercise EX045"]
Logical drawing
flowchart LR
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["12.1 Contained setup"]
N2["12.2 Measurements"]
N3["Lab — Old and new reporting times in the contained l"]
N4["Synthesis"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> Q["EX045"]
[Learning outcomes]
|
v
[12.1 Contained setup]
|
v
[12.2 Measurements]
|
v
[Lab — Old and new reporting times in the contained l]
|
v
[Synthesis]
|
v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX045]
Learning outcomes
You will (1) test reporting methods in a contained environment; (2) measure task time and success; (3) report limits honestly.
12.1 Contained setup
In the first contained laboratory, Priya sets up a test terminal, a test email account and a spare phone, all disconnected from Kestrel's live systems. She prepares synthetic suspicious messages for each. Nine volunteers, three from each staff group, take part. They know they are testing the reporting methods, not being tested on their judgement. Each volunteer reports one message using the old method, telling a supervisor who then emails IT, and one using the new route for their group. Each session takes fifteen minutes.
12.2 Measurements
Priya measures time from seeing the message to the report reaching the triage queue. With the old method, reports take several minutes because supervisors are busy; with new routes, they take under half a minute. Two old-method reports never arrive because the supervisor role-player forgot, mirroring the lapse identified in chapter 8. The lab computes average times by method. Volunteers say the new routes feel easier, though drivers still find forwarding fiddly. She notes every hesitation in a short log and shares the log with the app supplier.
Lab — Old and new reporting times in the contained lab
# Old vs new reporting times in seconds (synthetic, 9 volunteers; None = never arrived).
old = [210, 300, None, 250, 280, None, 240, 270, 270]; new = [18, 25, 20, 22, 30, 19, 21, 24, 19]
o = [x for x in old if x is not None]
print(f"old: mean {sum(o) / len(o):.0f} s, {old.count(None)} never arrived; new: mean {sum(new) / len(new):.0f} s")
Run with python3 lab_contained.py. Verified output:
old: mean 260 s, 2 never arrived; new: mean 22 s
12.3 Honest limits
Priya reports results with limits: nine volunteers is a small group; the lab was calmer than a real shift; and the old-method times depend on how busy the supervisor role-player was. She recommends adopting the new routes and measuring real reporting times after launch. She also notes that the driver route needs a simpler forwarding option. Honest limits help managers trust the findings and plan sensible follow-up rather than treating a small test as final proof. Managers accept the recommendation. Tom agrees.
Worked example
Priya tests old and new reporting in a contained lab with nine volunteers and reports large time savings with honest limits.
Synthetic case. The lab is synthetic.
Errors and limits
Small sample. Calm conditions.
Exercises
- EX045 — Isolation. Why is the lab disconnected from live systems? Rubric: 3 = to keep tests contained and safe;; 2 = containment;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
- EX046 — Lost reports. What happened to two old-method reports? Rubric: 3 = they never arrived because the supervisor forgot;; 2 = lapse;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
- EX047 — Lab times. What average times did the lab show? Rubric: 3 = old 260 seconds, new 22 seconds;; 2 = faster;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
- EX048 — Driver follow-up. What follow-up is needed for drivers? Rubric: 3 = a simpler forwarding option;; 2 = simpler;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
Synthesis
Contained tests show the value of direct reporting routes and need honest limits.
Continue studying — chapter 12 of 18
← Chapter 11 (draft) · Course chapter index · Chapter 13 (draft) →