# Practicum for "When Intelligence Became Cheap" Everything the printed chapters of this book send you to, in one file: worksheets, prompts and agent skills. Put it into ChatGPT Projects, a Claude project, NotebookLM or any assistant that accepts an attachment, then work through it question by question. > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. Assembled 2026-09-07. Chapter-to-material contract updated 2026-08-12. Canonical home: https://cheap-intelligence.vercel.app/en — each page below also lives there at its own address. The living layer is deliberately **not** in this file. Tool maps, market pages and anything else that carries a check date changes faster than a download: read it at https://cheap-intelligence.vercel.app/en/watch. Attribute material to Denis Ermilov and the Practicum, with the page address and its check date. Texts are CC BY-NC-SA 4.0; code and browser tools are MIT. --- # Book 1: The Human Edge --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. --- reading_level: b2 title: "Book 1 Workbook: The Human Edge" description: A chapter-by-chapter route from value levers and a weekly inventory to a personal 90-day plan. --- # Book 1 Workbook: The Human Edge > The end-to-end Practicum route for *The Human Edge* (Book 1 in the *When Intelligence Became Cheap* series). > This is a route through the contents. It takes you from value levers and a review of your week to > a personal 90-day plan, one step per chapter. The individual worksheets still work as direct entry > points. This workbook connects them into one path. > > **Your profession is the axis of this route.** Volume 1 is organized around professions: you look > at your own work. The business route is organized around company functions and lives in the > [second workbook](tom2-workbook.md). Fill this in as you read. Each step asks you to bring one short conclusion here and links to the full worksheet. At the end, you will have a 90-day plan built from your own diagnosis. It is also a **portfolio artifact for a professional:** one page that shows the value you create, what you delegate to AI, what you keep under human control, and which next level you plan to take on. There are two doors into the Practicum. Use this workbook to follow the book, or [choose your profession](../applications/_index.md) if you want to start with "How will AI change my work?" You can use both. --- ## Step 1: Which lever creates my value? (Chapter 2) Worksheet: [value-levers-filter.md](value-levers-filter.md) · ⚡ [three-lever filter (HTML)](../skills/value-levers-filter/). Take one task apart. Is its value in sales and growth, savings, or attention and trust? Which part is becoming cheaper? - **The main lever in my work:** `____________` - **What is getting cheaper for me (output):** `__________________` · **what remains mine (outcome):** `__________________` ## Step 2: Sort one week into baskets (Chapter 3) Worksheet: [week-inventory.md](week-inventory.md). Sort your week into 🟢 "AI alone," 🟡 "person + AI," and 🔴 "person only." - **Share of 🟢 work in my week:** `____%` - **The main 🔴 task where I cannot be replaced:** `__________________________` ## Step 3: Where am I on the ladder? (Chapter 4) Worksheet: [ladder-self-diagnosis.md](ladder-self-diagnosis.md). - **Entry / middle / top:** `____________` · **one nearby handhold:** `__________________` ## Step 4: My usefulness level and a +1 move (Chapter 5) Worksheets: [usefulness-levels-self-check.md](usefulness-levels-self-check.md) · [plus-one-level-plan.md](plus-one-level-plan.md) · the ladder in the language of your own work is in [your profession card](../applications/_index.md). - **My default level (0 to 5):** `____` · **candidate task for a +1 move:** `______________` ## Step 5: My personal system and the task-to-outcome map (Chapter 6) Worksheets: [task-to-outcome-map.md](task-to-outcome-map.md) · [personal-harness-builder.md](personal-harness-builder.md) · ⚡ [harness builder (HTML)](../skills/personal-harness-builder/). For a deeper look at how a personal system is built, see the [Chapter 6 overview](../chapters/06-chelovek-kak-sistema.md) with harness level examples. - **The weakest layer in my system:** `____________` · **what AI already does in my tasks:** `________` ## Step 6: One skill that is becoming more valuable (Chapter 7) Worksheet: [five-deficits-audit.md](five-deficits-audit.md). - **The skill I will practice on purpose:** `__________________________` ## Step 7: Work with AI without building cognitive debt (Chapter 8) Worksheets: [ai-mode-audit.md](ai-mode-audit.md) · [cognitive-debt-checklist.md](cognitive-debt-checklist.md) · ⚡ [cognitive debt tracker (HTML)](../skills/cognitive-debt-check/). - **My mode (cyborg / centaur / self-automator):** `____________` - **What I will do without AI once a week so I do not lose the skill:** `__________________________` ## Step 8: Bring it together as a diagnosis (Chapter 9) Worksheet: [profession-audit-integrated.md](profession-audit-integrated.md). Bring over the conclusions from Steps 1 to 7. - **What is getting cheaper:** `__________________` · **weak point:** `__________________` - **Value that will survive:** `__________________` · **my +1:** `__________________` ## Step 9: Who am I when AI does my work? (Chapter 10) There is no worksheet. This is a conversation with yourself. Rewrite how you describe your role. Move from "I make X" to "I am responsible for Y." - **I am responsible for:** `____________________________________________________________` ## Step 10: A 90-day plan (Chapter 11) Worksheets: [personal-90-day-plan.md](personal-90-day-plan.md) · [weak-multiplier-canvas.md](weak-multiplier-canvas.md). Bring everything above into one plan built around **one task**: - **One recurring task for the next 90 days:** `...` - **The old rule I follow now:** `...` - **The new rule I will make standard:** `...` - **The capability I will keep and practice myself:** `...` - **A verifiable change after 90 days** (it does not have to be public): `...` - **My next level of responsibility:** `...` - **The repeatable working method that will remain** (calendar time / template / check): `...` > If you have several tasks, choose the one where other people will notice the improvement. > The [Weak Multiplier Canvas](weak-multiplier-canvas.md) is only a supporting filter. --- ## My one-page result Put your answers from Steps 1 to 10 into one table. This is a profile you can print, show to a manager, use in a conversation about your role, or give to your AI assistant. A useful result does not say "I know how to use AI." It shows which work you now do one level higher. | Step | My conclusion | |---|---| | 1. Value lever | `____` | | 2. Week by basket | 🟢 `____%` · 🟡 `____%` · 🔴 `____%` | | 3. My place on the ladder | `____` | | 4. Usefulness level and +1 move | now `____` → next move `____` | | 5. Weak layer in my personal system | `____` | | 6. One skill that is becoming more valuable | `____` | | 7. My way of working with AI | `____` | | 8. Integrated professional diagnosis | `____` | | 9. I am responsible for Y, not for making X | `____` | | 10. 90-day plan | task `____` · new rule `____` · metric `____` | | 1. The main lever in my work | `____________` | | 2. Share of 🟢 work / main 🔴 task | `____ %` / `____________` | | 3. Place on the ladder + handhold | `____________` | | 4. Usefulness level + candidate for +1 | `____` / `____________` | | 5. Weak layer in my personal system | `____________` | | 6. Skill I will practice | `____________` | | 7. AI work mode + safety rule | `____________` | | 8. Weak point / value that will survive | `____________` | | 9. I am responsible for | `____________` | | 10. One 90-day task + verifiable change | `____________` | For a second opinion, paste the completed table into an AI chat with this prompt: ```text Here is my profile from the Volume 1 Workbook for When Intelligence Became Cheap. It has 10 rows: value lever, weekly baskets, ladder, usefulness level, weak system layer, skill, AI work mode, diagnosis, "I am responsible for," and a 90-day plan. Check it for honesty. Where do the conclusions conflict? Where am I flattering myself? Which step is the weakest? Do not rewrite the plan. Ask me three questions that will make me want to improve it myself. [paste the table] ``` --- Next, use the 30/60/90 check-ins in [personal-90-day-plan.md](personal-90-day-plan.md). Return and check your own metric. Did it move? This closes Volume 1, from value levers to a first move. Volume 2, which covers teams, business, and the wider world, has its own [Volume 2 Workbook](tom2-workbook.md). To see a completed workbook, open the [end-to-end marketer example](../cases/persona-marketolog.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # The three value levers filter > Practicum for **Chapter 2 of Volume 1**, "The New Price of Intelligence." Time: 10 to 15 minutes. > Use one worksheet for one task or product. You can also use the > [interactive browser version](../skills/value-levers-filter/). It does the math in your browser and does not send your data anywhere. AI makes `output` cheaper. Output is a finished artifact such as a text, report, design, or piece of code. If your value came from producing something quickly and neatly, that advantage is fading. Value is moving to `outcome`: framing the problem, applying judgment, earning trust, reaching people, and taking responsibility for the result. This worksheet is a quick filter. It shows which of the **three levers** creates value in your task and whether cheap AI is wiping out that value. ## The three levers from the chapter | Lever | What it means | What cheap AI does to it | | --- | --- | --- | | **New sales and growth** | You do something others cannot do (the "magic") | Helps people who already have something unique, but does not create that uniqueness for them | | **Cost savings** | You do the same work faster or at a lower cost | **Erases the advantage for everyone.** It becomes the new baseline. | | **Attention and trust** | People choose you and trust you | Your channel and relationships become more valuable when everyone can produce more content | > The chapter's point: everyone gets the same cost savings at roughly the same time. An advantage remains where you have **magic**, something others cannot offer, or **attention and trust**, the reason people choose you. This is not a verdict on the task. It tells you where not to place your claim of advantage. ## What gets cheaper and what becomes an advantage | Gets cheaper (`output`, a commodity) | Becomes an advantage (`outcome`, which you own) | | --- | --- | | Standard text, a first draft, or an initial summary | Problem framing and a precise question | | Analysis based on a standard template | Judgment and taste: what is right or good here | | Routine code or a standard design | Trust and relationships with specific people | | Answering a common question | Attention and distribution: who gets chosen, and why | | Putting data into one format | Responsibility for the result and its consequences | | Translation, transcription, or formatting | Unique context and data that other people do not have | ## Fill this out for one task - **Task or product:** `__________________________` - **Main lever (sales and growth / cost savings / attention and trust):** `____________` - **Can cheap AI already do this on its own?** (almost completely / partly / no): `____________` - **Does this set you apart?** (unique / somewhat / same as everyone else): `____________` - **Your conclusion:** `__________________________` - If the lever is cost savings and AI can already do it, the task is becoming a baseline. Do it, but do not expect it to set you apart. - If the answer is "same as everyone else" and AI can do it, this is cheaper `output`. Automate it and free your time. - If it is unique and the lever is sales and magic, or attention and trust, this is your `outcome`. Strengthen it. - **One move:** What `output` will you hand to AI, and which `outcome` will you keep and strengthen yourself? `__________________________` This filter does not measure money or calculate return on investment (ROI). It points you in a direction: where value is getting cheaper and where it still belongs to you. Calculate exact savings and revenue separately, using your own data. Use one lever for one task. If the task mixes several levers, split it into parts. - Sort your week into task buckets and see how much of it is already getting cheaper: [Review your week](week-inventory.md) (Chapter 3). - Decide where to move your `outcome`: [Your usefulness level](usefulness-levels-self-check.md) (Chapter 5). - Follow the full route in the [Volume 1 workbook](tom1-workbook.md). - If you lead a team or a small business, apply the same filter to business functions with the [Small business AI staff map](smb-staff-map.md) (Volume 2). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Worksheet: inventory one week > Practicum for the task buckets exercise in Chapter 3 and the three-lever filter in Chapter 2. > Time: one evening. Use your **calendar and messages from last week**, not your job description. Record what you actually did. **Faster option:** Use the [interactive browser version](../skills/week-inventory/). Enter your tasks and the tool calculates your exposure. You do not need to install anything, and your data stays on your device. 1. List **10 to 15 tasks** that took up your time last week. Be specific. Do not write "managed projects." Write "collected a contractor status update," "wrote to an unhappy customer," or "prepared a table for management." 2. Put each task in a **bucket**: green, "AI alone"; yellow, "human plus AI"; or red, "human only." Judge the task by what today's tools can do, not by habit. If you are unsure, use the two questions from Chapter 3: Is the result digital? Can the work be done remotely? 3. Assign each task a **lever** from Chapter 2: 1, new revenue; 2, cost savings; 3, attention and trust; or "none" if it has no lever. That kind of task keeps you busy but does not create value. 4. Calculate the **share of your time in the green and yellow buckets**. This is your personal exposure. You are measuring your own week, not the profession as a whole. | # | Specific task | Bucket: green / yellow / red | Hours per week | Lever: 1 / 2 / 3 / none | Decision: hand to AI / strengthen / remove | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1 | | | | | | | 2 | | | | | | | 3 | | | | | | | 4 | | | | | | | 5 | | | | | | | 6 | | | | | | | 7 | | | | | | | 8 | | | | | | | 9 | | | | | | | 10 | | | | | | | 11 | | | | | | | 12 | | | | | | | 13 | | | | | | | 14 | | | | | | | 15 | | | | | | **Result:** time in green + yellow = ____% | tasks with no lever = ____ ## Three questions to answer afterward 1. Which of my tasks have **already become cheaper**, even if I still do them by hand? 2. Which tasks do I keep because they make me **feel busy**, rather than because they change a result? 3. Which red-bucket tasks are almost missing from my week, **and why**? Does my role lack them, or am I avoiding them? ## Three honest scenarios - **Put the list away:** A year from now, your week looks the same, but the market values it less. - **Go faster inside the green bucket:** This helps as a skill but fails as a strategy. Volume grows where the premium is moving toward zero (Chapter 2). - **Shift the weight:** Set a six-month target of adding **two or three red-bucket tasks to your week**. This takes longer than learning new prompts, but it moves you toward work whose value is rising. > The full profession map, the Task-to-Outcome Map, appears in Chapter 9 and in the live version of this repository. Reassess the buckets every six months because the boundary keeps moving. --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. --- reading_level: b2 title: Role catalog description: Pick your role and turn a broad question about AI into a practical review of real work. --- # Role catalog: choose yours > Entry point 1 in the Practicum: "How does AI change my work?" The roles are grouped by field. Each role page is a hub: task baskets, before and after, red flags, a minimum tool set, then a route into an audit and a plan. **Date: 2026-06.** If your exact role is not here, search by task in [_by-task.md](_by-task.md). The full role-page template is [lawyer.md](lawyer.md). The other pages follow it. You can also browse by the [company model](_company-model.md), based on Porter's value chain. For the wider picture, see the [data review](_super-analysis.md): what AI may replace and what remains, using GDPval, the Anthropic Economic Index, and O*NET. > **Ready-made skills and role plugins.** Common roles already have instruction sets for agents and role-specific plugins. See [skill banks](../watch/skill-banks.md) to browse them or build your own. | Field | Roles | | --- | --- | | **Legal and compliance** | [Lawyer](lawyer.md) | | **Finance and accounting** | [Accountant](buhgalter.md) · [Financial analyst](finanalitik.md) | | **Marketing and content** | [Marketer](marketolog.md) · [Designer](dizayner.md) | | **Analytics and data** | [Analyst](analitik.md) | | **Sales and customer work** | [B2B sales](sales-b2b.md) · [Customer support](podderzhka.md) | | **HR and people** | [HR specialist](hr.md) | | **IT and product** | [Developer](razrabotchik.md) · [Product manager](product-pm.md) | | **Education** | [Teacher](uchitel.md) | | **Healthcare** | [Doctor](vrach.md) | > All 13 Volume 1 roles are ready. Business roles, such as an SME owner or a team built around agents, belong in **Volume 2**. > --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Career ladder self-check > Practicum for Chapter 4, "The Ladder Breaks: Entry and Mid-Career." > Practicum URL: `https://cheap-intelligence.vercel.app/en/`. Goal: In one evening, find the weak point in your career ladder: entry, middle, or top. ## 1. Three questions | Question | Your answer | What counts as a risk signal | | --- | --- | --- | | What am I learning through my work now? | | My week has no tasks just above my current level. AI or a senior colleague does all the work that could help me grow. | | What do I own, and what do I pass along? | | Most of my week goes to status updates, summaries, forwarding information, and checking other people's work. | | Who learns from my simple tasks? | | Agents already handle all routine work, so beginners have no safe place to practice. | ## 2. Your weak section Choose one section to focus on for the next 90 days. | Section | Choose this if | Main move | | --- | --- | --- | | Entry | You are looking for a first chance, but there are fewer "simple tasks" available | Build proof of a result instead of waiting to gain seniority | | Middle | You are no longer a beginner, but you spend much of your time passing along other people's work | Shift your time from forwarding work to owning an outcome | | Top | You are responsible for people, a team, or hiring | Design an apprenticeship instead of hoping one happens on its own | ## 3. One move this week Choose one action you can finish within seven days. | Section | Action | | --- | --- | | Entry | Make one small public artifact: an analysis, prototype, template, short research note, or working example | | Middle | Calculate how much of your week goes to passing work along, then choose one handoff for an agent to handle | | Top | Find one learning task that you will not automate completely because a person can grow by doing it | ## 4. Check again in one month - What can I do better now, not just faster? - Which task has become mine to own? - Who did I give work that can help them grow? --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Team apprenticeship audit: the 3Cs > Practicum for Chapter 4, "The ladder is breaking: entry and middle roles." > Based on Matt Beane's *The Skill Code*: challenge, complexity, connection. Goal: check whether your team has removed the ladder that its next generation needs to grow. ## 1. Challenge: is the work hard enough to teach | Question | Yes / no | What should change | |---|---|---| | Do new team members get tasks just above their current skill level? | | | | Do they have safe tasks where they can make a mistake and review it? | | | | Does AI help them learn instead of simply giving them a finished answer? | | | ## 2. Complexity: can the person see the whole process | Question | Yes / no | What should change | |---|---|---| | Does the new team member understand why the task matters and who needs the result? | | | | Can they see the full path from request to decision and how their task fits? | | | | After routine work was automated, did the team keep hands-on reviews of real cases? | | | ## 3. Connection: is there a relationship with an expert | Question | Yes / no | What should change | |---|---|---| | Does someone review the new team member's work and give useful feedback? | | | | Is there enough trust to let the person do the work instead of only watching? | | | | Do senior staff get time and recognition for developing other people? | | | ## 4. Overall risk | Level | Sign | What to do | |---|---|---| | Low | Most of the 3Cs are healthy | Decide which tasks you can automate without weakening learning | | Medium | One of the 3Cs is weak | Restore the missing part during the next quarter | | High | New people only watch or edit completed work | Assign learning tasks and mentors. Otherwise, your skill pipeline is already broken | ## 5. The manager's decision Write down one task that the team will keep as a learning task even after automation: `...` Write down one person who will own the new team member's growth: `...` --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Worksheet: my usefulness level > Practicum for Chapter 5, "Five Levels of New Usefulness." > Time: 30 to 40 minutes. > Use your last working week, not your resume or job description. **Faster option:** The [interactive browser version](../skills/usefulness-level-check/) identifies the level of a task and challenges inflated ratings. You do not need to install anything, and your data stays on your device. Goal: Find the level of one specific task. This is not a rating of you as a person. It shows what you are paid for in the connection between your work, AI, and the result. ## 1. Choose one task Pick a result you produced with AI during the past week. Be specific: - prepared the first draft of a presentation; - reviewed a contract; - assembled a report; - replied to a customer; - analyzed a spreadsheet; - prepared a recommendation for a manager. Do not write something broad such as "worked on the project," "handled customers," or "did analysis." **My task:** `____________________________________________________________` ## 2. Four questions | Question | Your answer | | --- | --- | | Which outcome was supposed to change? | | | Who made a decision based on the result? | | | Which error would have been unacceptable? | | | Next time, what will improve my context rather than the model's capabilities? | | If you cannot answer any of the four questions, the task is probably at level 0 or 1. You made the output faster, but you do not yet own the checking process, the workflow, or the outcome. ## 3. Find the task's level | Level | Quick sign | Does this describe your task? | | --- | --- | --- | | **0. Instruction follower** | Received an assignment and delivered the result | | | **1. AI user** | Used a model to work faster | | | **2. Validator** | Checked criteria, quality, and risk | | | **3. Orchestrator** | Built a workflow from people, an agent, data, and tools | | | **4. Outcome owner** | Took responsibility for a metric, customer, money, or risk | | | **5. System builder** | Packaged the solution so it works without you | | **Current level of this task:** `____` **Why:** `____________________________________________________________` ## 4. Your level for the week Choose the three main tasks from your week and mark each one's level. | Task | Hours | Current level | Why | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | **My default level in the week's main tasks:** `____` This is not a score for you. It maps the place you usually take in the tasks that shape your market value. ## 5. Pick one task to move up Choose one task where moving up one level would create the most value. **Task:** `____________________________________________________________` **Why this task:** `____________________________________________________________` **Next level:** `____` Continue with the [One move to the next level plan](plus-one-level-plan.md). ## Check for self-deception - Producing more of the same output does not move you above level 1. - If the model does everything and you only forward its answer, you are still at level 0, only faster. - Without criteria for what "correct" means, you are not yet a validator. - If nobody knows who owns the outcome, you are not yet the outcome owner. - If the solution cannot run without you, it is not yet a system. --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Plan: one move up one level > Practicum for Chapter 5, "Five Levels of New Usefulness." > Time: 25 minutes. Do not try to change your whole career. Choose one task for the next 90 days. ## 1. The task | Field | Answer | | --- | --- | | Task | | | Current level | | | Next level | | | Why this task | | | Which outcome should change | | ## 2. Transition map | Transition | First move | What to check in one month | | --- | --- | --- | | **0 to 1** | Hand machine work to the machine | The result arrives faster, but still goes through a human check | | **1 to 2** | Stop delivering unchecked work | You have three to five criteria for what "correct" means | | **2 to 3** | Build a workflow | You know the agent, the human, the data, and the handoff where things can break | | **3 to 4** | Take responsibility | You have named the metric and the person who owns it | | **4 to 5** | Turn the solution into a system | The result can be reproduced without its creator's daily involvement | ## 3. My move | Time frame | What I will do | | --- | --- | | In the next seven days | | | In 30 days, I will check | | | In 90 days, the task should look like this | | ## 4. Example moves | Situation | Move up one level | | --- | --- | | A specialist uses AI to produce reports faster, but nobody reads them | Move from 1 to 2: agree on the criteria for "this report helped someone make a decision" | | A manager collects status updates from ten sources by hand | Move from 2 to 3: an agent prepares a draft, and a human checks the handoffs and exceptions | | A business owner receives a draft tax return from a service | Move from 1 to 2 or 4: decide who checks the risk and who is responsible to the tax authority | | A team repeats the same manual check every week | Move from 4 to 5: turn the check into a checklist, template, or tool | ## 5. No polished imitation The plan does not count if: - you wrote a new prompt but did not change the checking criteria; - you made the output faster but did not make the outcome clearer; - you passed the risk to the model; - you called it a system, but it does not work without you; - you do not know how you will tell whether it is better in one month. ## Final formula **One level. One task. One quarter.** One honest move per quarter gives you four moves a year. Few people climb this ladder faster. --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Task-to-Outcome Map > Practicum for Chapter 6, "The Human as a System." > Time: 40 to 60 minutes. > Use real tasks from your last working week, not your job description. Goal: See where your time goes to output that is getting cheaper, and where it goes to work that is becoming more valuable. This is the starting point for building your personal harness. ## Step 1. Choose three tasks Pick three tasks from your last working week. Do not choose the most enjoyable or the hardest ones. Choose the most **typical**, the tasks that keep coming back. Be specific: - "wrote the monthly portfolio report" - "prepared a proposal for Client X" - "reviewed a contract with a vendor" - "made a presentation for the board" - "answered support requests" Do not write something broad such as "worked on the project" or "handled customers." **Task 1:** `______________________________________________` **Task 2:** `______________________________________________` **Task 3:** `______________________________________________` ## Step 2. Seven questions for each task Complete the table for each of the three tasks. You can start with one. It takes about 15 minutes. ### Task 1: `_____________` | # | Question | Your answer | | --- | --- | --- | | 1 | **What do I do?** List the physical steps you take to complete this task | | | 2 | **Why is it needed?** What should change for the person who asked for it, such as a manager, customer, or colleague? | | | 3 | **What can AI do?** Which parts of item 1 can AI already do, or do faster or at a lower cost? | | | 4 | **Where is a human needed?** Where would an AI error be expensive? Where do judgment, trust, or responsibility matter? | | | 5 | **How can I measure the value?** What changed for the person who requested the task after my work? | | | 6 | **What should I stop doing?** Which actions from item 1 are getting cheaper and no longer need my effort? | | | 7 | **Where can I move up?** Which role or level could I take in this task if item 6 freed some time? | | ### Task 2: `_____________` | # | Question | Your answer | | --- | --- | --- | | 1 | **What do I do?** | | | 2 | **Why is it needed?** | | | 3 | **What can AI do?** | | | 4 | **Where is a human needed?** | | | 5 | **How can I measure the value?** | | | 6 | **What should I stop doing?** | | | 7 | **Where can I move up?** | | ### Task 3: `_____________` | # | Question | Your answer | | --- | --- | --- | | 1 | **What do I do?** | | | 2 | **Why is it needed?** | | | 3 | **What can AI do?** | | | 4 | **Where is a human needed?** | | | 5 | **How can I measure the value?** | | | 6 | **What should I stop doing?** | | | 7 | **Where can I move up?** | | ## Step 3. Read the whole map Look at the three completed sections together. Answer these questions. **What share of your week goes to the tasks in item 3, "What can AI do?"** `_____%` More than 50% was normal in 2025 and 2026. This is not a failure. It shows where to start. **Where is your verification point?** Across item 4 in all three tasks, which AI error would cost the most? `______________________________________________` Your harness needs the strongest controls at that point. Your expertise is also most valuable there. **Which single move from item 7 would create the most value next quarter?** `______________________________________________` ## Example: an analyst at an insurance company from Chapter 6 Task: "Monthly report on portfolio loss ratio." | # | Question | Answer | | --- | --- | --- | | 1 | What do I do? | Collect data from three systems, build summary tables, and explain the numbers | | 2 | Why? | Management uses the report to make pricing and segment decisions | | 3 | What can AI do? | Assemble the report from a template, explain standard patterns, and format its structure | | 4 | Where is a human needed? | Account for the past week's regulatory context, tell an artifact from a trend, and take responsibility for the recommendation | | 5 | How can I measure it? | Whether management makes decisions from the report and how accurate the forecasts are | | 6 | What should I stop doing? | Rebuilding data by hand, reformatting tables, and writing standard explanations | | 7 | Where can I move up? | Move from "report compiler" to "analyst who frames the question that matters now" | **What the example shows:** The analyst spent 75% of the time on item 1, collecting data, and item 3, writing standard explanations. The real value was in items 4 and 5. Automating item 6 created time for that work. ## Next After you complete the Task-to-Outcome Map, continue with the [Personal Harness Builder](personal-harness-builder.md). It will show which harness layer to build first. --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Personal Harness Builder > Practicum for Chapter 6, "The Human as a System." > Time: 30 to 45 minutes. > Use this after the [Task-to-Outcome Map](task-to-outcome-map.md), once you know which tasks you are analyzing. A harness is the system around AI that shapes the result. Chapter 6 describes six layers of personal usefulness and one practical layer called `skills`. Skills are repeatable ways of working that you do not need to explain to AI every time. This worksheet shows what your harness looks like today. > Faster in your browser: Use the [Personal Harness Builder](../skills/personal-harness-builder/) to score all seven layers and find the weak link and your next move. ## Step 1. Inventory your week Use three tasks from the Task-to-Outcome Map worksheet, or recall three typical tasks from last week. For each task, answer one question: **Which AI tool did you use, and how did you use it?** | Task | Tool | How you used it | | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | | | | | | | | An empty Tool column is a signal. It does not always mean there was no opportunity. It may mean there was no system. ## Step 2. Score each layer Score each layer of your harness from 1 to 3: - **1** = missing or improvised each time - **2** = present but inconsistent - **3** = works as a system every time ### Thinking: I think with AI without losing the skill - Do I have a regular way to work with AI on hard tasks, beyond asking a question and copying the answer? - Can I tell when AI is wrong and when it is right? - Can I still complete important tasks without AI when I need to? **My score:** `___` / 3 **What I do now:** `______________________________________________` **What I want to improve:** `______________________________________________` ### Knowledge: my personal knowledge base - Do I have one place for useful materials, conclusions, and templates from earlier tasks? - Can I give an AI tool the context for a new task in two minutes? - Do I own my knowledge base, rather than leaving it in work systems I may lose access to? **My score:** `___` / 3 **What I do now:** `______________________________________________` **What I want to improve:** `______________________________________________` ### Tools: tools with clear jobs - Can I explain why I use each AI tool instead of another one? - Do I have three to five basic tools with clear jobs, rather than 20 subscriptions "just in case"? - Do I review my tool set once a quarter rather than every two weeks? **My score:** `___` / 3 **What I do now:** `______________________________________________` **What I want to improve:** `______________________________________________` ### Proof: public work artifacts - Do I have something public, such as an article, repository, case, presentation, or portfolio, that shows what I can do? - Have I created artifacts during the past six months, rather than only completing internal tasks? - Can someone outside my team judge my work from public material? **My score:** `___` / 3 **What I do now:** `______________________________________________` **What I want to improve:** `______________________________________________` ### Trust: a reputation for quality and accuracy - When I deliver work, do colleagues and customers trust that I checked the facts and data? - Do I verify AI output before passing it to someone else? - When people in my field need a reliable result, do they name me? **My score:** `___` / 3 **What I do now:** `______________________________________________` **What I want to improve:** `______________________________________________` ### Outcome: a link to a real result - Can I explain how my work affects a metric, a decision, or a customer, rather than only saying that I completed the task? - In the past month, could I point to something and say, "This changed because of that work"? - Do I track whether the person who requested the work uses what I made? **My score:** `___` / 3 **What I do now:** `______________________________________________` **What I want to improve:** `______________________________________________` ### Skills: repeatable parts of the system - Do I have at least one repeatable way of working with AI written as an instruction, rather than stored only in my head? - After a task repeats three times, do I turn it into a template, checklist, or `skill`? - Do my skills set boundaries where AI must stop and ask a human? **My score:** `___` / 3 ## Step 3. Read your scores Put all your scores in one place: | Layer | Score | | --- | --- | | Thinking | `/3` | | Knowledge | `/3` | | Tools | `/3` | | Proof | `/3` | | Trust | `/3` | | Outcome | `/3` | | Skills | `/3` | | **Total** | **/21** | **Find the weakest layer**, with a score of 1 or 2. A harness is a system, and one weak link can limit the rest. Improving three layers together usually works better than polishing one layer that is already strong. **My priority layer:** `______________________________________________` ## Step 4. One specific move for the next two weeks Write a concrete action, not "improve Knowledge." Too vague: "Create a knowledge base." Specific: "By Friday, create one folder in Notion or Obsidian for conclusions from work meetings." Too vague: "Get better at verifying AI." Specific: "For every report I send to my manager, check the three main numbers by hand." Too vague: "Make some skills for myself." Specific: "Write one skill for the weekly report: inputs, steps, checks, and the point where AI must stop." **My one move for the next two weeks:** `______________________________________________` `______________________________________________` **Date I will check the result:** `____________` ## Connection to the Task-to-Outcome Map If you completed the Task-to-Outcome Map first, look at question 4, "Where is a human needed?" Your weakest harness layer may sit exactly where you identified the human's most important role. That makes sense. Trust and Thinking grow through regular practice, not through buying tools. ## Next For examples of harness levels and skills, see [Examples by Level](../harness-examples/examples-by-level.md). For a map of tools by layer, see [Tools Map by Layer](../tools-map/tools-map-by-layer.md). For the chapter overview and navigation, see [Chapter 6 Companion](../chapters/06-chelovek-kak-sistema.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Turn a repeated task into a skill > Practicum for Chapter 6, "The Human as a System." Time: 20 to 30 minutes. > Continue here after the [Personal Harness Builder](personal-harness-builder.md). Once you can see your harness, package one repeatable part as a portable skill. ## Why this helps Use a simple rule: **If you explain the same logic to AI for the fourth or fifth time, it is already a skill.** The problem is not that the model is slow to learn. You have not yet built a system for that procedure. Repeating one explanation can cost 8 to 12 minutes a day. Across a month and several tasks, that becomes hours. A skill is an instruction file called `SKILL.md`. An agent loads it when a task falls within its scope. Write the logic once, then stop explaining it from scratch. You can find skills made by other people in [skill banks](../watch/skill-banks.md). This worksheet helps you make your own. ## Step 1. Find a candidate Choose a repeated procedure that you keep explaining from the beginning. | Sign | Your example | | --- | --- | | I have explained this to AI at least four times | | | I explain it a little differently each time, so the result varies | | | I know what "done correctly" means | | If all three rows fit, you have a skill candidate. Start with the one you repeat most often. ## Step 2. Describe the procedure in plain language Answer four questions. Your answers will form the body of the skill. 1. **When to use it.** Which tasks should trigger this skill? 2. **What goes in.** Which materials or data do you provide? 3. **How to do it.** Write the steps you usually explain each time. 4. **What comes out and how to check it.** Define the output format and your verification point. ## Step 3. Build the `SKILL.md` file Copy and complete this minimal template: ```markdown name: contract-review desc: Reviews an incoming contract and lists risks for my side, with a quote from each relevant clause. ## When to use Use this skill when I provide a contract and ask you to assess its risks. ## Input The contract text, link, or file. ## Steps 1. Identify risks for MY side. I am the customer. 2. Sort the risks by severity. 3. Quote the relevant clause for each risk. 4. Suggest revised wording. ## Output Table: risk | severity | clause quote | suggested revision. I check every quote against the contract and take responsibility for the decision. ``` ## Step 4. Put it where the agent can find it - Add the file to the skills folder used by your AI tool or agent. Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, and other tools use different paths. - Give the file a clear name. One job belongs in one skill. ## Step 5. Test and update it - Run the skill on one or two real tasks. If the result varies, make the steps more precise. - Review it once a month. Remove what is outdated and add what is missing. - **Access and security:** A skill that can reach email, files, or money should require confirmation and run in a [sandbox](personal-harness-builder.md). Treat someone else's skill as you would treat someone else's code. See [trusting a skill](../watch/skill-banks.md). ## What you get Your list of skills becomes a portable part of your harness. When you start an agent, it can load the right skill for the task. The irritation of explaining the same thing again is useful evidence. It points to the next skill you should write. > Related: [Personal Harness Builder](personal-harness-builder.md) | [Skill banks](../watch/skill-banks.md) | [Prompts: method and verification](../prompts/index.md) | [Profession library](../applications/_index.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Tools map by layer > Practicum for Chapter 6, "The Human as a System." > Update this page when new evidence appears. The selection principles stay stable, while examples change. **Important:** Chapter 6 avoids naming specific tools because they change quickly. This page is the living version. It gives selection principles for each layer and dated examples. The examples show a class of tools and are not recommendations. The [Tools Map](../watch/tools-map.md) lists concrete options for every layer, and the card for your profession lists tools for that role in the [catalog](../applications/_index.md). --- ## How to read this map Each layer of the personal AI system has one selection question, a short set of criteria, and dated examples of a tool class. Ask three questions before adding anything to your system: 1. Can I explain this tool's role in the system? 2. Does it solve a task I have already identified in the TOM? 3. Will I use it regularly, at least once a week? If the answer is no, you do not need the tool now. --- ## Layer 1: Thinking **Selection question:** Does the tool help me think with AI while keeping my own judgment active? **Criteria:** - Supports a conversation instead of one request followed by one answer. - Holds a long context without losing the thread. - Lets you ask follow-up questions and change direction. **Tool class (examples, 2025-2026):** - Long-context chat: Claude, GPT-4o, Gemini Advanced for iterative reasoning. - Conversation workspaces: Claude Projects and ChatGPT Projects for persistent topic context. - Native voice mode when thinking on the move matters more than typing. **Sign of a weak Thinking layer:** you ask AI one question, copy the answer, and stop. --- ## Layer 2: Knowledge **Selection question:** Can I give the AI tool enough task context within two minutes? **Criteria:** - Stores notes in a form you can copy into an AI chat. - Searches content rather than only tags. - Keeps data somewhere you control, including outside company systems. **Tool class (examples, 2025-2026):** - Searchable personal knowledge bases: Obsidian, a personal Notion space, Bear. - Vector search across your documents: NotebookLM and Mem.ai for questions about your own corpus. - Structured notes with backlinks: Logseq and Roam Research for nonlinear connections. **Sign of a weak Knowledge layer:** every AI task starts with more than 20 minutes of searching for the right material. --- ## Layer 3: Tools **Selection question:** How many tools do I use actively, and can I explain the role of each one? **Criteria for every tool:** - I use it at least once a week. - I can explain why it is better than an alternative for a specific task. - It saves at least 30 minutes a week or makes something possible that I could not do before. **Basic roles, meaning functions rather than products (2025-2026):** - Capable chat and reasoning for difficult analysis, synthesis, and planning. - Search with summaries for research, such as Perplexity or Gemini with search. - A specialist agent for recurring work in code, law, finance, or another field. - Workflow automation that connects tools when a task repeats more than five times a week. **Sign of a weak Tools layer:** you pay for more than 15 subscriptions and still keep looking for something new. --- ## Layer 4: Proof **Selection question:** Where can someone outside my team see my work? **Criteria:** - The artifact is available without registration or behind only a small barrier. - It shows your way of thinking as well as the final result. - You updated it within the past six months. **Tool class (examples, 2025-2026):** - Public writing: Substack, Medium, or a Telegram channel with an archive. - Professional portfolios: LinkedIn with cases rather than only job titles, and GitHub. - Video and audio: short explanations of difficult ideas through YouTube Shorts or podcasts. - Repositories and templates: open materials that other people use. **Sign of a weak Proof layer:** only people who worked with you directly know about your expertise. --- ## Layer 5: Trust **Selection question:** Does the process include a consistent review before the result moves forward? **Criteria:** - Review is part of the workflow, not something you do "when there is time." - It checks the mistakes that AI tends to make in your field. - It takes less than 15% of the task's total time. **Verification principles (2025-2026):** - Check numbers and statistics manually against a primary source rather than through AI. - Check legal and financial conclusions against current rules, not the model's training data. - For professional recommendations, ask what has changed since 2024. Many models have a knowledge cutoff. **Sign of a weak Trust layer:** you pass along the AI result without reading or checking it. --- ## Layer 6: Outcome **Selection question:** Is my work connected to a measurable result for the customer? **Criteria:** - I know the metric that should change for the customer after my work. - I learn whether the customer used the result. - One month later, I can say what changed. **Measurement tools (examples, 2025-2026):** - Direct metrics: OKRs or KPIs in a personal tracker, Notion, or a quarterly results table. - Indirect metrics: customer feedback and links to your work in other people's documents. - Portfolio tracking: compare tasks in the TOM after three months and see what changed in the "next level" column. **Sign of a weak Outcome layer:** you can describe what you did but cannot say what changed. --- ## How to update this map - Review named tools every six months. - Keep the principles and criteria stable unless the nature of a layer changes. - Update the version date whenever the examples change. - Do not add a tool until you have tested it in a real work task. For examples of personal AI system levels and skills, see [Examples by Level](../harness-examples/examples-by-level.md). For the full Chapter 6 bibliography with verified links, see [Volume 1 sources](../sources/tom1.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Five scarcity audit > Practicum for Chapter 7, "Skills That Become More Valuable." Time: 25 to 30 minutes. > Use your last working week, not your resume. **Faster option:** The [interactive browser version](../skills/five-deficits-audit/) helps you choose one scarce capability for the quarter and suggests a move. You do not need to install anything, and your data stays on your device. As output gets cheaper, five capabilities become scarce: **judgment, taste, trust, attention, and distribution**. Here, distribution means getting your work in front of the right people. Authenticity is not a sixth item. It is a quality of all five. Each one becomes more valuable when people can see the human behind it. This worksheet is not a list of "future skills." It is a diagnosis. Which scarce capability do you already have but the market cannot see? Which one is weak? ## Step 1. Three tasks from your week Choose three specific tasks. If you completed the [usefulness level self-check](usefulness-levels-self-check.md), use the same tasks. Do not write "worked on a project." Write "reviewed a contract" or "assembled a report." 1. `____________________________` 2. `____________________________` 3. `____________________________` ## Step 2. Five questions for each task Answer one question about each scarce capability for every task. | Scarce capability | Question | | --- | --- | | **Judgment** | Which decisions depend on the situation and stay with me? What happens if the model makes them? | | **Taste** | How many options do I choose from, and what standard tells me that one is good? | | **Trust** | Does someone check my work again, or do they approve it without checking? | | **Attention** | Did the result reach the person who makes the decision? | | **Distribution** | Will anyone outside this task know that I did the work? | ## Step 3. Map the five capabilities Mark each task as **strong / neutral / weak**. You can also use the special mark **"not visible."** Use it when you have the capability but the market cannot see it. Your move then points toward authenticity and proof. | Scarce capability | Task 1 | Task 2 | Task 3 | Not visible? | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Judgment | | | | | | Taste | | | | | | Trust | | | | | | Attention | | | | | | Distribution | | | | | ## Step 4. One capability, one move, one quarter Choose **one** scarce capability where a move would help most. Do not choose three. - **My scarce capability:** `____________` - **One move this quarter:** For example, "Distribution is weak, so I will publish one analysis each month," or "My judgment is not visible, so I will write down the criteria I use to tell solid work from work that only looks convincing." `____________________________________________________________` - **Review date:** `____________` ## Check for self-deception - A capability counts as strong only when you can name an example and its consequences. A self-rating is not enough. - Other people's behavior confirms trust. For example, they approve your work without checking it again. Your own feeling does not confirm it. - Make one move, not three. Splitting your effort across all five usually produces no change. > Current skill premiums and authenticity infrastructure: [Skills that pay](../watch/skills-that-pay.md). > > Back: [Chapter 7 Practicum](../chapters/07-navyki-kotorye-dorozhayut.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Cognitive debt checklist > Practicum for Chapter 8, "Cognitive Debt." Time: 5 minutes. > Use this for important tasks and for any result that looks a little too polished. You do not need it for every request. Cognitive debt means taking productivity today in exchange for skill tomorrow. Sometimes you choose that debt on purpose. The problem starts when it becomes a habit and you stop noticing it. > Faster in your browser: The [Cognitive Debt Tracker](../skills/cognitive-debt-check/) asks seven questions, identifies your mode, and suggests one move that brings back useful friction. ## Seven questions Use these questions for an important task you just completed with AI. - [ ] Did I **explain** the reasoning, rather than only deliver the result? - [ ] Did I **check** at least one fact or source outside the model? - [ ] Do I understand the solution well enough to **repeat it without AI**? - [ ] Did this task make me **more capable**, not just faster? - [ ] Which skill did I **skip practicing** by giving it to the machine? `____________` - [ ] Where did I **deliberately** keep work for myself without AI? `____________` - [ ] Does this "done" look too smooth? Did I miss an error because I did not want to check? ## How to read the result There is no score. If most answers work against you, you are taking on debt. This does not mean you are working badly. It means one of two things: you chose the debt on purpose, or it has become a habit and you need to bring back some friction. > Next: [Audit your way of working with AI](ai-mode-audit.md) and the prompt bank [Training, not answers](training-not-answers.md). > > Back: [Chapter 8 Practicum](../chapters/08-kognitivnyy-dolg.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Audit your way of working with AI > Practicum for Chapter 8, "Cognitive Debt." Time: 5 to 7 minutes. > Use a real working week. The mode describes a task, not you as a person. There are three modes: - **Cyborg:** You work with the model and keep challenging its choices. - **Centaur:** You divide the work in advance. Some parts go to the machine, and some stay with you. - **Self-automator:** You hand over the entire task and leave the decision loop. The goal is to find where you left the loop and step back into it. ## Step 1. Three typical tasks from your week Use the same tasks from the [usefulness level self-check](usefulness-levels-self-check.md) if you completed it. 1. `____________________________` 2. `____________________________` 3. `____________________________` ## Step 2. Three questions for each task | Question | Task 1 | Task 2 | Task 3 | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Did I stay inside the decision process? | | | | | Did I give AI one part or the whole process? | | | | | Did my skill improve afterward? | | | | ## Step 3. Mark the mode Label each task **cyborg / centaur / self-automator**. The amount of AI use does not decide the label. What matters is whether a human stayed in the loop. | Task | Mode | | --- | --- | | 1 | | | 2 | | | 3 | | ## Step 4. Make one shift Choose one self-automated task. Add some productive friction from [Training, not answers](training-not-answers.md), or repeat the task without AI. - **Task:** `____________` -> **What I will change:** `____________________________` ## Step 5. Identify training tasks Mark the tasks that build judgment, taste, diagnosis, explanation, or responsibility. **Do not hand these tasks to AI in full.** `____________________________________________________________` Move this list to the [Task-to-Outcome Map](task-to-outcome-map.md), under "training tasks," and to the [integrated profession audit map for Chapter 9](profession-audit-integrated.md). > Back: [Chapter 8 Practicum](../chapters/08-kognitivnyy-dolg.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Prompt bank: useful friction instead of a finished answer > Practicum for Chapter 8, "Cognitive Debt," and Volume 2, Chapter 7, "Children." > This is **not** a list of 100 prompts. It is one principle with examples. The left column hands the thinking to the machine. The right column keeps some effort with you. Each pair explains what it trains. ## Core examples from Chapter 8 | Hands over the skill | Trains the skill | Why it trains | | --- | --- | --- | | "Write a reply to the customer" | "Give me three tone options and the tradeoffs of each. I will choose." | You keep judgment and taste | | "Draw a conclusion from this table" | "Show me two hypotheses and where the data does not support them" | You check instead of accepting the answer | | "Solve the problem" | "Explain two approaches. I will choose one and finish it." | You remain the author of the solution | | "Write the code" | "Sketch the structure and mark the places where errors are likely" | You understand what you run | | "Write the strategy" | "Ask me five questions that must be answered before a strategy can be built" | The thinking stays with you | ## More examples by task type This section changes as the tools change. **Writing and analysis:** Use "Challenge my draft as a skeptic" instead of "Rewrite this for me." Use "Which sources could disprove this?" instead of "Confirm this." **Code:** Use "Where will this break under load?" instead of "Optimize it." Use "Explain this line" instead of "Just fix it." **Decisions and strategy:** Use "Argue against my plan" instead of "Approve it." Use "What did I miss?" instead of "Make a plan." **Learning something new:** Use "Give me a problem that checks whether I understood" instead of "Explain it again." Or say, "Guide me with questions. Do not give me the answer right away." Every useful prompt should say **which effort stays with the human**. If the answer is "none," you have not added friction. You have only asked for the same finished answer in different words. Add your best new prompts at the top and include a short note explaining what each one trains. > Back: [AI mode audit](ai-mode-audit.md) | [Chapter 8 Practicum](../chapters/08-kognitivnyy-dolg.md) | [AI tutor training mode for children](ai-tutor-training-mode.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Integrated profession audit map > Practicum for Chapter 9, "Your Personal Career Audit." Time: 30 to 45 minutes. > Use your real working week, not your resume or job description. Chapter 9 does not add another tool. It **brings several earlier views into one picture**: your usefulness level from Chapter 5, personal harness from Chapter 6, AI working mode from Chapter 8, and Task-to-Outcome Map from Chapter 6. This worksheet gathers those results. If you already completed the other worksheets, copy their results here and update them. Goal: Put your diagnosis on one page. Show what is getting cheaper, where the weak point sits, which part of your value can survive change, and where you can move up one level. There is no score or "replacement index." This is a map, not a personality test. ## Section A. Task-to-Outcome Map for three or four tasks Choose three or four typical tasks from last week. Give each one a short review. The full version is in the [Task-to-Outcome Map](task-to-outcome-map.md). | Task | What it changes in the world (outcome) | What AI can already do | Where a human is needed | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | **Approximate share of the week spent on work AI can already do:** `____`% ## Section B. Five coordinates Complete each field. The source worksheet is shown in parentheses. 1. **Career ladder position** (entry / middle / top, from Chapter 4 and the [Career ladder self-check](ladder-self-diagnosis.md)): `____________` 2. **Usefulness level, 0 to 5** (from Chapter 5 and the [usefulness level self-check](usefulness-levels-self-check.md)): `____` 3. **AI working mode** (cyborg / centaur / self-automator, from Chapter 8 and the [AI mode audit](ai-mode-audit.md)): `____________` 4. **Weakest layer in my personal system** (Thinking / Knowledge / Tools / Proof / Trust / Outcome, from Chapter 6 and the [Personal Harness Builder](personal-harness-builder.md)): `____________` 5. **Durable value** (the part of you that is hardest to copy quickly, such as experience, taste, trust, relationships, or context): `____________________________________________` ## Section C. Diagnosis summary Complete each line with one phrase. - **What is getting cheaper** (tasks moving to the machine): `____________________________________` - **Weak layer or coordinate to fix first:** `____________________________` - **One durable source of value I can build on:** `____________________________` - **One move up one level** (the task where that move would help most): `____________________` This is your diagnosis on one page. You do not need a five-page development program yet. These four lines are enough to build the plan. ## Where to go next - See how the diagnosis turns into action, without writing the full plan yet: [From diagnosis to action](diagnosis-to-action-path.md). - Build the plan in Chapter 11: [Personal 90-day plan](personal-90-day-plan.md). - Compare your case with a profession example at `../applications/-audit.md`. > Back: [Chapter 9 Practicum](../chapters/09-lichnyy-audit-professii.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. --- reading_level: b2 title: "Example: Marina, a marketer, completes the Volume 1 workbook" description: A realistic completed Volume 1 route for a composite B2B marketer. --- # Example: Marina, a marketer, completes the full Volume 1 workbook > Marina is a composite character, and the figures are illustrative. This example shows what honest > answers can look like in the [Volume 1 workbook](../playbooks/tom1-workbook.md). **Marina is 34 and works in marketing at a B2B services company with about 80 employees.** She handles content, newsletters, landing pages, and lead reporting. She uses AI "like everyone else": to draft a post or rewrite an email. Her concern is familiar: "The machine writes the drafts now. What is left for me?" --- ## Step 1. Value lever, Chapter 2 - **The main lever in my work:** attention and trust, lever ③. The company wins business because prospects trust us before the first call. - **What gets cheaper, the output:** post copy, banners, and newsletter drafts. Anyone can produce these now. - **What remains mine, the outcome:** the result I am accountable for is leads from the "right" customers and a reputation that makes people recommend us. *Why this answer is honest:* Marina did not write, "My lever is content." Content is output. A lever is what someone pays for. ## Step 2. Sort the week into baskets, Chapter 3 She listed 13 tasks from the previous week using her calendar. The result: - **Share of time in 🟢 "AI alone":** about 35%, including post drafts, newsletter excerpts, an open-rate report, and webinar descriptions. - **The main 🔴 task where I cannot be replaced:** talking with sales about which leads are right for us and which are noise, then changing the positioning based on that conversation. - An uncomfortable finding: 3 of the 13 tasks are "busy work" with no value lever. One of them is moving the same report from one spreadsheet to another. ## Step 3. The ladder, Chapter 4 - **Entry / middle / top:** the middle. People assign tasks to me, but I have no one to delegate to. - **One nearby foothold:** the contractor budget for design goes through me. That is already a small piece of ownership, and I can expand it. ## Step 4. Usefulness level and a +1 move, Chapter 5 - **My default level:** 2, "I do what I am asked, do it well, and use AI to do it faster." - **Candidate task for +1:** the monthly lead report. Today I "make" it. I want to own the conclusion. The deliverable should be a page called "What this means and what we change," with my name on it, rather than a spreadsheet. ## Step 5. Personal system, Chapter 6 - **My weakest layer:** verification. AI writes drafts, but I do not have a checklist for accepting them. I rely on feel, which makes me afraid to delegate more. - **What AI already does in my tasks:** drafts, headline options, and call summaries. ## Step 6. One skill that is gaining value, Chapter 7 - **The skill I train deliberately:** customer judgment. Once a week, I review two deals with the sales team. Why did the customer arrive? Why did they buy or leave? The data does not contain those answers. ## Step 7. My mode of working with AI, Chapter 8 - **My mode:** honestly, I am a self-automator when I work on copy. I delegate it and do not read deeply. - **What I do without AI once a week:** I write one piece from scratch each month. It is a positioning piece where I must form the idea, not fill a format. This is training, not production. ## Step 8. Diagnosis, Chapter 9 - **What gets cheaper:** content production. About 35% of my week is already in 🟢. - **Weak point:** I have no verification loop of my own and accept AI work by feel. - **Value that does not burn away:** knowledge of the customer, trust from sales, and a sense for whether a lead is right for us. - **My +1:** own the conclusions about leads, not the spreadsheet. ## Step 9. Who I am, Chapter 10 - **I am responsible for:** bringing in the right customers and making sure they arrive prepared. My old answer was, "I create content and newsletters." ## Step 10. A 90-day plan, Chapter 11 - **One task:** the monthly lead report. - **Old rule:** "I collect the figures in a spreadsheet and send it out." - **New rule:** "AI collects the figures using my template → I check them against a 5-point checklist → I write half a page of conclusions → I defend them in the planning meeting." - **The capability I keep:** interpretation. I explain why the figures look this way and what should change. - **A verifiable change after 90 days:** the planning meeting discusses my conclusions rather than my spreadsheet. At least one decision each quarter follows my recommendation. - **The next level of responsibility:** ownership of one channel's budget. - **What remains as a system:** a report template, a verification checklist, and 30 minutes blocked in the calendar for conclusions. --- ## What to notice in this example 1. **None of the answers is heroic.** Marina does not become an "AI evangelist." She moves her effort from production, which is getting cheaper, to judgment and ownership of the conclusion, which are gaining value. 2. **The weak point was not where she expected it.** The issue is not "I cannot prompt." It is "I do not have my own verification loop." This is common because verification limits delegation. 3. **The plan rests on one task.** She is not trying to "change careers." She has one report, one habit, and one metric. That is a realistic scale for 90 days. Complete your own [Volume 1 workbook](../playbooks/tom1-workbook.md). See [the catalog](index.md) for more examples. --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Personal 90-day plan (30-60-90) > Practicum for Chapter 11, "Your First 90 Days: A Personal Plan." Time: 30 to 40 minutes. > Start with your diagnosis from Chapter 9 in the [Integrated profession audit map](profession-audit-integrated.md) and the Transferability Canvas in the book's appendix. Chapter 11 gives you a frame: one repeated task carried through to a change you can verify, not a list of 20 goals. This worksheet turns the chapter's one-page plan into a fillable form. Choose one task and finish it. A plan only works when you keep using it. ## Main form: one task for 90 days Do not create several goals in parallel. Take one task through an old rule, a new way of working, and a change you can verify. - **Task:** `________________________________________________________________` - **Old rule I follow now:** `_________________________________` - **New rule I want to make a habit:** `_______________________________________` - **Capability I will keep and practice myself:** `____________________________` - **Change that should be visible after 90 days:** `___________________________` > If you have several candidate tasks, choose one where someone else will notice the improvement, the work will leave behind a repeatable method, and AI will free you to use stronger judgment and take more responsibility. > The [Weak Multiplier Canvas](weak-multiplier-canvas.md) is only an extra filter. ## Choose a capability to practice: Naval's four pillars The hardest field is "Capability I will keep and practice myself." When AI makes production cheaper, skills that anyone can quickly hire or copy lose some of their advantage. Investor Naval Ravikant described four pillars that have become even more useful in the AI era. Treat them as a guide for choosing a capability to protect and practice, not as a secret formula for success. - **Specific knowledge.** You cannot learn it from a standard textbook or hire an identical replacement on the market. It grows from your path, curiosity, and unusual mix of interests. The more specific it is, the harder it is to copy. To practice it, follow your real interests instead of someone else's list of skills "in demand." - **Judgment.** When leverage such as AI is cheap and available to almost everyone, the amount of work matters less than the quality of the decisions about where to use it and where not to trust it. Practice judgment at the AI-free checkpoints that you keep for yourself during days 1 to 30. - **Building and selling.** One capability creates the result. The other gets it to the people who need it. Together they can produce an outsized return. AI can support both, but does not replace either one. - **Accountability.** Leverage and trust go to the person who takes a visible risk and puts their name behind the result, not simply to the person who works the most hours. This connects directly to the evidence you will collect during days 31 to 60: a result under your own name. This is one investor's view, not research or a guarantee of income. Use the structure without borrowing anyone else's numbers or promises. For more on leverage and its connection to transferability, see the [Weak Multiplier Canvas](weak-multiplier-canvas.md). The original sources are Naval Ravikant's "How to Get Rich (without getting lucky)" (2018) and Eric Jorgenson's *The Almanack of Naval Ravikant* (2020, navalmanack.com). ## Example: a contract review workflow These completed fields show the method. The example does not describe a real company. - **Task:** First review of standard contracts. - **Old rule:** Send every legal question to outside counsel immediately. - **New rule:** Check a standard risk internally first, using the team's accumulated practice. - **What stays with a human:** Decide whether the case is standard, verify the conclusion, and decide whether a lawyer is needed. - **Verifiable change:** The first review of a standard contract takes 15 to 20 minutes instead of several days of waiting. The team sends far fewer routine questions to outside counsel. - **Safety boundary:** The data is anonymized or allowed under internal policy. A human, not the model, makes the final legal decision. ## Days 1 to 30: build the working method - **What AI does:** `___________________________________________________________` - **What I check and decide:** `____________________________________________________` - **Where the work stops without a human:** `___________________________________` - **Baseline** (how it works now): `_______________________________________________` - **First sign of improvement:** `__________________________________________________` - **How I limit cognitive debt** (what I do without AI): `______________________` ## Days 31 to 60: turn the method into a change - **What should change for a customer, team, or process:** `________________________` - **How I will prove the change** (metric / decision / feedback / working document): `________` - **How I will know the change happened:** `____________________________________________` - **What did not work and what I will adjust:** `__________________________________________` ## Days 61 to 90: take more responsibility and make it stick - **Which result I now own more fully:** `_________________________________` - **What makes the new method repeatable** (calendar time / template / check / responsible person): `_______________________________________________________` - **When I will review this way of working:** `______________________________________` - **How I will know the change lasted:** `____________________________________________` ## The metric: "How will I know it changed?" You do not always need a number. You need an honest answer to "What will show me that it worked?" For example: "The report used to take a day and now takes 30 minutes"; "Three people in my industry shared my analysis"; or "I was invited to a project that had not considered me before." ## Check in on days 30, 60, and 90 At the end of each period, return to the plan and mark what moved, what did not, and why. This is not an exam. It keeps you from dropping the plan and helps you adjust your course. A career is more like a climbing wall than a ladder. You need the next hold, not a view of the top. | Day | What I check | What changed | Which rule won | What I change next | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 30 | | | | | | 60 | | | | | | 90 | | | | | > Be honest: This plan cannot guarantee a result. It can improve the odds. Set your own pace instead of borrowing one from the book, and start small. > > Back: [Chapter 11 Practicum](../chapters/11-pervye-90-dney-lichnyy-plan.md) | [Weak Multiplier Canvas](weak-multiplier-canvas.md) | [Integrated profession audit map](profession-audit-integrated.md) | [Cognitive debt checklist](cognitive-debt-checklist.md) | [One skill that is becoming more valuable](five-deficits-audit.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Weak Multiplier Canvas > Practicum for Chapter 11, "Your First 90 Days: A Personal Plan." Time: 15 to 20 minutes. > This is an **extra filter for choosing a task**, not the foundation of the plan or a law. Build your 90-day plan around one task in the [Personal 90-day plan](personal-90-day-plan.md). Use this canvas when you are not sure which task to choose. **Faster option:** The [interactive browser version](../skills/weak-multiplier-canvas/) multiplies your scores and shows where you have a zero. You do not need to install anything, and your data stays on your device. Your market value works more like a **product** than a sum. If one of the four multipliers is close to zero, the total is also close to zero. If you do not know which task to start with, choose one that raises the weakest multiplier. **market x leverage x transferability x expertise** ## Score each multiplier from 0 to 3 | Multiplier | What it means | Score (0 to 3) | Why this score | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | **Market** | Whether people want what you do and how strong the demand is | | | | **Leverage** | Whether software, an audience, or agents multiply one hour of your work, or whether one hour still buys one hour of result | | | | **Transferability** | Whether the value can keep working without your constant presence, as an asset, reputation, product, or code | | | | **Expertise** | How strong you are in your field, even if the field is narrow | | | **Product** (multiply the four scores): `____`. If any score is 0, the product is 0. You can immediately see what is holding the whole system back. ## Find the weakest multiplier `____________________` For many specialists, **leverage** and **transferability** are the first weak points. Both connect to the book's main question: How do you stop selling only your time as output and start building something that owns the outcome and works without your constant presence? ## Find the old rule behind it - **If Market is weak:** Your old rule may be "My profession explains my value for me." - **If Leverage is weak:** Your old rule may be "My work equals my hours." - **If Transferability is weak:** Your old rule may be "The value exists only while I am personally at the desk." - **If Expertise is weak:** Your old rule may be "It is enough to answer quickly and know many facts." My old rule: `____________________________________________________________________________` New rule for my 90-day plan: `______________________________________________________________` ## One move for 90 days What is the one thing you will do to raise the weakest multiplier? `____________________________________________________________________________` Move the chosen task into the [Personal 90-day plan](personal-90-day-plan.md): old rule -> new rule -> capability -> verifiable change. Tip: The verifiable change in days 31 to 60 is already a move toward transferability. You are building something that works and creates a result without your constant involvement. ## Where the Leverage multiplier comes from The idea comes from investor and entrepreneur Naval Ravikant's 2018 thread, "How to Get Rich (without getting lucky)," and Eric Jorgenson's 2020 book *The Almanack of Naval Ravikant*, available at navalmanack.com. Naval describes three forms of leverage: - **Labor:** Hiring and delegating to other people. - **Capital:** Money that can keep working. - **Permissionless leverage:** Code and media. They can be copied at almost no cost, and you do not need someone's approval to use them, unlike labor and capital. In this canvas, **transferability** is a practical test for the third form of leverage. It asks whether an asset can keep working and be copied without your constant involvement. Naval also names two pillars that do not appear as separate multipliers here but still matter: - **Specific knowledge:** Knowledge that grew from your path and curiosity, rather than a textbook. It is hard to copy or replace with an identical hire. - **Judgment:** When leverage such as AI is cheap and widely available, the amount of labor matters less than the quality of the decisions about what to do with it. This is not a formula for wealth or a guarantee of results. It is one investor's view, not a research finding. This canvas borrows the structure without borrowing anyone else's numbers or promises. > Source: Naval Ravikant, "How to Get Rich (without getting lucky)" (Twitter/X, 2018); organized in Eric Jorgenson, *The Almanack of Naval Ravikant* (2020, navalmanack.com). > > For a deeper test of transferability, see the Transferability Canvas in the book's appendix. > > Back: [Chapter 11 Practicum](../chapters/11-pervye-90-dney-lichnyy-plan.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. --- name: optimize-my-work description: >- Helps professionals break their work into tasks and decide what to give AI, what to keep, and which tools may help, using the method from *When Intelligence Became Cheap*: output gets cheaper, while value moves to outcome. Use when a user names a profession or shares a typical week and asks how to improve the work with AI, what to delegate, or which tools to use. Triggers include "optimize my work as a [profession]," "what should I give AI," "break down my tasks," and "how can a [role] use AI?" license: MIT --- # Optimize work by profession This is a ready-to-use skill for an AI assistant. Copy the full block below into any AI chat without cutting sections. Then name your profession and describe 5 to 10 real tasks from the past week. ```text You are a practical assistant who avoids hype. Do not promise "easy money" or "100 prompts." Help the person see their work clearly and make one real move. Keep your voice calm and direct. Ask for anything the user did not provide: 1. Profession or role. 2. 5-10 real tasks from the past week. Ask for specifics, such as "reviewed a contract," not "worked on a project." 3. Optional: their country or region, tools they already use, and any access, budget, or employer limits that affect which services they can use. What to do: 1. Sort the tasks into three groups. Use the logic of GDPval for capability and the Anthropic Economic Index for what people actually delegate: - GREEN, "AI alone": routine work with a clear input and a result that a person can check quickly. - YELLOW, "person + AI": the machine provides volume or a draft; the person holds context and review. - RED, "person only": judgment, accountability, trust, and difficult communication. 2. Explain what becomes cheaper and what becomes more valuable in this role (output to outcome). 3. Suggest a minimum stack of no more than 3 tools. Name the category, give 1-2 examples that may be available in the user's region, and mark important access or price limits. Options may include ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, DeepSeek, or Qwen. Do not assume that any service is available. Say "check current availability." 4. Name red flags: where AI is dangerous in this profession, including hallucinations, personal data, and accountability. State what must not be delegated. 5. Give one move for this week. Choose one YELLOW or RED task, take it to an outcome, and say what the person must check. 6. Show one weak and better prompt pair for the user's task. Ask for options and weak spots instead of a finished answer, which helps limit cognitive debt. Required discipline: - "Do not trust it. Check it." Mark what the person must verify. - Do not invent tools, prices, or links. If unsure, say "check current information" or [verify]. - Do not present one answer as permanent. Task groups move and tools age, so include the date. - Do not label the person. A mode or level describes a task, not a personality. - End with one specific move, not a five-page program. Response format: 1. A table: task / group / what becomes cheaper or more valuable. 2. Minimum stack (no more than 3, with access labels). 3. Red flags (2-4 points). 4. One move for the week and what to check. 5. One weak to better prompt pair. 6. Where to go next: suggest combining the diagnosis in the integrated audit and building a 90-day plan. ``` --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. --- name: week-inventory description: >- Sorts a person's real working week into three baskets — 🟢 "AI on its own", 🟡 "human + AI", 🔴 "human only" — measures the share of time in 🟢+🟡 (their exposure to cheap intelligence) and finds busywork tasks that pull no value lever. From chapter 3 of "The Human Edge". Use when the user lists their tasks for a week, asks which parts of their job AI can already do, or how exposed their role is. Triggers "sort my week", "what will AI take from my job", "my exposure", "week inventory". license: MIT --- # Week inventory (Practicum for "When Intelligence Became Cheap") 📋 A ready-made skill for an AI assistant. Drop this file into your agent's skills folder — or copy the block below into any chat and list last week's tasks. The worksheet this comes from, for filling in by hand: [Week inventory](../../playbooks/week-inventory.md). ```text Help me sort my working week into the three baskets from "The Human Edge" (chapter 3). The baskets: 🟢 "AI on its own" — routine work with a clear input and a checkable output; 🟡 "human + AI" — the machine gives me a draft or volume, I hold the context and the check; 🔴 "human only" — judgment, accountability, trust, difficult conversations. Collect from me if I have not given it: 1. Ten to fifteen real tasks from last week, taken from my calendar and messages — what actually happened, not what should have. Specific ones: "reviewed a contract", not "worked on a project". 2. Roughly how long each took. What to do: 1. For each task, name the basket and the value lever it pulls: ① revenue and growth · ② cost saving · ③ attention and trust · "—" if it is busywork pulling no lever. 2. Work out the share of my time in 🟢+🟡. That is my exposure to cheap intelligence. 3. Count how many tasks landed on lever "—". 4. Give me a summary I can copy and keep. 5. Ask me three honest questions. The first is fixed: where am I hiding in busywork instead of strengthening the 🔴 task where I am genuinely hard to replace? Discipline: - Do not decide for me. This is a map, not a verdict: a basket describes a task, not me. - Do not flatter. If a task looks 🔴 only because I would prefer it that way, say so. - The goal is not to get faster at 🟢 but to move weight into 🔴, where the price is rising. - Baskets drift. Say that this is worth redoing in about six months. - Do not invent tools, numbers or links. If unsure, say "check this". Answer format: 1. Table: task | time | basket | lever. 2. Exposure: share of time in 🟢+🟡, one line. 3. Busywork tasks (lever "—") as a list. 4. Three honest questions. 5. One move for the week: which 🟡/🔴 task to strengthen and what I will check myself. ``` --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. --- name: value-levers-filter description: >- Runs a single task through the three value levers — growth and new revenue, cost saving, attention and trust — and says what in it is output (getting cheaper, automate) and what is outcome (getting more valuable, keep). From chapter 2 of "The Human Edge". Use when the user asks whether a task is worth their time, what to hand to AI, or why some of their work is losing value. Triggers "should I be doing this", "output or outcome", "what do I hand to AI here", "three value levers". license: MIT --- # The three value levers (Practicum for "When Intelligence Became Cheap") 📋 A ready-made skill for an AI assistant. Drop this file into your agent's skills folder — or copy the block below into any chat and name one specific task. The worksheet this comes from, for filling in by hand: [The three value levers](../../playbooks/value-levers-filter.md). ```text Help me take ONE task through the three value levers from "The Human Edge" (chapter 2). Collect from me if I have not given it: 1. One specific task. Not "marketing" but "I write the weekly customer newsletter". 2. How long it takes and how often it repeats. What to do: 1. Name the lever — exactly one, the main one: ① growth and new revenue — the thing others cannot do; ② cost saving — the same thing cheaper or faster; ③ attention and trust — the reason people pick me specifically. If none of them fits, say so plainly: this is busywork. 2. Answer two questions honestly: (1) can cheap AI already do this — almost entirely / partly / no; (2) does it set me apart — uniquely / somewhat / no more than anyone else. 3. Reach a verdict: this is output (getting cheaper — automate it and free the time) or outcome (strengthen it — ownership, judgment, trust, attention). 4. Give ONE move: what exactly to hand to AI, and which outcome to keep. Discipline: - No hype and no promises of money. Not "you will earn more" but "the price rises here, falls there". - If the task looks unique but everyone in the field does it, say so directly. - "Automate" does not mean "stop being accountable": name what I still check. - Do not invent tools, prices or links. If unsure, say "check this". Answer format: 1. The lever and why that one. 2. Two answers: can AI do it · does it set me apart. 3. Verdict: output or outcome, in one line. 4. One move: what to hand over, what to keep, what I will check. ``` --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. --- name: five-deficits-audit description: >- Runs a person's real tasks through the five deficits that grow more valuable as AI makes routine work cheap: judgment, taste, trust, attention, distribution. Picks the one deficit where a move pays off most this quarter. From chapter 7 of "The Human Edge". Use when the user asks which skills are worth building now, why their expertise is not being paid for, or what to work on this quarter. Triggers "which skills are getting more valuable", "what should I build", "five deficits audit", "why am I undervalued". license: MIT --- # The five deficits audit (Practicum for "When Intelligence Became Cheap") 📋 A ready-made skill for an AI assistant. Drop this file into your agent's skills folder — or copy the block below into any chat and describe two or three real tasks from your week. The worksheet this comes from, for filling in by hand: [The five deficits audit](../../playbooks/five-deficits-audit.md). ```text Run my work through the five deficits that grow more valuable as AI makes routine work cheap ("The Human Edge", chapter 7): judgment, taste, trust, attention, distribution. Collect from me if I have not given it: 1. Two or three real tasks from last week — what I actually did, not my job description. 2. How each one ended: who accepted the result and what happened next. What to do: 1. For each of the five deficits, give one of four marks: — strong: there is an example with consequences, not a self-assessment; — neutral; — weak; — "not counted": I do have it, but the market, my manager or the client does not see or price it. 2. Trust is confirmed by other people's behaviour — they sign without reading, call me without a tender, rely on me without checking — not by how I feel about myself. Hold to that rule. 3. Do not give me three moves. Pick ONE deficit where a move pays off most over the coming quarter. 4. Propose a concrete step, and say how I will know in three months that I actually closed it. Discipline: - Mark by evidence, not by how I describe myself. No example means "not counted" — say so. - Call it out separately when a strength exists but nobody sees it: that calls for a different move than building the skill further. - No "develop your taste" without specifics. The step has to be something I can start this week. - Do not invent studies, numbers or courses. If unsure, say "check this". Answer format: 1. Table: deficit | mark | what the mark rests on. 2. The one deficit chosen, and why that one. 3. The concrete step for the quarter. 4. The three-month check: what has to change for this to count as closed. ``` --- # Book 2: Business in the Age of AI Agents --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. --- reading_level: b2-c1-technical title: "Book 2 Workbook: Business in the Age of AI Agents" description: A route for managers and business owners, from an honest maturity check to a governed agent team and a change compass. --- # Book 2 Workbook: Business in the Age of AI Agents > The end-to-end Practicum route for *Business in the Age of AI Agents* (Book 2 in the > *When Intelligence Became Cheap* series). > This route through the contents is for **managers and business owners**. It starts with an honest > maturity check and moves toward an agent-based team, a market where an agent buys, and a change > compass. Professionals can use the [Volume 1 Workbook](tom1-workbook.md). > > **Your business functions are the axis of this route.** Volume 2 is organized around company > functions such as sales, support, analytics, HR, and operations. A manager examines functions, not > one profession. Browse [business cases](../watch/business-cases.md) for examples by function. --- ## The minimum agent governance package If you do not have time for the full volume, build at least this package for **one** process: 1. [Process scoring](process-scoring.md) to choose a place where an agent can pay off. 2. [Human Review Matrix](human-review-matrix.md) to decide what AI can do alone, what requires a review, and what must stay with a person. 3. [Agent Contract](agent-contract.md) to define the role, access, owner, escalation path, and stop threshold. 4. [Evaluation set](eval-set-builder.md) to test the agent against past cases with known outcomes. 5. **Shadow mode:** two weeks of real work with no right to reply to a customer or the market on its own. This is the minimum governance chain. Without it, an "agent in the process" remains a demo rather than a managed change. --- ## Teams and business (Chapters 1 to 6) **Step 1: Rebuild, do not decorate (Chapter 1).** Be honest. Did you "bolt AI onto" the process, or did you rebuild it? - Artifact: [Process maturity check](ai-native-maturity-check.md). - **My maturity level (1 to 6):** `____` · **where we only "bolted it on":** `__________________` **Step 2: Move from output to outcome (Chapter 2).** Decide what the agent can do and what stays with a person. - Artifact: [Human Review Matrix](human-review-matrix.md). - Live page: [Autonomy boundary](../watch/output-to-outcome-watch.md). - **Task for evaluation:** `__________________` · **decision owner:** `____________` **Step 3: A team with agents (Chapter 3).** Define the role, access, review, escalation, and owner. - Artifact: [Agent Contract](agent-contract.md) + [team-brain starter kit](team-brain-starter.md). **Step 4: A company of one (Chapter 4).** Put one complete function on agents under supervision. - Prompt: [Reinvent the company from zero](../prompts/zero-human-company-reframe.md). - Checklist: [Resilient automation](resilient-automation.md). - Live page: [The zero-human company](../watch/zero-human-company.md). **Step 5: An agent-based staff for an SMB (Chapter 5).** Map functions against financial priority and choose where to start. - Artifact: [SMB staff map](smb-staff-map.md) + [where to start checklist](smb-start-checklist.md). - **Function with the fastest cash impact:** `__________________` **Step 6: When the customer is not human (Chapter 6).** Can the buying agent find and understand you? - Live pages: [Agent commerce protocols](../watch/agent-protocols.md) · [agentic browsers](../watch/agentic-browsers.md). - Artifact: [Can an agent see me? checklist](../skills/visible-to-agent/) + [AI search visibility worksheet](geo-ai-search-kit.md). - **Where an agent cannot find or understand me:** `__________________` ## Beyond the person and the company (Chapters 7 to 10) - **Chapter 7: Children:** [what to teach when answers become cheap](kids-ai-skills-guide.md) · [family 3C audit](family-3c-audit.md) · [AI tutor prompt](ai-tutor-training-mode.md) · [AI skills and tools for children](../watch/kids-skills.md). - **Chapter 8: The new economy:** [Your own ladder: three materials](own-ladder.md) · [Who owns your ladder?](ladder-ownership-audit.md) · [AI and the labor market](../watch/labor-market.md). - **The thinnest material in my ladder (work / relationships / reputation):** `__________________` - **Chapter 9: Physical AI:** [Platform rent map](platform-rent-map.md) · [Who owns the rails?](../watch/physical-ai-rails.md). - **My total platform rent as a share of revenue:** `____%` - **Chapter 10: 2030 scenarios:** [Which world are you building?](which-world.md) · [No-regret moves](no-regret-moves.md) · [AGI claim check](agi-claim-check.md) · [Signals without fog](../watch/agi-signals.md). - **My weakest no-regret move:** `__________________` ## Final step (Chapter 11: The Change Compass) **Use a compass, not a calendar: four arrows and seven gates.** Bring the conclusions above into one route. Move when a gate is passed, not because a date arrived. - **WHERE arrow:** [Process scoring](process-scoring.md), with five questions about where an AI agent can pay off. - **Worked example:** [IKEA through the Change Compass](ikea-compass-example.md), a public case run through four arrows and seven gates. - **Route:** [Change gates: Order of Moves](change-gates.md), the printable Volume 2 capstone. - **PEOPLE arrow:** [Learning without a box-ticking course](training-in-the-loop.md). - **By role:** [manager route](manager-gates-route.md) · [business route](business-gates-route.md). - **My process for the first round:** `__________________` --- ## My one-page result Bring the route conclusions into one table. This is a business profile you can take to a team meeting or discuss with a partner. | Question | My conclusion | |---|---| | 1. Maturity level + where we only "bolted it on" | `____` / `____________` | | 2. Task for evaluation + decision owner | `____________` | | 3. First agent: role, boundaries, owner | `____________` | | 5. Function with the fastest cash impact | `____________` | | 6. Where a customer agent cannot find me | `____________` | | 8. The thinnest material in my ladder | `____________` | | 1. Is this a rebuild or decoration? | `____` | | 2. What do we give to the agent, and what stays with a person? | `____` | | 3. First agent: role, access, review, escalation | `____` | | 4. Which function can become a supervised "company of one"? | `____` | | 5. Function with the fastest cash impact for an SMB | `____` | | 6. Where can a buying agent not see us? | `____` | | 7. What must people practice instead of replacing it with an answer? | `____` | | 8. Who owns our value ladder? | `____` | | 9. Platform rent as a share of revenue | `____` | | 10. No-regret move for 2030 | `____` | | 11. First change round: process, gate, owner | `____` | | 10. Weakest no-regret move | `____________` | | 11. First-round process + nearest gate | `____________` | Use this prompt for a second opinion: ```text Here is my business profile from the Volume 2 Workbook for When Intelligence Became Cheap. It covers maturity, evaluation, the first agent, the function with the fastest cash impact, agent visibility, the value ladder, rent, no-regret moves, and the first change round. Check it for honesty. Where do the conclusions conflict? Where am I overestimating our readiness? Which gate am I trying to skip? Do not suggest "put AI everywhere." Ask three questions that will help me improve the first round. [paste the table] ``` See a completed route in the [small-business owner example](../cases/persona-vladelec-msp.md) and the [support manager example](../cases/persona-rukovoditel-podderzhki.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Process maturity check: surface polish or rebuild? > Practicum for **Volume 2, Chapter 1**, "AI Is Not a Plugin. It Is a Rebuild." Time: 35-45 minutes. > Warning: choose **one process**, not the whole company. It could be a contract, an application, customer support, reporting, > lead generation, purchasing, or hiring. This check is a mirror for a useful conversation, not a consulting score. > Interactive version: [process maturity check](../skills/ai-native-maturity-check/). AI creates value when it changes the process, not when a team bolts it onto the old way of working. This worksheet helps you see where one process stands today and choose the next move. --- ## A. Choose a process - **Process:** `________________________` - **Where AI is already used:** `________________________` - **Outcome that should change** (money, speed, risk, or customer result): `________________` - **Where you can see money, speed, or risk today:** `________________________` ## B. Six signs of a real rebuild Check what is **already true**, not what you plan to do. Each sign describes the process, not a slogan. - [ ] **The work map has changed.** The steps are different rather than "the same work, faster." - [ ] **The roles have changed.** People do different work than they did a year ago, with more framing and review. - [ ] **The metrics have changed.** You track the result or cycle, not the amount of work produced. - [ ] **Quality review is built in.** It is part of the flow, not something done "when there is time." - [ ] **A person remains at the critical point.** A person decides when the cost of an error is high. - [ ] **There is a measurable result.** It affects the customer or the money instead of ending at an "AI implementation." Number of checked boxes: `___ / 6`. ## C. Level 0-5 Where is the process **now**, not where you want it to be? | Level | What it means | |---|---| | 0 | AI is not used | | 1 | Chaos: people experiment by instinct, without a system | | 2 | Personal productivity: a few people work faster, but the process is unchanged | | 3 | Team process: the team has agreed where and how to use AI, and review is in place | | 4 | Operating model: the process has been rebuilt around AI, with new roles and metrics | | 5 | AI-native: the old form of the process no longer exists, and the result is measurable | My level for this process: `___`. ## D. Diagnosis - **0-2 boxes / level 1-2: surface polish.** AI has been bolted on, so you do the old work faster. That is a normal starting point, but the source of value has not changed yet. - **3-4 boxes / level 3: transition.** Roles and review have started to change. The question is whether you finish the rebuild or fall back to simple acceleration. - **5-6 boxes / level 4-5: a system rebuild.** The process is genuinely different. Your next task is to scale it while keeping a person at the critical point. My diagnosis: `________________`. ## E. One next move Do not write a one-year plan. Choose **one** move that takes the process from surface polish toward a rebuild. - What changes in the **work map:** `________________` - Which **role** owns the result: `________________` - Which **outcome metric** replaces volume: `________________` - Where the **review** happens, and who reviews it instead of another AI: `________________` - Where a person must be able to **stop** the process: `________________` --- ## Next - If you lead the team or company, test the business with a stricter frame: [Reimagine the company from zero](../prompts/zero-human-company-reframe.md). - If you are at level 2-3, decide what AI may do and what a person should keep: [Human Review Matrix](human-review-matrix.md) (Chapter 2). - Follow the full route in the [Volume 2 Workbook](tom2-workbook.md). > Warning: this is a diagnosis of one process, not a company rating. The score should prompt thought, not pass judgment. --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Prompt: rebuild a company from zero (Zero Human Company reframe) > A working tool for **Volume 2, Chapter 1** ("AI is not a plugin. It is reconstruction") and > **Chapter 4** ("The Company of One"). Chapter 1 ends with a question: are you attaching AI to an old > process, or **changing the process itself**? This prompt takes the second option seriously. It asks > you to view the company as **one cognitive function** rather than a hierarchy of people, then rebuild > it for cheap intelligence. **Date: 2026-06.** > > **An honest frame, without hype.** "Zero Human Company" is a fashionable label. The goal here is not > a company without people. The goal is to see what part of the business is *intermediation* that may > disappear, and what remains human: distribution, trust, and accountability. You remain the **owner > of the outcome**. This is a thinking tool, not a plan for firing a team. Check the AI's answers and > make the decisions yourself. > > For the general method, see [Prompts: method and review](index.md). ## How to use it 1. Open a capable model from this [list](../start/01-vybrat-neyroset.md). 2. Paste the full prompt and complete the "My company context" section. 3. The model will ask five follow-up questions first. Answer them honestly and avoid general phrases. 4. Treat the analysis as a critic's opinion, not a verdict. Check the reasoning and argue with it. --- ```text # ROLE You are the founder's strategy partner and critic. You are not a McKinsey consultant, motivational coach, or AI evangelist. Guide me through rebuilding the company with the Zero Human Company principle: the company is one cognitive function, not a hierarchy of 200 biological brains. # MY COMPANY CONTEXT - What we do: [describe it in 2-3 sentences] - Team size: [people] - Revenue / stage: [RUB millions, growth, profit] - Main product or service: [what] - Our customer: [segment, industry] - What currently acts as "intermediation" between parties: [answer honestly] - Where the pain is greatest now: [symptom, not cause] # WHAT I WANT FROM YOU 1. IDENTIFY MY COMPANY'S COGNITIVE FUNCTION. What do we really do after removing the people, departments, and procedures from the description? Write one plain sentence without grand language. 2. FIND THE INTERMEDIATION. Where does my business model make money by connecting two people, systems, or processes? Name it directly. This is the part that may disappear within 2-5 years. 3. REBUILD THE COMPANY FROM ZERO. Do not digitize the current setup. Rebuild it. Give me 5-7 basic prompts that could form the company's system foundation if we started today. 4. DESIGN THE AGENT ARCHITECTURE. Do not "automate Maria's and Peter's tasks." Explain which agents live inside the cognitive function, how they replicate x2, and which 3 parallel scenarios I can start tomorrow. 5. MAP DECLINE AND GROWTH. Which current roles and departments will no longer be needed in 2 years? Which new roles will appear? Who on the team is most likely to succeed in the new architecture, even if that person is not the obvious choice today? 6. MY ONE-MONTH WINDOW. What opportunity should I act on in my market right now? Look for a window of 4-8 weeks, not a year. 7. 60 MINUTES TODAY. What can I do in one hour without leaving my desk to start the process? Be specific. Do not tell me to "think about it." # RULES - No filler. Do not use 5C, SWOT, McKinsey frameworks, "key drivers," or "synergies." - If my context is weak, ask questions instead of guessing. - If my answer is vague, say: "This says nothing. Rewrite it." - If my business is intermediation, do not soften the answer. Say: "You have 2 years." - Do not flatter me. I pay for criticism, not praise. - Think like a founder with 100 agents on the team, not a corporate analyst. # START Before you answer, repeat your understanding of my business inputs and ask 5 follow-up questions that you need for a useful analysis. ``` --- ## After the analysis, run three checks from the book - **Intermediation is not distribution.** AI weakens intermediation when a business only connects A and B. Access to customers, trust, and accountability for the outcome become more valuable. Do not cut your customer relationship when you mean to cut intermediation. See Volume 2, Chapters 1 and 6. - **Make the function autonomous, not the whole company.** Chapter 4 gives a more honest boundary. A function can run on agents under supervision. An entire company cannot safely run on autopilot. Where will you keep a person at the critical point? - **Outcome, not output.** The new architecture should change decision speed, risk, or money rather than the amount produced. If the metric stays the same, the redesign is still cosmetic. > The [What to Watch](../watch/skills-now.md) section covers the "Zero Human Company" trend, platforms, > and recent cases that age quickly. This page keeps only the thinking tool that should last longer. --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # What AI should do and what people should keep (Human Review Matrix) > Practicum for **Volume 2, Chapter 2**, "More Output Does Not Mean More Value." > Time: 15-20 minutes. One process on one screen, not a 10-page AI policy. An outcome does not come from producing more output. It comes from a process with the right review and the right metric. This worksheet turns the chapter's main advice into an exercise: take one process and decide what the machine may do, what needs review, and what a person should keep. **How to fill it in.** List 5-7 tasks from **one** process as rows. Work through the columns for each task. Record the decision in the "Mode" column. A minimum governance packet is the small set of documents that defines control and ownership. This matrix is the second worksheet. First choose a process with [process scoring](process-scoring.md). Use this matrix to assign a mode to each task. Then define the agent with an [Agent Contract](agent-contract.md) and test it on an [evaluation set](eval-set-builder.md). | Task | Cost of error | Reversible? | Can it be described as a process? | Can you check it? | Mode | Control layer | Flow metric | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | `________` | low / medium / high | yes / no | yes / no | yes / no | AI alone / review required / person only | | | | `________` | | | | | | | | | `________` | | | | | | | | | `________` | | | | | | | | | `________` | | | | | | | | **What the columns mean:** - **Cost of error:** what happens if AI gets it wrong and nobody notices. - **Reversible:** whether you can undo the action if the wrong result goes out. - **Can it be described as a process?** This is the chapter's filter. If the answer is no, the task is not ready for a machine. - **Can you check it?** Whether you have a quick way to tell if the result is right, such as a reference answer, rule, or eval. - **Mode:** the final decision for the task. - **Control layer** for "review required": visibility, guardrails, access limits, or a person at the critical point. - **Flow metric:** one end-to-end measure instead of output volume, such as time to result or the share completed without rework. ## Default logic - High cost of error plus poor reversibility means **person only**, or a person at the critical point. - If you cannot describe the task as a process, **do not hand it over yet**. Understand it first. - If you cannot check the result, **build the check first**. Otherwise, you have a demo rather than a result. ## Output A completed matrix for one process and **one** end-to-end metric that you track instead of volume. Return in three months and see what has moved from "person only" to "review required." --- ## Next - For tasks marked "AI alone" or "review required," define the agent with an [Agent Contract](agent-contract.md) (Chapter 3). - Do not send the first version straight to production. Build an [evaluation set](eval-set-builder.md) and run it in shadow mode, where it drafts or observes without taking live action. - Reviewing output is a scarce skill. Train it with [Skills Watch](../watch/skills-that-pay.md) (Volume 1, Chapter 7). - Follow the full route in the [Volume 2 Workbook](tom2-workbook.md). > The chapter covers flow metrics. This worksheet decides who does what. ⚠️ Check the output outside the model. --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Agent Contract > Practicum for **Volume 2, Chapter 3**, "A Team with Agents." Time: 15-20 minutes per agent. > Use one sheet for one agent. Copy the template and fill it in for your case. An agent is not a "magic employee." It is a role with clear boundaries, review, and a **human owner**. The contract turns "let's add AI" into an agreement the team can understand and enforce. A minimum governance packet is the small set of documents that defines control and ownership. In that packet, the contract follows the [Human Review Matrix](human-review-matrix.md). The matrix decides which tasks can be handed over. The contract defines **one** agent, its permissions, and its brakes. Do not scale right away. Test the agent on an [evaluation set](eval-set-builder.md) and in shadow mode first, where it drafts or observes without taking live action. ## Template: 10 fields | Field | What to enter | |---|---| | **Role** | the agent's name and function | | **Mission** | one sentence explaining why it exists | | **Inputs** | the data and formats it accepts | | **Tools** | the systems, APIs, and files it may access | | **Memory** | what it remembers between sessions, and what must **never** enter memory | | **Boundaries** | what the agent **never** does without approval | | **Escalation** | the conditions that send the task to a person | | **Review** | how and when a person checks the result, rather than one AI checking another | | **Metrics** | 1-2 numbers that show whether it works | | **Owner** | the name of the person accountable for it | > Default rule: without **Boundaries + Escalation + Owner**, this is a wish, not a contract. All three are required from day one. ### A measurable threshold gate: KPI -> escalation -> stop A contract metric is not something to report at the end. It is a **guardrail**, a preset threshold that makes the agent stop and call a person. Connect three fields in one rule: | What you define | Example | |---|---| | **Signal metric** | share of answers accepted without edits; unusual numbers; escalation rate; daily cost | | **Threshold**, set in advance | "below 85% accepted without edits"; "difference > 10%"; "> N requests in a row"; "above the ₽/day limit" | | **Action at the threshold** | pause and human review; return to manual work; owner-triggered shutdown | > Give the agent the smallest set of permissions it needs. This is called **least privilege**. A measurable threshold turns Metrics and Escalation into a working brake. Set the threshold **before** launch, not after an incident. ## Example 1: first-line support agent - **Role:** sorts incoming requests and answers common questions. **Mission:** remove routine work from the support team. **Inputs:** request text and answer base. **Tools:** read-only access to the knowledge base. - **Boundaries:** does not promise compensation or touch billing. **Escalation:** complaints, refunds, or conflict go to a person. **Review:** a person audits 10 conversations a day. **Metrics:** share resolved without a person and number of escalations. **Owner:** head of support. ## Example 2: reporting analyst agent - **Role:** prepares the weekly sales summary. **Inputs:** CRM exports. **Tools:** read-only data access. **Boundaries:** does not send the report. **Escalation:** an anomaly > X% is flagged for a person. **Review:** the owner checks the totals against the source before sending. **Metrics:** time to finished report and share of figures accepted without edits. **Owner:** team analyst. ## Pre-flight check - [ ] The three required fields are complete: Boundaries, Escalation, and Owner. - [ ] Access follows **least privilege** and covers only what the mission requires. - [ ] Memory contains no secrets or personal data that do not belong there. - [ ] A human review method is built into the flow. - [ ] The team has agreed on the signal that **shuts the agent down**. - [ ] A **measurable threshold gate** is set: metric + number + action (pause / rollback / stop). --- ## Next - Build shared context for the team and its agents with the [team-brain starter kit](team-brain-starter.md). - Decide what the agent may do and what a person should keep with the [Human Review Matrix](human-review-matrix.md) (Chapter 2). - Review third-party skills before they enter your system: [how to check them](../watch/skill-banks.md). - Follow the full route in the [Volume 2 Workbook](tom2-workbook.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Team-brain starter kit: a shared team brain in 14 days > Practicum for **Volume 2, Chapter 3**, "A Team with Agents." For a manager or founder. > This follows the [Agent Contract](agent-contract.md). Once agents have boundaries, give them shared context. Without it, each agent fails in its own way. Agents and new team members can only work with the context they receive. A "team-brain" is a small shared knowledge repository. It is not a year-long corporate wiki project. It is a handful of files that an agent reads first. ## Minimum structure ``` team-brain/ product/ - what we make, who it is for, and the main metrics customers/ - who the customer is and what we know about them decisions/ - decision log (decisions.md) glossary/ - team terms (the agent reads these first) skills/ - reusable instructions and prompts ``` You do not need more folders. Five active files beat thirty empty ones. ## Decision log (`decisions/decisions.md`) Use one line per decision so agents and new colleagues do not have to ask why it was made: ``` Date | Decision | Context (why) | Alternatives rejected | Owner | Review date ``` ## Memory: three states New knowledge moves through three states so the shared brain does not fill with junk: - **staged:** a candidate has been recorded but is not yet shared, like a memory draft; - **review:** a person has checked that it is true and reusable; - **prompted:** it is now part of the context that the agent actually reads. Nothing moves from *staged* to *prompted* without a person. ## Agent evaluation template Before you trust an agent with a task, run it **with and without the context** and compare the results. | Task | Inputs | What counts as a good answer | Score without team-brain | Score with team-brain | Decision | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | `____` | `____` | `____` | `_/5` | `_/5` | `____` | If there is no difference, the context is not working, or the task does not depend on context. ## 14-day plan - **Days 1-3.** Find one bottleneck where the team loses time by explaining the same thing again. - **Days 4-7.** Collect the minimum knowledge for it in `product/`, `customers/`, and the first entries in `decisions/`. - **Days 8-14.** Launch **one** agent with an [Agent Contract](agent-contract.md). Run the evaluation with and without context. Keep it only if the difference is measurable. --- ## Next - Give each agent its own [Agent Contract](agent-contract.md) with a role, boundaries, and owner. - Decide what the agent may do and what a person should keep with the [Human Review Matrix](human-review-matrix.md). - Follow the full route in the [Volume 2 Workbook](tom2-workbook.md). > The goal is a few files that become useful quickly, not a corporate wiki project. --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Resilient automation checklist Worksheet for Volume 2, Chapter 4, "The One-Person Company." Use this checklist to test one agent-run function before it touches customers, money, documents, or reputation. This is not a guide to automating everything. It tells you what must be visible, testable, and easy to stop. ## 1. Function Choose one function, not the whole company. | Question | Your answer | |---|---| | What repeatable result should this function produce? | | | What goes in: emails, applications, documents, deals, or data? | | | What comes out: an answer, record, invoice, report, or recommendation? | | | Where does the cost of an error become high? | | | What must the agent never do without a person? | | If you cannot describe the output in one sentence, it is too early to automate the function. ## 2. Tests Collect at least ten test cases. | Type of case | What to include | |---|---| | Normal case | Work the function handles every day | | Difficult customer | Large order, unusual promise, or sensitive tone | | Legal risk | Contract, invoice, personal data, or disputed wording | | Bad input | Missing data, contradiction, or an attachment in the wrong format | | Red zone | A case where the agent must stop | A test works only when you decide in advance which answers are acceptable. ## 3. Logs The agent must leave a record of its actions. - What the agent received. - Which sources or tools it used. - What it decided on its own. - Where it was uncertain. - Which rules fired. - Why it stopped or continued. If you cannot reconstruct the path after an error, you do not have a function. You have a black box. ## 4. Warning signals Write down what should raise a flag. | Signal | Action | |---|---| | A new promise is made to a customer | Stop and show it to a person | | A price, discount, or deadline changes | Stop and show it to a person | | A document is about to leave the company | Require human review | | The agent is uncertain or finds a contradiction | Escalate instead of guessing | | The same error happens again | Stop the flow and repair the system | A warning signal without an owner is useless. Name the person who will see each signal. ## 5. Permissions Give the agent the least access it needs. | Access question | Decision | |---|---| | Is access read-only, or may the agent write? | | | May the agent send a message to a customer without approval? | | | May it change the price, deadline, or deal status? | | | Is there a money or risk limit? | | | When does access turn off automatically? | | The chapter's rule is simple: give the agent exactly the access the task requires, and nothing more. ## 6. Repair Decide what happens after a failure before one occurs. 1. Who sees the incident? 2. Who stops the flow? 3. Who repairs the rule, prompt, integration, or data? 4. Who tells the customer if the error reached them? 5. How does the new case enter the test set? Without repair, automation builds up debt. With repair, it becomes a system. ## Final decision | Check | Yes / no | |---|---| | The function is described separately from the company | | | Test cases exist | | | Actions are logged | | | Warning signals exist | | | Permissions are minimal | | | The person who repairs a failure is known | | | A person remains at the critical points | | If three or more answers are "no," the function is not ready for live work. Start with one pain point, one agent, and one stop rule. --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Small-business agent staff map > Practicum for **Volume 2, Chapter 5**, "Small Business: AI as an Affordable Staff." Time: 20-30 minutes. > For a small or midsize business owner. The result is **not** "automate everything." It is 1-2 cells where you can start. AI can give a small business the kind of support staff it could not afford before. Build that staff around **customer pain and money**, not around a tool. This worksheet helps you set priorities. ## Step 1. Break the business into functions Check the functions that exist in your business: - [ ] Sales / inbound leads - [ ] Customer support - [ ] Marketing and content - [ ] Documents / contracts - [ ] Analytics and reporting - [ ] Operations / logistics - [ ] Finance / payments ## Step 2. Score each function on four dimensions Give each function a score from 0 to 3. This is a rough filter for an owner, not an academic model. Focus on money, costs, and the customer. - **New revenue:** the function helps you sell more, sell something new, or move a lead to payment faster. - **Costs:** the function reduces manual work, errors, waiting, or contractor costs. - **Customer / trust:** the function improves response time, the quality of the conversation, repeat business, or direct contact. - **Repeatability / testability:** the work repeats, can be described, checked, and handed to a person in time. | Function | New revenue (0-3) | Costs (0-3) | Customer / trust (0-3) | Repeatability / testability (0-3) | Total | |---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:| | `____________` | | | | | | | `____________` | | | | | | | `____________` | | | | | | | `____________` | | | | | | ## Step 3. Choose 1-2 starting cells - **Total 8-12 + repeatability 2-3:** the first candidate. An agent staff can produce a result here fastest. - **High new revenue / customer score, but repeatability 0-1:** use a person with an AI assistant, not autopilot. - **High repeatability, but low revenue / customer score:** it can wait, whatever vendors promise. - **High cost score + high repeatability:** a good training entry point, especially if you have outsourced this work before. **My starting function:** `________________` | **Why this one:** `________________` > This directly applies two ideas from the chapter: the three levers of value and "start with the hole, not the drill." > This is not a tool list. Find services for your chosen function in the [Tool Map](../watch/tools-map.md). --- ## Next - Once you choose a function, use the [safe-start checklist](smb-start-checklist.md). - To run one function with supervised agents, use the [Resilient Automation Checklist](resilient-automation.md) (Chapter 4). - Follow the full route in the [Volume 2 Workbook](tom2-workbook.md). > Warning: start with one cell, not a plan to "digitize the whole business." --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Safe-start checklist: an AI staff without unnecessary risk > Practicum for **Volume 2, Chapter 5**, "Small Business: AI as an Affordable Staff." Time: 10-15 minutes. > This follows the [Small-Business Agent Staff Map](smb-staff-map.md). Once you choose one function, use this worksheet to start without breaking the business. The entry point stays cheap and reversible when you begin with **one pain point tied to money** and keep a person in the loop. Use these five steps. ## Step 1. Name one pain point tied to money Do not write "implement AI." Name a specific problem that costs money or time every week. - **Pain point:** `________________` | **Weekly cost** in hours or money: `________________` ## Step 2. Check whether you have outsourced it before Work you have already given to a contractor is often a good candidate. You have described it as a service, so it is easier to hand to an agent. - Outsourced before? `yes / no` | If yes, **what exactly:** `________________` ## Step 3. Choose assistant or autopilot - **Assistant:** AI prepares the work; a person decides and sends it. Use this whenever an error has a meaningful cost. - **Autopilot:** AI acts on its own. Use it only for cheap, reversible, testable routine work. - **My choice for this function:** `________________` ## Step 4. Set the control points Before launch, write down what the agent **does not do** without you. - Does not touch: `________________` (money / contracts / customer messages, for example) - Escalates to a person when: `________________` - How I check the result: `________________` ## Step 5. Set a time limit Do not let "setting up AI" consume a month. - **Time allowed for the test:** `____` (for example, 2 weeks) - **Signal that it works, or that I should stop:** `________________` --- ## Output One function, one mode (assistant or autopilot), clear control points, and a test period. This is not a "digitized business." It is an honest first step. ## Next - Set function priorities with the [Small-Business Agent Staff Map](smb-staff-map.md). - Add tests, logs, and warning signals with the [Resilient Automation Checklist](resilient-automation.md). - Follow the full route in the [Volume 2 Workbook](tom2-workbook.md). > Warning: one pain point, one control loop, and an honest deadline. Do not try to automate everything. --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Skill: can an agent see me > A zero-install tool for **Volume 2, Chapter 6**, "When the Customer Is Not Human." It runs in your > browser, calculates on your device, and sends no data anywhere. Code license: MIT. > This is a manual visibility check for an agent buyer. When an agent chooses and pays, louder advertising matters less than **being clear to a machine**. This checklist tests three levers: **findability, evaluability, and actionability**, then gives you one move. Open the tool ## What it does - You answer short yes or no questions about the three levers: can an agent find you, understand you quickly, and complete the purchase without negotiation? - The tool scores each lever, marks the **weakest one**, and suggests one next move. - It returns a result that you can copy and give to your AI assistant. - After scoring, a **Report** section explains all three levers and gives three next steps, starting with the weakest. You can copy or print the report for your team or manager. ## How to use it 1. Open the tool and mark what you already have. 2. Copy the result. 3. Tell AI: "Here is my findability, evaluability, and actionability analysis. Suggest one move for the weakest lever and what I should check." Ask for options, not a finished decision. ## Discipline This is a map, not a verdict. Visibility to agents is a new form of distribution, but you remain responsible for the transaction. For more depth, see the [AI Search Visibility Kit](../../playbooks/geo-ai-search-kit.md). ## Chat version if you cannot use the browser tool ```text Help me assess whether an agent buyer can see and use my product or service, based on *When Intelligence Became Cheap*, Volume 2, Chapter 6. Analyze three levers: - Findability: can the agent find me where AI systems get answers? - Evaluability: can it quickly understand my offer from a clear description, price, and examples? - Actionability: can it complete the next step without negotiation through a clear action, contact, or payment method? Here is my product and how it appears now: [describe it]. Name the weakest lever and one specific move for the next two weeks. Tell me what to verify so we do not invent an answer. Avoid hype. ``` --- Source worksheet: [AI Search Visibility Kit](../../playbooks/geo-ai-search-kit.md). Other tools: [Prompts and Skills](../). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # AI search visibility kit: how AI finds and cites you > Practicum for **Volume 2, Chapter 6**, "When the Customer Is Not Human." Time: 30 to 40 minutes. > This is a manual worksheet for a first measurement. The details change quickly, so check the date. Search is turning into an **answer**. A person may ask ChatGPT or another assistant what to buy or whom to hire, then receive a shortlist without opening ten links. A high search rank or an SEO trick is not enough. You need to appear in sources the AI trusts and can cite. "We have a website" becomes "the same checkable facts about us appear across sources a machine can read." > Gartner forecasts declining traffic from traditional search, with estimates of 25% less search volume by 2026 and 50% less organic search traffic by 2028. The KDD 2024 paper "GEO" by Aggarwal et al. found that source citations, quotations, and statistics produced the largest gains in visibility inside generative answers, about 30% to 40% for the best-performing methods. Treat these figures as reference points. Primary sources appear below. --- ## Step 1. Map AI answers Write five to seven real questions your customers ask. Run each question through three or four AI systems, such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, or a locally popular assistant. Record what appears in the answer: | Customer question | Brands in the answer | Sources cited | Tone about you | |---|---|---|---| | `________` | | | positive / neutral / negative / absent | | `________` | | | | | `________` | | | | > If you do not appear, the answer has left you out. If you appear in a weak or negative context, trust can fall before the customer reaches your site. ## Step 2. Check the three conditions for being chosen The chapter gives you three levers. Mark the weak ones: - [ ] **Findability:** Can the agent find you in the places it uses to build an answer? - [ ] **Evaluability:** Can the agent quickly understand your value from a clear description, price, and examples? The technical term is *token-to-value*: how much useful information the agent gets from a small amount of text. - [ ] **Actionability:** Can the agent take the next step without a negotiation, using a clear contact, checkout, or payment path? Weakest lever: `________________`. Start there. ## Step 3. Measure AI search visibility Do not track only a Google position. Track your presence inside answers: | Metric | What it means | |---|---| | Share of AI mentions | how often you appear in answers to your test questions | | Position / order | whether the answer names you first or near the end | | Sentiment | whether the description is positive, neutral, or negative | | Source share | which sources the system cites about you and whether it trusts them | | Co-mentions | which competitors or categories appear next to you | | NAP consistency | whether your name, address, and contact details match across sources | > **Remember: API does not equal UI.** A model response from an API is not the same as the answer a person sees in a product interface. Personalization, locale, and device can change the result. AI search measurement is probabilistic, not exact. Run each test more than once, then record the date and model. ## Step 4. Find the sources that matter in your region You earn citations in places the AI trusts. Your own site may not be the strongest source. Industry publications, professional communities, marketplace listings, local directories, and review platforms may matter more. Build a current list for your market. Your goal is to place a checkable fact or quotation there, not an advertisement. ## Step 5. Make a 14-day plan - **Days 1 to 3.** Map AI answers from Step 1. Find the questions where you are absent or described poorly. - **Days 4 to 9.** Fix **one** weak lever from Step 2. Add a machine-readable description, price, or example. Prepare two or three specific facts, case results, or quotations for the sources from Step 4. - **Days 10 to 14.** Publish that material where AI systems get answers. Repeat the map and compare your share of mentions and sentiment. Record the date and model. Output: one repaired lever and a baseline for another measurement next quarter. --- ## Next - For a quick self-check, use [Can an agent see me?](../skills/visible-to-agent/). - For agent payments and protocols, see [agent commerce protocols](../watch/agent-protocols.md). For the software a customer agent uses, see [agentic browsers](../watch/agentic-browsers.md). - For the full route, open the [Volume 2 workbook](tom2-workbook.md). ## Sources (verified 2026-07) - **Aggarwal et al., "GEO: Generative Engine Optimization"** (KDD 2024): methods that increase citations in generative answers. - **Gartner:** forecasts for declining traditional search traffic. > ⚠️ AI search measurement remains probabilistic because API results do not equal UI results. --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # What to teach when answers get cheap > Practicum for Volume 2, Chapter 7, "Children: What to Teach and Where to Guide Them." > Time: 10-15 minutes. This is not a list of future careers. It is a map of abilities worth developing at home over many years. The chapter's main question is not "What job will my child have?" It is "What will grow stronger in my child while machines make ready-made answers cheaper?" Use this worksheet as a family filter. Decide what to practice without AI, where AI can act as a training partner, and where it has started to remove the effort. --- ## 1. Five abilities that become more valuable | What becomes more valuable | What it means at home | How to use AI without losing the skill | |---|---|---| | **Questions** | The child notices what is missing, what does not fit, and what nobody has asked. | Ask AI to hold back the answer and ask questions about the child's plan first. | | **Taste and judgment** | The child can tell strong work from weak work and explain why. | Compare two options, one made by the child and one by the machine. Let the child choose and defend the choice. | | **Agency** | The child sets a goal, starts without permission, and changes the plan after a setback. | AI may split a project into steps, but the child keeps the goal, choices, and responsibility. | | **Human connection** | The child listens to another person, handles disagreement, and asks for help. | Use AI to rehearse a conversation, but never as a replacement for the conversation. | | **Learning how to learn** | The child completes the cycle: understand, apply, make a mistake, repair it, and try again. | AI may provide exercises, hints, and check questions, but it should not complete the cycle for the child. | If an activity develops none of these abilities, ask what it really is. It may be healthy rest, or it may be another shortcut to finished work. ## 2. What you can safely give to AI Give AI work that is not the main exercise for the skill. | AI may do this | Do not hand this over completely | |---|---| | find options, examples, and sources | form the child's own question | | explain a topic in different ways | make the first attempt to understand it | | check a draft for errors | decide what counts as a good result | | create practice problems | do the practice | | plan project steps | choose the goal, make the bet, and accept responsibility | The rule is simple. The mode works if AI helps the child think, choose, or check more skillfully. If the child only brings back a finished answer faster, the practice has been skipped. ## 3. Family mini-audit Choose one activity: school, a club, sports, a project, a game, or family work. | Question | Answer | |---|---| | Where does the child ask their own questions? | | | Where do they compare quality and explain a choice? | | | Where do they have a real choice with consequences? | | | Where is there a real person whose craft they can observe? | | | Where do they complete the learning cycle instead of receiving hints only? | | If more than two rows are blank, do not rush to find a fashionable new class. Add one useful step first: a real project, a human mentor, a public record of the result, or a "hint, not answer" rule. ## 4. One move for this week Choose one. | Skill that needs work | Move for the week | |---|---| | Questions | At dinner three times this week, ask, "What surprised you today?" Do not answer for the child. | | Taste and judgment | Review one film, text, object, piece of code, or dish together: what works, what does not, and how it could improve. | | Agency | Give the child a small project with a real stake: someone outside the family will see the result. | | Human connection | Plan one screen-free conversation without judgment, where the adult listens first. | | Learning how to learn | Ask AI to create a practice session, but do the final check without AI. | After a week, do not ask whether it went perfectly. Ask where the child did the work alone. --- > Related: [Volume 2 Workbook](tom2-workbook.md) | > [Family 3C Audit](family-3c-audit.md) | > [AI Tutor in Training Mode](ai-tutor-training-mode.md) | > [Children's AI Skills and Tools](../watch/kids-skills.md) | > [Prompt Bank: Friction Instead of a Finished Answer](training-not-answers.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Family 3C audit: where your child builds mastery > Practicum for Volume 2, Chapter 7, "Children: What to Teach and Where to Guide Them." > Based on Matt Beane's *The Skill Code*: challenge, complexity, connection. This audit looks past grades and schedules. It checks the environment where your child learns. Do they face a real challenge, see the full complexity of the work, and spend time with a skilled person? Without these three conditions, AI can turn learning into the quick submission of a ready-made answer. ## 1. Choose one activity Do not audit your child's whole life at once. Pick one activity: school, soccer, music, drawing, robotics, a family project, a part-time job, or helping with a business. ## 2. Challenge: is the task demanding in a healthy way? | Question | Yes / no | What to change | |---|---|---| | Is the task slightly above your child's current level? | | | | Can your child make and discuss a mistake without immediate punishment? | | | | Does AI help with the next step without taking over the whole task? | | | ## 3. Complexity: does your child see the whole job? | Question | Yes / no | What to change | |---|---|---| | Does your child understand who needs the result and why? | | | | Do they see the path from an idea to a finished artifact, rather than one small piece? | | | | Does the project leave a visible result, such as a page, album, performance, object, or review? | | | ## 4. Connection: is there a skilled person nearby? | Question | Yes / no | What to change | |---|---|---| | Is there an adult whose way of thinking and working your child can observe? | | | | Does this person give specific feedback rather than only a grade? | | | | Does your child spend an hour next to real work, rather than only watching a video lesson or using a chat? | | | ## 5. Make one move this quarter Find the emptiest column and add one step: | What is missing | What to add | |---|---| | Challenge | Give your child a project with a real stake. Someone else will see the result. | | Complexity | Ask your child to explain the full path: the goal, steps, mistakes, what AI did, and what they did. | | Connection | Find a skilled person they can work beside: a coach, club leader, colleague, neighbor, or relative with a craft. | Come back to this sheet in three months. Do not ask, "Did it get easier?" Ask, "Where did my child do the work?" > Related: [guide to children's skills](kids-ai-skills-guide.md) and > [AI tutor in training mode](ai-tutor-training-mode.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # AI tutor in training mode > Practicum for Volume 2, Chapter 7, "Children: What to Teach and Where to Guide Them." > Goal: set up an AI tutor that leaves the effort to the child instead of doing the work for them. Copy the text below into the family's AI chat before a learning task. ```text You help a child learn, but you do not solve the task for them. Rules: 1. Do not give the finished answer right away. 2. First ask what the child already understands and where they are stuck. 3. Give only one hint at a time. 4. After each hint, ask the child to take the next step alone. 5. If the child makes a mistake, explain it with a question or a small example. Do not rewrite the whole piece of work. 6. At the end, ask 3 check questions to see whether the child keeps the skill without your help. 7. Separately state what the child did, what AI suggested, and what still needs practice. Tone: calm and kind. Do not judge the child as a person. ``` ## How to use it 1. The child makes the first attempt alone: a plan, solution, draft, or hypothesis. 2. Then the child turns on AI with the rule above. 3. AI asks questions and gives hints while the child moves the work forward. 4. The final check happens without AI for 5-10 minutes, in writing, aloud, or on paper. ## Quick prompt swaps | Instead of | Ask for this | |---|---| | "Write my essay" | "Check my outline and ask 5 questions that will make the idea stronger." | | "Solve the problem" | "Give me the first hint, not the solution. Then check my next step." | | "Make the presentation" | "Help me collect facts, but I will choose and defend the slide structure." | | "Rewrite this beautifully" | "Show where the idea became more precise and where the wording only became smoother." | ## A parent's check question After the task, ask: **What can the child now do without AI?** If there is no answer, the tool acted as a crutch rather than a training partner. > Related: [Family 3C Audit](family-3c-audit.md) | > [Prompt Bank: Friction Instead of a Finished Answer](training-not-answers.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Build your own ladder: three materials > Practicum for **Volume 2, Chapter 8**, "The New Economy of Value." > Time: one evening. For professionals, managers, and business owners. Each of you stands on a different ladder. The old career ladder was public: degree -> entry -> seniority -> promotion. Everyone knew the rules. The new ladder has a narrow first step and a shortage of middle positions. A platform owner writes the rules and can change them without warning. This does not mean everything is lost. It means resilience must come from materials that belong to you, not to the ladder. There are three. Use this worksheet to audit them and choose one move per quarter for each. --- ## Material 1. Proof of work When a machine reads the resume and everyone has credentials, **finished work** carries more weight. Show projects with visible results, cases that follow "I took it, finished it, and this changed," and artifacts people can inspect. Rule: every six months, add one result to your portfolio that you can explain in two minutes with a number, a name, or a consequence. | Question | Your answer | Risk signal | |---|---|---| | Which 3 results can I show right now? | | I can show only job titles and credentials | | When did the latest result enter my portfolio? | | More than six months ago | | Can I explain any one of them in 2 minutes with a number? | | I can only say "participated" or "was responsible" | **Move for this quarter:** `_____________________________________________________` ## Material 2. Direct relationships People who will call you without a platform offer the strongest protection from the platform. They may be former colleagues, satisfied customers, or members of a professional community. This is your own job market, with no commission, platform rating, or one-sided rule change. Direct relationships cannot scale with a button. That is why they become more valuable. | Question | Your answer | Risk signal | |---|---|---| | Who would invite me to a job or project without a platform? | | Nobody specific, only cold applications | | Do I have a public record that makes people contact me first? | | No. A direct message feels like asking for a favor | | When did I last go where people in my field meet in person? | | My whole funnel is online, with no in-person points | **Move for this quarter:** `_____________________________________________________` > Do not confuse this with aggressive networking. People help when you approach them about real work and intend to contribute, not take their attention. ## Material 3. Portable reputation A platform rating is capital held in someone else's bank. Change platforms and you start again. A portable reputation is capital you control: a name people search for and find, public reviews of your work, writing, talks, and contributions to a community. That record stays with you when you change employers, platforms, or even careers. A quiet name known by twenty relevant people is stronger than a loud name that means nothing to everyone. | Question | Your answer | Risk signal | |---|---|---| | What do people find when they search for my name? | | Nothing, or only profiles owned by platforms | | Which part of my reputation moves with me to another platform? | | Everything depends on platform accounts and ratings | | What makes my story authentic and hard to generate? | | A course created my "personal brand," but there are no decisions behind it | **Move for this quarter:** `_____________________________________________________` --- ## Final check: where is my weakest material? - **Weakest of the three today:** `________________________________________` - **One main move for the next quarter:** `_____________________________` ## Next Check which platforms hold your visibility and rating with [Who Owns Your Ladder?](ladder-ownership-audit.md). See the current labor market in [AI and the Labor Market](../watch/labor-market.md). Use the same three materials in your decision portfolio with [No-Regret Moves](no-regret-moves.md) (Chapter 10). Back: [Volume 2 Workbook](tom2-workbook.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Who owns your ladder? > Practicum for **Volume 2, Chapter 8**, "The New Economy of Value." > Time: 20-30 minutes. Map your dependence on the platforms that bring you work and customers. A tradesperson spent five years building a rating: three hundred reviews and almost five stars. One morning, the app brought half as many jobs. The person's work had not become worse. The platform had changed its ranking. The skill remained, but visibility, reputation, and customer access sat inside somebody else's system, where the rules changed without warning. This audit shows **which parts of your career infrastructure do not belong to you** and what happens if the owner changes the rules. ## Step 1. List your platforms List every place that gives you work, orders, customers, or reputation: freelance sites, marketplaces, professional networks, aggregators, and social platforms. `___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________` ## Step 2. Ask three questions about each one | Platform | Where does my **visibility** live? | Who owns the **rating**, and can it move? | What happens after a **rule change**? | |---|---|---|---| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - **Visibility:** can people find you without the platform, or only through its search and ranking? - **Rating:** five stars and three hundred reviews are capital in somebody else's bank. They do not move when you leave. - **Rule change:** what happens to your flow if the platform raises its fee, changes ranking, or limits access tomorrow? Do you have another route? ## Step 3. Rate your dependence | Sign | Check if true for you | |---|---| | More than half my income or orders come through one platform | [ ] | | My rating and reputation will not move if I leave | [ ] | | Customers know me as a line in search results, not by name | [ ] | | I have no backup channel if the rules change tomorrow | [ ] | Three or four checked boxes mean the platform has a strong hold on you. Make the move below. ## Step 4. One move toward your own ladder You may not need or be able to leave platforms. Move at least one asset from rented space into something you control: direct contact with some customers, your own channel, or a portable name. - **Asset I will move into my ownership this quarter:** `_______________________` - **How I will do it** through direct contact, my own channel, or a public record: `______________` --- ## Next Build that support with [Build Your Own Ladder: Three Materials](own-ladder.md). The same rent mechanism affects businesses and computing infrastructure. Map it with the [Platform Rent Map](platform-rent-map.md) (Chapter 9). See current market conditions in [AI and the Labor Market](../watch/labor-market.md). Back: [Volume 2 Workbook](tom2-workbook.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Platform rent map > Practicum for **Volume 2, Chapter 9**, "Physical AI and Who Owns the Rails." > Time: 30-40 minutes. For professionals, managers, and business owners. Each stands on different rails. Platform rent is a regular payment to an infrastructure owner for access to customers, tools, or computing. Examples include a marketplace commission, payment processing fee, model subscription, or the ad platform's share of customer acquisition cost. Each payment may look reasonable on its own. The problem is paying **without looking** at the total or asking what happens if the owner raises the price. This worksheet turns invisible rent into one number you can manage. ## Step 1. List every toll Use the online store in the chapter as a guide: marketplace commission, payment processing, marketplace ads, service subscriptions, delivery and returns, and per-request agent costs. Each looks small alone. Together, they are your margin. | Toll | Who receives it | Monthly amount | % of revenue | |---|---|---:|---:| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | **Total platform rent** | | **₽ _______** | **____ %** | > The point is not to leave every platform. It is to see your total rent as one number for the first time. ## Step 2. Find your position on the rails On any rails, from a marketplace to a company AI subscription, you occupy one of three positions. Mark your position as a professional and as a business. | Position | How to recognize it | Move up | |---|---|---| | **Owns a junction** | Other people pay to access something you own: direct customer relationships, unique data, expertise with demand, or your own distribution | Deepen the moat through trust, context, and responsibility (Volume 1, Chapters 5-7) | | **Builds on someone else's rails with eyes open** | You pay rent, know the total, keep a backup route, and own at least one junction | Move one asset from a platform into your ownership each year | | **Pays rent without looking** | You do not know the total platform cost or what to do if prices double and access narrows | Start with this worksheet: list, add, and ask what you can replace or own | **My position now:** `________________________` **Move up that I will make:** `___________` ## Step 3. Check all three roles - **Professional:** whose platforms stand between you and your value, and what do you own besides an account? This is your [own ladder](own-ladder.md): finished work, people, and a name. `_______________` - **Manager:** whose models, clouds, and data support the process, and what happens to unit economics, the profit or cost of one unit, **if computing becomes three times more expensive** and access terms change? `_______________` - **Business owner:** what is total rent as a percentage of revenue, and which **one asset** will you move into your ownership this year? `_______________` ## Step 4. Run the "what if the price rises?" test Use rough but useful arithmetic. If the AI bill is 5% of unit cost, a threefold increase hurts but may not break the model. If half the process depends on one API, a price increase affects the design of the business, far beyond one expense line. - **AI and platform share of unit cost:** `____ %` - **What breaks if prices become 3x higher tomorrow or access closes:** `_____________________` - **My backup route** (multiple providers, portable data and prompts, open models, or local inference when justified): `_________________________________________` > You probably do not need to build your own rails. For most people, the right answer is to use someone else's rails with open eyes. > Know the toll, map the detour before the bridge closes, and own one junction that makes you useful on any route. --- ## Next The same mechanism affects careers: [Who Owns Your Ladder?](ladder-ownership-audit.md) (Chapter 8). See the current map of rails and infrastructure spending in [Who Owns the Rails?](../watch/physical-ai-rails.md). Treat a backup route as a no-regret move with [No-Regret Moves](no-regret-moves.md) (Chapter 10). Back: [Volume 2 Workbook](tom2-workbook.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Which world are you building? > Practicum for **Volume 2, Chapter 10**, "2030: Four Futures." > Time: 15 minutes. This is not fortune-telling. It reflects your decisions. A scenario is not weather, and every decision is a vote for one world. The chapter describes four possible worlds in 2030 as choices rather than forecasts. The world that appears in your field will come from many decisions, including yours. This check shows **which world your current decisions support**. **The four worlds**, based on who receives the gains and what happens to the value of human contribution: - **Platforms:** everything is convenient, but almost nothing is yours. Rail owners receive the gains. - **Divide:** people keep the same qualifications, but the ladder disappears and the gains go to a narrow group. - **Multiplication:** the machine prepares; the person decides and becomes more valuable. - **Human premium:** anything can be generated, so what cannot be faked becomes more valuable. --- ## Choose the answer closest to your situation | # | Question about your decision | Your choice | |---|---|---| | 1 | **Which channels bring sales or work?** A) only platforms and aggregators; B) mostly platforms, few direct contacts; C) platforms plus a growing direct base; D) mostly direct relationships and my own name | | | 2 | **Do you have direct access to customers or an audience?** A) no, everything is in someone else's systems; B) I have contacts but do not use them; C) I maintain my own channel or list; D) customers know me by name | | | 3 | **Where do the gains from AI go in your team or business?** A) I cut labor costs and share nothing; B) I have not measured it; C) freed time goes into people's growth; D) people become more valuable because they decide and take responsibility | | | 4 | **What are you doing with your reputation?** A) keeping a platform rating; B) nothing; C) building a portable name; D) my signature on the result is the product | | | 5 | **Your rails, such as models, clouds, and platforms:** A) one provider, dependence not measured; B) one provider, but I am thinking about it; C) several plus a backup route; D) I own a junction of value | | | 6 | **What do you tell children or junior colleagues?** A) "learn a safe profession"; B) I have not thought about it; C) "train your thinking and build a portfolio"; D) "make what cannot be generated" | | | 7 | **How do you respond to cheap output?** A) make more of the same for less; B) do what everyone else does; C) take responsibility for review and the decision; D) own the full result | | | 8 | **Your bet for the next year:** A) a specific tool or technology; B) no clear bet; C) assets that survive a change of scenario; D) a human junction: judgment and trust | | ## Count the answers See which letter appears most often. - **Mostly A:** your decisions support the **Platform World**. It is convenient now, but you are giving away the junction of value. Make one move toward something you own. - **Mostly B:** you are **moving by inertia**. The surest way to lose is to make no choice. Start with [No-Regret Moves](no-regret-moves.md). - **Mostly C:** you are building the **Multiplication World**. Machines increase capacity while people grow. Keep going deeper. - **Mostly D:** you are building the **Human Premium World** by investing in what cannot be faked. Check that you also have a backup route on the rails. **The world my decisions support:** `___________________________` --- ## Next Turn the result into action with [No-Regret Moves](no-regret-moves.md), a portfolio that works in all four worlds. Separate a real shift from hype with [Checking AGI Claims](agi-claim-check.md), current [Signals Without Fog](../watch/agi-signals.md), and [AI and the Labor Market](../watch/labor-market.md). Back: [Volume 2 Workbook](tom2-workbook.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # No-regret moves > Practicum for **Volume 2, Chapter 10**, "2030: Four Futures." > Time: 20-30 minutes. Build a five-move portfolio that helps in any of the four worlds. Strategists use the term *no-regret moves* for actions that pay off across different futures. They make these moves before the future becomes clear. An investor might call this a portfolio instead of a single bet. The book's argument leads to a portfolio of five moves. None says "learn tool X." A tool is a bet on one scenario. This portfolio holds assets that can survive a change of scenario. ## Five moves: where I stand and what comes next | # | No-regret move | Where I am now (1-5) | Next step | |---|---|---|---| | 1 | **I own the outcome, not the output.** I answer for the result, not the volume produced | | | | 2 | **I keep direct access** to at least some customers or audience through a list that an algorithm change cannot take away | | | | 3 | **I build a portable reputation, my own ladder:** finished work, people, and a name | | | | 4 | **I strengthen the human junction:** judgment, trust, and responsibility become more valuable in every world | | | | 5 | **I keep a backup route on the rails:** several providers plus portable data and prompts | | | Rate each move from 1 to 5. A score of 1 means you do not work on it; 5 means it is a strength. **My weakest move:** `_____________` ## How each move works in the four worlds | Move | Platforms | Divide | Multiplication | Human premium | |---|---|---|---|---| | Own the outcome | a junction others pay to access | bargaining power | machines multiply my work | signature becomes the product | | Direct access | insurance | support | accelerator | accelerator | | My own ladder | an outside system cannot optimize it away | the only support | leverage | capital | | Human junction | scarce | scarce | scarce | highest value | | Backup route | protection from price changes | protection from disruption | sound engineering | sound engineering | ## Use the portfolio to test major decisions The same five moves can test any major choice: an employer, sales channel, annual strategy, or a child's education. Ask: **In how many of the four worlds does this option work?** An offer with more pay but routine middle-layer work may win in one world. A smaller offer with customer contact, a portable name, and new problems may win in all four. **Three upcoming decisions I will test with "How many of the 4 worlds does it work in?":** | Decision | Option A: how many worlds? | Option B: how many worlds? | Choice | |---|---|---|---| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > This question cannot guarantee the right answer. It stops you from placing everything on one forecast without admitting it. --- ## Next See which world your decisions support in [Which World Are You Building?](which-world.md). Build move 3 with [Build Your Own Ladder: Three Materials](own-ladder.md) (Chapter 8). Build move 5 with the [Platform Rent Map](platform-rent-map.md) (Chapter 9). Back: [Volume 2 Workbook](tom2-workbook.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # AGI claim check: five questions instead of "Is this AGI?" > Worksheet for Volume 2, Chapter 10, "2030: Four Futures." > Time: 20-30 minutes for one claim. Use this worksheet when you see a promise such as "we have AGI," "the model will replace a department," "the agent will do the job alone," or "people no longer need to learn." Do not argue about the label. Break the claim into five testable questions. ## 1. What is the task? Choose one task, not a profession or a whole company. | Question | Answer | |---|---| | What result should the task produce? | | | What are the inputs? | | | What counts as a successful output? | | | How long does it take a person who has the right context? | | | Where does the task get messy: people, contradictions, missing data, politics, or trust? | | If you cannot describe the task in one paragraph, you cannot test the claim yet. ## 2. What does an error cost? | Cost of error | Example | Your case | |---|---|---| | Low | draft, idea, internal note | | | Medium | customer email, calculation, public text | | | High | money, contract, health, safety, dismissal, reputation | | The higher the cost, the less suitable the "AI will figure it out" mode becomes. ## 3. How reliable is it? Build a small test set of 20-30 real examples. | Type of example | What to include | Result | |---|---|---| | Normal | what happens every day | | | Difficult | heavy context, ambiguity, or a long document | | | Bad input | missing data, contradictions, or the wrong format | | | Red zone | a case where AI must stop | | Do not record only pass or fail. Record the error type: invented a fact, missed a risk, took the wrong action, failed to stop, or failed to explain its path. ## 4. Who controls the action? | Control | Yes / no | |---|---| | A person owns the process | | | A log records inputs, sources, actions, and uncertainty | | | A stop rule exists | | | Access and permissions are limited | | | An action can be rolled back quickly | | | Each error returns to the test set | | Without an owner and a stop rule, this is not autonomy. It is ownerless risk. ## 5. Which human ability becomes stronger? A useful AI system should strengthen a human ability, not only produce more output. | Ability | Stronger? | How to tell | |---|---|---| | Judgment | | the person sees options and consequences more clearly | | Review | | the person finds errors and weak points faster | | Learning | | the person understands the path instead of copying the answer | | Responsibility | | it is clear who signs off on the result | | Independence | | the person builds the workflow instead of waiting for instructions | If the claim makes the person more passive, that is a warning sign even when the demo looks good. ## Final decision | Question | Decision | |---|---| | Is the task clear? | yes / no | | Is the cost of error acceptable? | yes / no | | Did it pass the test set? | yes / no | | Is control sufficient? | yes / no | | Does the person become stronger? | yes / no | ### What to do next - 5 yes answers: you may increase autonomy for this task. - 3-4 yes answers: use it as an assistant or draft tool, not as an independent agent. - 0-2 yes answers: the claim is still marketing. Define the task and build the test first. ## Formula Do not ask, "Is this AGI?" Ask: **Which task does the system solve, how reliably, at what cost of error, under whose control, and which human ability does it strengthen?** --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Process scoring: where an AI agent will pay off > Practicum for **Volume 2, Chapter 11**, "The Change Compass" (WHERE arrow). > Time: half an evening. Practicum address: `https://cheap-intelligence.vercel.app/`. Do not try to "add AI everywhere." Choose the processes where an agent can produce a real return. Apply the same questions to every candidate instead of following personal preference or a fashionable tool. There are five questions. The threshold is simple: **fewer than three yes answers means leave it alone for now.** --- ## Step 1. List candidate processes Map work, not departments. List 10-20 repeated processes with enough volume and pain. Do not write "marketing." Write "answer inbound leads," "prepare proposals," or "match delivery notes." `___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________` `___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________` ## Step 2. Ask five questions about each process | # | Question | A yes looks like this | |---|---|---| | 1 | **Does the process repeat?** | the same steps, rather than starting from zero every time | | 2 | **Is the volume meaningful?** | tens or hundreds of cases a month, not five | | 3 | **Can you check the result?** | a checklist, example, or number quickly shows whether it is good | | 4 | **Is the cost of an error manageable?** | an error means rework, not a lost contract, reputation, or fine | | 5 | **Do data and context exist?** | rules, examples, and history live somewhere beyond one person's head | Use one more filter outside the score: **if you cannot write instructions for the process, it does not suit an agent.** The agent is not the problem. You do not yet know what you want it to do. ## Step 3. Fill in the scoring table | Process | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Total yes | Can I write instructions? | Decision | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | **How to read the total:** - **5 yes answers:** start here. - **3-4 yes answers:** candidate for the second round. - **Fewer than 3 yes answers:** do not touch it now. That is a result, not a defeat. Money you do not waste on the wrong implementation stays in the business. ## Step 4. "No" is also a result Add a separate column for low-scoring processes. "No" will be the right answer for about half your processes. Record **why**. This protects you from other people's excitement and from a vendor selling an implementation. | Process | Why the answer is "no" now | What must change for it to become "yes" | |---|---|---| | low volume: | | | | human relationships (human premium): | | | | result cannot be checked: | | | | high cost of error: | | | > A useful reference from the chapter is Heathrow / Hallie. Repeated passenger questions earn five yes answers, so an agent fits. > An unusual conflict or a difficult personal situation is not the first candidate. There, the agent prepares context for a person. Before filling in your table, review the full public example: **[IKEA Through the Change Compass](ikea-compass-example.md)**. --- ## Next Once you choose a five-point process, map the route with the [Order of Moves Gate Sheet](change-gates.md). Use the [Human Review Matrix](human-review-matrix.md) to decide what the agent may do and what a person should keep. Check whether this is surface polish or a rebuild with the [Process Maturity Check](ai-native-maturity-check.md). Back: [Volume 2 Workbook](tom2-workbook.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Example: IKEA through the Change Compass > Practicum for **Volume 2, Chapter 11**, "The Change Compass." > This is a teaching review of a public case, not a recommendation to copy IKEA word for word. This worksheet shows what a completed compass looks like in a case you can check. See how the four arrows apply to IKEA / Ingka Group, then return to your own processes. **Case source:** Ingka Group, "AI and Remote Selling bring IKEA design expertise to the many" (29 June 2023). The source says that from FY21 through 2023, the Billie chatbot resolved approximately 47% of customer enquiries across 3.2 million interactions, with nearly EUR 13 million in savings. It also says 8,500 call-centre co-workers were reskilled in remote interior design, digital retail sales, relationship building, and complex problem-solving. Sales through remote customer meeting points reached EUR 1.3 billion in FY22, or 3.3% of total sales. **Caveat:** this is a public corporate case, not an independent study. Do not write that the chatbot "created EUR 1.3 billion." A more accurate reading is that IKEA automated a flow of simple requests, retrained some employees, and developed remote selling and remote customer meeting points into a meaningful sales channel. --- ## 1. WHERE arrow: what the agent should do IKEA did not give the agent full responsibility for "customer care." The case shows two types of work. | Work | Score | Decision | |---|---:|---| | Simple repeated customer questions: status, product information, basic help | 5/5 | Give to Billie | | Interior advice, solution design, relationships, and difficult unusual questions | 1-2/5 | Keep with a person and support them with AI | Why the first flow passes the score: | Question | Answer from the case | |---|---| | Does the process repeat? | Yes. Customer enquiries arrive continuously and follow repeated patterns | | Is the volume meaningful? | Yes. The chatbot solved 3.2 million interactions | | Can you check the result? | Yes. The question was resolved or not, the customer received the needed answer, and escalation exists | | Is the cost of an error manageable? | Yes, if the agent is limited to simple questions and hands difficult cases to a person | | Do data and context exist? | Yes. IKEA has product information, customer questions, a knowledge base, and 80 years of life-at-home knowledge | **Lesson for your business:** do not search for a function to replace. Find a task flow inside the function. The right unit may be the first 40-50% of repeated questions, not "customer support" as a whole. ## 2. PEOPLE arrow: how roles change The strongest part of the case is what happened to people after Billie took simple questions. IKEA says 8,500 call-centre co-workers were reskilled for remote customer meetings around interior design competence, digital retail sales, relationship building, and complex problem-solving. This was not an AI course completed for a check mark. The role changed. | Before | After | |---|---| | Answer a stream of similar questions | Help the customer build a solution for the home | | Reduce pressure on a queue | Create value in remote selling | | Work as a cost centre | Work closer to a revenue channel | **Check your own case:** if people returned to the old process after the implementation, you added a tool. If their role changed, you started a real change. ## 3. EFFECT arrow: what to measure The case gives two groups of metrics. Do not mix them. | What is measured | Public figure | Honest reading | |---|---:|---| | Effect of automating the simple flow | nearly EUR 13 million in savings | Lower operating load | | Work moved to self-service / bot | 47% customer enquiries, 3.2 million interactions | Scale of the repeated process | | New or stronger sales channel | EUR 1.3 billion remote customer meeting points sales in FY22 | Sales tied to remote selling; the chatbot did not "create" the full amount | | Share of the channel | 3.3% total sales | Evidence that the change became a business loop rather than a pilot | Ask one question about your process: **Which metric changes if the agent is genuinely useful?** Without a "before" metric, the IKEA case becomes a nice story rather than a working example. ## 4. CONTROL arrow: what is known and unknown The public source says Billie handles simple customer enquiries while people take more complex and value-adding interactions. It does not explain the full control design. | Control question | What the public case supports | |---|---| | Is there an autonomy boundary? | Yes. The chatbot handles simpler work and co-workers handle harder work | | Is there a named owner of the loop? | Not disclosed | | How does escalation work? | The split between "simpler enquiries" and complex problem-solving shows the logic, but details are not disclosed | | How is answer quality measured? | Not disclosed | | What happens after a failure? | Not disclosed | Apply a stricter standard to your own project. A public case may give you an idea, but your loop needs an owner, stop rules, and an action record. ## 5. The seven gates in the IKEA case | Gate | How it appears in the case | What to take into your work | |---|---|---| | 1. Work map | Customer enquiries are separated from advisory work | Start with a task map, not a department | | 2. Scoring | Simple enquiries pass five questions; design consultation does not | Automate a flow, not a profession | | 3. Baseline | Interaction volume, share of resolved enquiries, and savings are reported | Record "before" before launch | | 4. Agent contract | The public case shows a boundary around simple enquiries, but not the contract details | Write down your boundaries instead of holding them in your head | | 5. People learn in the loop | 8,500 employees were reskilled for new roles | Training should change the work, not only add knowledge | | 6. Effect measured | Savings and remote customer meeting points sales are separate | Do not mix savings with growth | | 7. Second round | IKEA plans to grow remote selling further | Scale after the first loop produces numbers | ## 6. Apply it to your business Complete a short version for your case. | Question | My answer | |---|---| | Which simple repeated flow looks like Billie in our business? | | | Which more valuable human work will this free up? | | | Which 2-3 "before" metrics must we record before the pilot? | | | Which autonomy boundary will we put in writing? | | | Who needs training for a new role rather than "training in AI"? | | If you cannot answer the second question, you are probably building a cost-cutting project. That may still be useful, but it is a different conversation. The Change Compass works best when automation of a simple flow frees people for more valuable work. --- Next: [Process Scoring](process-scoring.md) | [Gate Sheet](change-gates.md) | [Training Inside the Work Loop](training-in-the-loop.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Order of moves: gate sheet > Practicum for **Volume 2, Chapter 11**, "The Change Compass" (first-round route). > This is the printed capstone for Volume 2. Print it and keep it visible. A gate is a control point, a question that needs an honest yes before you take the next step. The rule is **not "by Friday," but "when this is true."** A date asks how much time has passed. A gate asks what has become true. One business may pass seven gates in a quarter; another may need two. A calendar ignores that difference, while the compass allows for it. Order matters more than speed. **Every skipped gate returns later at the most expensive point.** --- ## Seven gates in the first round | # | Gate: what must become true | Honest yes? | Date passed | |---|---|---|---| | 1 | **The work map exists.** I can name 15 repeated processes with volume and pain | [ ] | | | 2 | **Scoring is complete and ONE process is selected.** It has five yes answers and written instructions | [ ] | | | 3 | **The baseline is recorded.** Four "before" numbers are written down | [ ] | | | 4 | **The agent contract exists and an owner is named.** There is a contract page and a person's name | [ ] | | | 5 | **The pilot runs and people learn from it.** The loop has run for a month, 4 weekly review hours happened, and a champion is visible | [ ] | | | 6 | **The full-cycle effect is measured.** The result is compared with the baseline and tied to one of three levers. Decision: scale / repair / close honestly | [ ] | | | 7 | **Second round.** The next scored process moves faster because context exists, people know how, and the team has practiced saying no | [ ] | | **Rules for passing the gates:** - **One process, not three.** Three first loops running at once divide the owner's attention and rarely survive. - **Gate 3 cannot move.** Without "before," there is no "after." Record the baseline before launch or accept that it does not exist. - **Gate 6 is the honesty point.** Closing a pilot with numbers is a sound result. An endless pilot without numbers is the worst result. Set a review date and allow three honest outcomes from the start. - **My first-round process:** `_________________________________________________` - **My four "before" numbers for Gate 3:** `___` `___` `___` `___` Before you fill in the sheet, see how the gates work in a public example: **[IKEA Through the Change Compass](ikea-compass-example.md)**. ## If you manage a team inside a company The route stays the same, but the scope is smaller. Your map covers team processes, and your mandate covers one loop. Your advantage is speed: you do not need the board to pass the first five gates. A manager who brings leadership a working loop and measured effect has a different conversation from someone presenting slides about AI's potential. - Detailed routes: [Manager Route Through the Gates](manager-gates-route.md) and [Business Route Through the Gates](business-gates-route.md). ## Exit check: did you only add surface polish? Before you call the round complete, ask whether the work map, roles, or measurements changed. If none changed, you added surface polish. Scoring will not catch this. The final question will. Use the [Process Maturity Check](ai-native-maturity-check.md). --- ## Next If you have not scored processes, start with [Process Scoring](process-scoring.md). For the PEOPLE arrow, Gate 5, use [Training Inside the Work Loop](training-in-the-loop.md). For the CONTROL arrow, Gate 4, use the [Agent Contract](agent-contract.md) and [Human Review Matrix](human-review-matrix.md). > Adding AI is easy. Making the change real is harder. Seven gates and one honest metric separate a rebuild from a gesture. > Back: [Volume 2 Workbook](tom2-workbook.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Training inside the work loop > Practicum for **Volume 2, Chapter 11**, "The Change Compass" (PEOPLE arrow). > Time: 20 minutes for diagnosis and a first-month plan. Everyone finished the course, but nobody uses it. This is one of the seven ways a change dies. Training works **next to a live work loop**, not away from it. One hour a week reviewing a real task beats a week of lectures. Use this worksheet to tell live learning from a completion box and plan the first month. --- ## Signs of live learning and box-checking | Live learning | Box-checking | |---|---| | People learn on **real tasks** from their own process | People use abstract course examples | | A **one-hour weekly review** happens beside the working loop | There is one training session, followed by "figure it out yourselves" | | A **champion has a mandate** to act and carry the work | Nobody owns it, and everyone does a little | | A person has a **new role** after training, such as reviewer or loop owner | Roles stay the same, so training changes nothing | | Each employee understands **what they personally gain** | "Management said so," and resistance goes underground | What is still missing: `______________________________________________` ## Resistance is a rational calculation Employee resistance is not simple stubbornness. It is a reasonable response to the unanswered question, "What happens to me?" Clarity works better than pressure. Give each important person a short, honest answer. | Person | What they may lose (their fear) | What they gain (honestly) | |---|---|---| | | | | | | | | > A warning from the chapter: do not turn the team into debtors on a cognitive loan. > If people stop thinking and only press a button, you have trained dependence rather than a team. > Training should leave a person stronger, not helpless without the agent. ## First-month mini-plan (Gate 5) This connects to the [gate sheet](change-gates.md). Gate 5 closes after the loop has run for a month and four weekly review hours have happened. - **Process loop where we learn:** `_______________________________` - **Champion, with name and mandate:** `_______________________________________________` - **Day and time of the weekly review:** `___________________________________` - **Week 1 review:** `_______________________________________________` - **Week 2 review:** `_______________________________________________` - **Week 3 review:** `_______________________________________________` - **Week 4 review:** `_______________________________________________` - **New role that appeared in the team:** `___________________` --- ## Next Follow the full route with the [Order of Moves Gate Sheet](change-gates.md). Place the person in the loop with the [Human Review Matrix](human-review-matrix.md). Define the agent's permissions and boundaries with the [Agent Contract](agent-contract.md). Back: [Volume 2 Workbook](tom2-workbook.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. --- name: agent-contract description: >- Builds a contract for an AI agent across ten fields — role, mission, inputs, tools, memory, boundaries, escalation, review, metrics, owner — and turns the metric into a measurable threshold at which the agent stops itself. From chapter 3 of "Business in the Age of AI Agents". Use when the user is about to put an agent into a team process and needs its limits, escalation path, owner and stop threshold written down. Triggers "agent contract", "agent boundaries", "who owns this agent", "where should the agent stop", "we are putting AI into this process". license: MIT --- # The agent contract (Practicum for "When Intelligence Became Cheap") 📋 A ready-made skill for an AI assistant. Drop this file into your agent's skills folder — or copy the block below into any chat and describe the one agent you are about to launch. One agent, one contract. The worksheet, the template, two worked examples and the pre-flight list: [The agent contract](../../playbooks/agent-contract.md). Before the contract, work through the [Human Review Matrix](../../playbooks/human-review-matrix.md): the matrix decides which tasks can be handed over at all, the contract pins down a single agent. ```text Help me write a contract for an AI agent, using the model from "Business in the Age of AI Agents" (chapter 3). An agent on a team is not a magic employee: it is a role with explicit boundaries, a review step and a human owner. Collect from me if I have not given it: 1. What the agent is and which process it will work in. 2. What data and systems it will have access to. 3. Who on the team is accountable for it, by name. What to do — fill in ten fields, asking me where the information is missing: Role · Mission (one sentence) · Inputs · Tools · Memory (and what must NOT go into it) · Boundaries (what the agent never does without confirmation) · Escalation (the condition under which it hands over to a human) · Review (how and when the result is checked) · Metrics (one or two numbers) · Owner (a name). Then tie metric, escalation and stop into a single guardrail: — signal metric (share of answers needing no edits · anomaly in the numbers · escalation rate · cost per day); — threshold: a specific number, named BEFORE launch; — action at the threshold: pause and human review · roll back to manual · switch off. Discipline (hold to this): - Without Boundaries, Escalation and Owner this is not a contract but a wish. If I do not supply them, do not fill them in with plausible text — say plainly that the contract is not ready. - The owner is a named person. "The team" and "the department" are not accepted. - Review is not delegated to AI: name where a human looks at the result. - Access is least privilege: only what the mission needs. - The threshold is named before launch, not after an incident. - Do not scale straight after the contract: next come the eval set and shadow mode. - Do not invent system names, integrations or numbers on my behalf. Answer format: 1. Contract table: field | value. 2. The guardrail: metric | threshold | action. 3. Pre-flight: the six-point checklist, marking what is closed and what is not. 4. The weakest point here, in one honest sentence. ``` --- # Book 3: The Economics of Trust --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. --- reading_level: b2-c1-technical title: "Book 3 Workbook: The Economics of Trust" description: An end-to-end route for deciding whom to trust and making your own claims easier to verify. --- # Book 3 Workbook: The Economics of Trust > The end-to-end Practicum route for *The Economics of Trust* (Book 3 in the > *When Intelligence Became Cheap* series). > This route through the contents asks **whom to trust when content, voices, and reputations are cheap > to fake, and how to become someone people can trust without excessive checking.** > > **Verifiability** is the axis of this route. Do not rely on a verbal claim. Arrange your work so that > important facts about you can be confirmed without your help. For the professional route, use the > [Volume 1 Workbook](tom1-workbook.md). For the business route, use the > [Volume 2 Workbook](tom2-workbook.md). Trust has two sides in this volume. The first is **protection:** avoid a fake call, email, or review, without paying the cost of checking everything. The second is **creation:** build a verifiable trail so that people and even AI search can choose you with less doubt. The workbook covers both sides. > **Did you arrive from a specific chapter?** The Practicum uses three "homes," not one page per > chapter. The [chapter index](tom3-chapter-index.md) gives each chapter one row and links straight to > its material. --- ## Minimum trust package If you do not have time for the whole volume, complete these five worksheets in one evening: 1. [Family trust protocol](family-trust-protocol.md): agree on a check phrase, talk with parents and children, print a note, and decide what to do first after a scam. Think of it as a seat belt. Set it up before anything happens. 2. [Personal trust perimeter](trust-perimeter.md): cover the work side with a second channel for costly instructions, a saved trail of work, and protection if someone makes an accusation. 3. [The first 24 hours with an important file](chain-of-custody.md): preserve the original, action log, independent trace, and context before any of them disappear. 4. [Trust footprint map](trust-footprint-map.md): check what other people can already verify about you without your help and where the gaps are. Then choose one move for the next month. 5. [Honest AI policy](honest-ai-policy.md): give clients one page that says where AI works, where a human is guaranteed, and who owns an error. These five worksheets cover the main route through the volume. You have basic protection, the important file remains intact, and other people can verify and choose you more easily. --- ## My trust protocol on one page Complete this page after the minimum package, or start here if you need one result instead of ten notes. Do not search for absolute authenticity. Decide in advance **what level of checking is enough for the cost of this error.** | Write this down | Home | Work and business | |---|---|---| | Costly situation | Who may ask for money, access, or an urgent decision? | Which instruction, payment, access request, or reputation risk must never be accepted from one message? | | Second channel | Which saved number or personal channel will you use to check the request? | Who confirms the instruction outside the channel controlled by the sender? | | Independent support | Who else can confirm the person or fact? | Where is the original, log, agreement, version, or other independent trace? | | What I show | How do people close to you know how to check that it is really you? | How can a client or coworker see the decision owner, the limits on AI, and the work history? | | Human owner | Who has the right to stop the payment or conversation? | Who owns the decision and repairs an error? | **If you made the mistake.** Write one sentence for the first few hours, one fact you will show a week later, and one process change. Do not promise "it will never happen again." Say what will be checked differently. The [trust repair protocol](trust-repair-protocol.md) gives the full route. **One move for the next 30 days:** **Next review date:** For a fillable version that you can export, [open the browser-based Trust Compass](../skills/trust-compass/index.md). See a deliberately imperfect first pass by a [composite family and independent professional](../cases/persona-family-trust.md). > **Review prompt.** "Here is my trust protocol. Find one situation with a high cost of error where I > still have not named a second channel or independent support. Do not suggest services or judge whether > a voice or file is authentic. Help me define one practical move for the next 30 days and a review date." --- ## The volume's three homes ### Home 1: Protection (Chapters 1 to 5). Avoid traps without paying to check everything The diagnosis is simple: convincing no longer means authentic. Voices, faces, reviews, and resumes can all be faked. You do not need to check everything. Check the cases where an error is costly. - [Family trust protocol](family-trust-protocol.md) for **home:** a check phrase, a conversation with parents and children, common schemes, limits for your own agents, a note by the phone, and the first hours after a scam. - [Personal trust perimeter](trust-perimeter.md) for **work and money:** a second channel for costly instructions, a work trail created before an accusation, protection during an accusation or a review attack, and your personal "distrust tax" account. - Live page, for readers in Russia: [protections available there](../watch/ru-fraud-protection.md), including voluntary credit bans, the "second hand" rule, cooling-off periods, and the rule that a bank does not write through messengers. These measures are free and take minutes to enable. ### Home 2: Verifiability and creation (Chapters 6 to 12). Keep a trail and become easier to verify Procedure connects protection and trust. Preserve an important file and build your own trail over time. When fakes are cheap, **verifiable human work** becomes more valuable. - [Chain of custody: the first 24 hours](chain-of-custody.md) explains what to do with an important file before an expert review or dispute: preserve the original, a log, a checksum, and an independent trace. - [Evidence package before a dispute](evidence-package.md) gives you a template for money, work, a deal, or reputation: what happened, where the original is, what the context was, and who can confirm it independently. It also asks how much checking is enough for a video, a hire, and a payment. - Live page: [trust and regulation](../watch/trust-regulation.md) covers who accepts a digital file, how to check the origin of someone else's file, and who owns an agent's error. - [Trust footprint map](trust-footprint-map.md) is the **flagship worksheet.** It puts three anchors, a verifiable history, live references, and a signed channel, across four channels: social media or Telegram, talks or conferences, books or publications, and community. Its main question is: *which parts are expensive to fake?* - [Honest AI policy](honest-ai-policy.md) treats trust as part of the product. It asks you to state how AI is used and make clear who your offer is not for. - [Trust inside a team](trust-inside-team.md) covers work controls: a register of bots that speak in your name and a hiring protocol for a world where an on-screen candidate is cheap to fake. - [Trust repair protocol](trust-repair-protocol.md) covers the other side of a verifiable trail: what to do when you made the mistake. First decide whether competence or honesty failed, then use the right process for that failure. - Live and reusable: the [AI search visibility kit](geo-ai-search-kit.md) helps neural systems find and cite you. Its trust layer asks not only whether you are visible, but what those systems say about you. ### Home 3: Compass (Chapter 13). Choose the depth and check both sides The final chapter turns the material into a decision route. It relies on boring protocols that still work when you are tired, not heroic vigilance. - [Trust Compass](trust-compass.md) has one cost-of-error arrow, three levels of depth, two territories (Home and Work and business), two sides (how I check and what I show), and four norms. - [Family trust protocol](family-trust-protocol.md) is a standalone route for a broad audience. It covers family members, parents, children, your own agents, and the first hours after a scam. - Live page: the [regulatory tracker](../watch/trust-regulation.md) covers AI labeling, provenance, and laws. It changes quickly. --- The volume is framed by **three trust questions:** "Who is speaking? What do they answer for? Who can confirm it independently?" It also uses one rule: check what is costly, not what looks strange. The book explains the questions, and the [Trust Compass](trust-compass.md) turns them into levels of review. --- > **How this section is built.** Work on the Volume 3 Practicum began before the chapters, and it is > now synchronized after each author acceptance. Each worksheet stands on its own. Material that > changes quickly, including schemes, laws, and tools, lives in the Live section with review dates. > See the [Volume 3 sources](../sources/tom3.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Family trust protocol: one conversation before the urgent call > Practicum for **Book 3, *The Economics of Trust*, Chapter 13**. > Setup time: 15 to 20 minutes. This protocol does not teach you to detect a fake voice. > It gives you steps that work whether the voice is real or fake. ## 1. Choose a family check phrase The phrase is not a password that authorizes a payment. It is a **stop signal**. A correct answer lowers the risk, but you still confirm an expensive request through an independent channel. A good phrase: - does not appear on social media, in messages, or in family greetings; - is not a pet's name, address, birth date, or mother's maiden name; - is easy to say and remember; - is known only to relatives who follow the agreement. We keep our phrase in this agreed secure place, not on this page: _______________ People who know it: ___________________________________________________________ Test it aloud once during a normal conversation. Do not send it through the same chat where a fraudulent request could arrive. ## 2. Agree on the response If a voice, video, or message from a relative asks for money, access, a document, or a secret code: 1. Ask for the check phrase. 2. Whatever the answer, do not pay or share information through the same contact. 3. End the conversation. 4. Contact your relative yourself through a saved number or another relative. 5. Do nothing if you cannot confirm the request. Urgency does not stop you from helping. It stops you from acting through one channel. Treat anyone who claims to represent a bank or public agency the same way: end the call, then contact the organization through an official number you found yourself. ### What these scams usually look like You do not need a catalog of horrors or a lesson in detecting a fake by ear. That approach does not work. These schemes follow a similar script, and one rule can break all of them. | Scheme | What happens | What makes the attack harder | |---|---|---| | "A relative is in trouble" | A voice that sounds like a child or grandchild urgently asks for money | Ask for the check phrase, then call the saved number yourself | | "Bank security" | The caller leads you toward a transfer to a "safe account" or asks for a text-message code | Hang up and call the number printed on the card | | A call presented as a survey | The caller tries to collect a recording of your voice to build a clone | Do not have long conversations with unknown callers | | A video message "from a relative" | The face and voice look real, but the request comes from someone else | A video is not confirmation. Apply the same rule | > Shared pattern: **urgency plus money, data, or access means stop.** A real emergency can survive a two-minute check. Workplace schemes, including a fake message from an executive, changed payment details, and review attacks, appear in the [Personal trust perimeter](trust-perimeter.md). ## 3. Talk with parents and older relatives Do not start with a list of technologies or frightening examples. Say this: > "Scammers can now speak with the voices of people you know. You do not have to tell a real voice from a fake one. If anyone asks for money, hang up and call me yourself using your saved number. The real me will never be offended by the check." Then add the second half: > "If they fool you, or if you only start to feel unsure, call me right away. I will not scold you or take away your independence. First we will stop the loss. Then we will work out what happened." Removing shame is part of the protection. A person who fears the family's reaction waits longer before calling the bank or police. ### Add the bank controls available where you live Check whether your bank lets you lower transfer limits, require an extra confirmation for large payments, freeze a card quickly, or disable features you do not use. Names and rules differ by bank and country. Use the bank's official app or site to confirm the current terms, then choose controls your family can explain and use. Do not assume that a cooling-off period, dispute deadline, or reimbursement rule works the same way everywhere. Check the current process with your bank or local financial regulator before you need it. ## 4. Children and teenagers A child needs the same check phrase and a shorter rule: > "If an adult you do not know says your parents are in trouble, asks you to turn on the camera, find money, show valuables, or keep the call secret, end the conversation and call your trusted adult right away." A child does not help an "investigation" by phone, show the home on video, or search for family money at a caller's direction. ## 5. Your AI agents and family money If an assistant can order or pay for things, make an agreement with it too: | Setting | Our decision | |---|---| | Maximum amount for one purchase | | | Maximum amount per month | | | What it may buy on its own | | | What it may only add to a cart | | | Which subscriptions and extra charges are forbidden | | | Where we can see notifications and the activity log | | | How to cancel an action or dispute a payment | | If you cannot remember the agent's limit, assume there is no limit. ## 6. The first hours after fraud Stop the loss first. Work out how it happened afterward. 1. **Contact the bank through an official number** printed on the back of the card, shown in the banking app, or listed on the bank's official site. If you may have exposed card details or remote access, ask the bank to block the card and remote access. 2. **Preserve the trail:** time, phone numbers, addresses, messages, receipts, screenshots, and the amount. Do not delete or "improve" anything. 3. **Ask the bank to open a dispute or recall request** if money moved without your consent or because of fraud. Follow the deadline and evidence rules in your country. Record the case number and every answer. 4. **Use your local fraud-reporting route.** This may be the police, a national fraud service, or a financial regulator. Keep the report number and any written confirmation. 5. **Tell someone close to you.** Do not face the shame and follow-up calls alone. So-called helpers may promise to recover the money and try to scam you again. A bank does not always have to return the money, especially when the customer confirmed the transfer. Do not promise yourself or your relative a guaranteed refund. Act quickly and record every contact. --- ## Card to keep by the phone > **ARE THEY ASKING FOR MONEY OR DATA?** > > 1. I do not argue or transfer anything. > 2. I hang up. > 3. I call my relative or bank myself using a saved official number. > 4. I never share text-message codes, card details, or passwords. > 5. If I already shared or transferred something, I call the bank and my relative at once. > > **A real relative will not be offended by a check.** Print this block in large type and leave it near the phone. Rehearse the sequence once: who calls whom, which number they use, and what happens if the first person does not answer. ## A separate large-print card for older relatives Print this version in the largest practical type and leave it by your parents' home phone. It is shorter because nobody reads a long list during a stressful call. > **OUR PHRASE: `______________`** > > If someone calls and asks for money, even in the voice of my child or grandchild: > > 1. I ask for our phrase. > 2. I hang up. This is not rude. > 3. I call back myself using my saved number. > 4. I never share a text-message code. With anyone. Ever. > 5. A bank or the police will never ask me to transfer money to a "safe account." > > **If I already transferred money or shared a code, I call right away:** > > My relative: `______________` | Bank: number on the back of my card > > **Nobody will scold me. The sooner I call, the better the chance of getting the money back.** The last line is required. Shame can keep a person silent for a full day, and that day can decide whether the money comes back. *Related worksheets:* [Trust compass](trust-compass.md), [Personal trust perimeter](trust-perimeter.md), and [The first day with an important file](chain-of-custody.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Personal trust perimeter: work, money, and your good name > Practicum for **Book 3, *The Economics of Trust*** (the Protection house). Setup time: 20 minutes. > Four protocols for the working side of life. Set up Sections 1 and 2 in advance. Read Sections 3 and 4 when you need them. These protocols are not about paranoia. They make deception **more expensive and easier to notice**, and they help you stay calm. When an email "from the CEO" arrives, or someone claims that "AI wrote this," a rule you created in advance matters more than alertness. Set it up once. It will still work when you are tired or in a hurry. > **Home has its own worksheet.** The [Family trust protocol](family-trust-protocol.md) contains the check phrase, conversations with parents and children, common call scams, and a card to keep by the phone. Start there. It protects family money, while this worksheet protects work and reputation. --- ## 1. A second channel for expensive instructions at work A convincing message "from management" is a new wrapper around an old fraud. A procedure protects you better than your eye. 1. **List expensive actions** that nobody may approve from one call or message, however convincing it looks. Examples include a payment, changed payment details, access transfer, or data release. Your list: `__________` 2. **Set a second-channel rule.** If an instruction arrives by voice, video, or messenger, confirm it through an independent channel in the company directory. Do not use contact details from the incoming message. 3. **Give the manager a script for the team:** "I will never ask you to make a transfer through a messenger. If I do, call my work number. That is an instruction." 4. **Give junior employees the right to verify.** A callback follows procedure. It does not show distrust, and nobody is punished for the pause. --- ## 2. Build a work trail before an accusation AI detectors can accuse a real person of using a model. Protect the work in advance with one setting that can serve you for years. - [ ] I create important work in a system that **keeps version history**, such as Google Docs, Microsoft 365, Notion, or a Git repository. - [ ] I keep drafts and source material. A writer keeps versions, an analyst keeps data and calculations, a photographer keeps source files, and a developer keeps commits. - [ ] I establish dates at no cost by emailing a draft to myself. For important work, I also export a dated copy. ### If someone accuses you Do not defend yourself with words alone. **Show the process.** Edit history is more convincing than a final file or a detector score. Use this order: 1. **Do not argue about the percentage.** The detector score is neither something you can debate nor the claim you need to disprove. Move the conversation to the process. 2. **Show how the work developed:** version history, dated drafts, intermediate versions, source files, and data. One screen with edit history can resolve the question faster than an hour of explanation. 3. **Answer questions about the substance.** The author can explain any part without reading from the text: why they chose an approach, where a figure came from, and what they removed. 4. **Ask for the basis of the decision in writing.** If the only basis is a percentage, preserve that fact. The next question is about the decision process, not your character. 5. **Do not accept an oral compromise** when the outcome matters, including a grade, disciplinary action, or termination. Ask for the decision and its basis in writing. **There is support for this approach in Russian court practice.** In June 2026, the Supreme Court of Tatarstan ruled that a student's expulsion over alleged "AI text" in a thesis was unlawful. Three consecutive checks of the same file in Antiplagiat.VUZ reported AI-content scores ranging from 41.91% to 11.92%. The court stated that the system's report **was probabilistic**, while the final decision belonged to an expert. The student was reinstated, and the university had to pay compensation for moral harm and a fine. Here, "probabilistic" means that the score expressed likelihood, not proof. Source: *Kommersant*, June 8, 2026: [the court's position](https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/8727298) and [reinstatement and compensation](https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/8727878). *Verified: 2026-07-29.* Practical result: ask for another check of the same file and record the spread. The same text producing unstable scores became an argument the court understood. ### If you are the decision-maker This is the other side of the same problem, for a teacher, manager, or editor. Before making a decision based on a "percentage," ask: - [ ] Do I understand **what the detector measured** and know its error rate? - [ ] Did I ask to see the process rather than demand a defense? - [ ] Did I ask at least one question about the substance of the work? - [ ] Am I punishing a style, such as careful prose, a formulaic genre, or writing by a nonnative speaker? - [ ] Do I have a **second independent** signal beyond the score? - [ ] Did I let the person respond **before** the decision rather than after it? > The cost of an error may be another person's reputation, diploma, or job. In this case, verify your own decision as carefully as you verify their text. --- ## 3. Review attack: the first 24 hours for a small business If someone floods your business with fake reviews or demands money to remove them: 1. **Do not pay.** Payment does not stop the attack and tells the attacker that you may pay again. 2. **Preserve the evidence.** Save screenshots of reviews, profiles, and demands, with dates and times. 3. **Report it to the platform** through its fake-review or extortion channel. Current forms appear in the [regulatory tracker](../watch/trust-regulation.md). 4. **Ask real customers for help.** Publish an honest note and ask for genuine reviews. Do not buy a batch of positive reviews as a "repair." That continues the same downward path. 5. **Report extortion to the police.** Bring in a lawyer if the scale calls for one. --- ## 4. Your personal distrust-tax account This optional exercise takes one week. Choose **one** process, such as incoming calls, order intake, or a family phone. Track what distrust costs: | Line | What to record | |---|---| | Verification | minutes and money spent checking | | Delay | what waited while the check happened | | False rejection | which real person or request you rejected as fake | | Missed fake | what still got through | Question for the week: **Where did I verify something strange when I should have verified something expensive?** This calibrates your effort toward decisions with a high cost of error instead of every unusual detail. ### The mirror: what do you cost other people? There is another side to the account. You do not only pay a distrust tax. You may charge it to a client, customer, colleague, or employer. Review the same four lines from their point of view: | Line | What to inspect about yourself | |---|---| | Verification | how many steps someone takes before believing they can work with you | | Delay | how long they wait for you to confirm something personally | | False rejection | how many good people leave before they get confirmation | | Accepted on trust | which claims in your offer cannot be checked at all | One question: **What claim about me cannot be confirmed without asking me?** Each answer is a tax other people pay and a reason to choose someone else. - Most expensive line: `__________` - First thing to make verifiable: `__________` Take that answer into the [Trust footprint map](trust-footprint-map.md), where it becomes one move for the month. --- > **No promise of invulnerability.** These protocols make deception more expensive and easier to notice, not impossible. > For home, use the [Family trust protocol](family-trust-protocol.md). Next, open the [Trust footprint map](trust-footprint-map.md) to move from protection toward becoming easier to trust. --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Trust footprint map: make it easier to choose you > Practicum for **Book 3, *The Economics of Trust*** (the Creation house). Time: 30 to 40 minutes. > A worksheet for an independent professional or small business. Fill it in on paper or in a note. A review, resume, or feed full of "experts" can be faked in an evening. That makes **verifiable human work** more valuable. The person who is easiest to verify can beat the loudest one. This worksheet is not a personal-brand exercise. It reduces the work another person must do to check the claims that matter, even when you are not there to explain them. > **Use four questions throughout the worksheet.** Is the signal hard to fake? Does it build over time? Can someone check it from outside? Will it lower the cost of another check during a future decision? > A badge, a self-description, and three glowing reviews fail this test. A long work history, real clients, a person willing to confirm the work, and a channel with a past perform much better. You can make a first move in one evening. It becomes capital through repetition, outside support, and consequences. --- ## Step 1. Three anchors: what do people check? Professional trust has three anchors. Mark what you already have that someone can **verify**. "I am good" does not count. "Someone can confirm this without me" does. | Anchor | What it means | What I have now | Expensive to fake? (yes/no) | |---|---|---|---| | **Verifiable history** | real work, case studies, dates, and results that someone can check | `__________` | | | **Live references** | named people who will confirm the work and speak with someone | `__________` | | | **Signed channel** | a named channel with your history and identity, rather than an anonymous account | `__________` | | > An empty row is a weak point. One complete anchor marked "expensive to fake: yes" carries more weight than ten bold claims. The third anchor does not depend on the platform alone. It depends on **consequences**. Words in a signed channel are tied to you, so you may have to answer for them. That is why people trust the channel more than an anonymous review. The statement has a price. --- ## Step 2. Four channels in your footprint Leave a trail where people look for you. For each channel, record what already exists, what a stranger can see without you, and one move for the next month. You do not need all four. Choose one or two that your clients really use. | Channel | What already exists | What people can see without me | One move this month | |---|---|---|---| | **Social media / Telegram:** where you think in public | | | | | **Talks / conferences:** where people saw you live | | | | | **Books / publications / articles:** what remains in writing | | | | | **Community:** a smaller circle where people know you personally | | | | > A smaller circle of people who know you can be stronger than broad reach. Trust is deeper there, and a reputation among real people is hard to fake. This is your "dark forest." See the [Trust compass](trust-compass.md). ### What a machine can read Some parties checking you are already software systems. A client may ask an assistant instead of a search engine. A machine has no intuition and will not fill in missing context for you. | What leaves a trail for a person | What a machine can extract | |---|---| | A post where you think in public | your specialty, if you use the same wording across sources | | A talk where people saw you | name, topic, date, and venue, if they appear in text | | A publication or case study | a figure with a unit, a date, and a link to the primary source | | A conversation inside a community | nothing, because the closed circle is invisible to the machine | This does not mean "write for robots." State facts that affect a decision clearly. Name the responsible person instead of "the team." Give a date instead of "recently." Link the primary source instead of saying "research shows." For current context, see [how much of the web is machine traffic](../watch/machine-web.md). --- ## Step 3. Keep a show-your-work rhythm You cannot create authenticity capital by declaring it. It remains as a side effect of real work. Publish an artifact rather than a post about yourself: a case analysis, a method, a record of how you thought, or an honest review of an error. One artifact a week or a month can create a trail over a year that is hard to fake. - My show-your-work format: `__________________` - Where I publish it (one channel I control): `__________________` - A realistic frequency: `__________________` Rule: **process is more convincing than polish.** "How it worked" and "where I was wrong" often build more trust than a perfect storefront. --- ## Step 4. Signed channel and provenance One channel that is clearly yours is a strong anchor. You can also attach **content provenance**, a record of origin and changes, to important material so another person cannot easily claim your work, or put your name on a fake. - My official channel, where I send everyone: `__________________` - Where I tell clients that **I write only from this channel** to protect them from impersonation: `__________________` - Content provenance ([Content Credentials / C2PA](https://contentauthenticity.org/)) is optional. Consider it for photos, videos, or other material that someone could present under a false name. *Verified: 2026-07. Support is growing in cameras and Adobe products, but the label does not always reach the viewer. It is an extra signal, not a guarantee.* Current status and limits appear in the [regulatory tracker](../watch/trust-regulation.md). ### Personal provenance in one evening Six settings that help people confirm your authorship without you: - [ ] **I can find the originals.** Source photos, text versions, and talk recordings stay in one place after publication. - [ ] **Important material has a date I can show.** I publish it in my channel, export it with a date, or email the attachment to myself. - [ ] **I have named one official channel** and say so where people most often find me. - [ ] **I state what I never do.** For example, I do not write first about money, request transfers, or give access through a messenger. People can reject an impersonator without forensic analysis. - [ ] **I enable content provenance** for material that someone may realistically present under another name. - [ ] **I know where to go if someone puts my name on their work:** the platform, complaint route, and deadline. Current contacts appear in the [regulatory tracker](../watch/trust-regulation.md). > Provenance is not about paranoia or a particular technology. It makes confirmation **cheap** for a person who has doubts about whether the material is yours. --- ## Step 5. Can AI search see you, and what does it say? A client may ask an AI system "whom should I hire?" instead of using Google. If you do not appear in the answer, you are absent from that decision. If the answer describes you poorly, you can lose trust before the client reaches your site. Use the [AI search visibility kit](geo-ai-search-kit.md) for a full measurement. For a quick check of the structure an AI can cite: - [ ] My position or specialty stays consistent over time. - [ ] I have a clear method that another person can describe. - [ ] My work has a named author rather than an anonymous label. - [ ] I have a stable address, channel, or page that does not keep moving. - [ ] I have a history of accurate work that someone can confirm. More checked boxes make it easier for both a person and an AI assistant to recommend you. --- ## Result: one move Find the empty place that is **cheapest for you to repair and most expensive for your client to check**: - My weakest anchor: `__________` - One move this month that will make it verifiable: `__________________` > Test the move with four questions. Is it hard to fake? Will it build over time? Can someone verify it without you? Will it simplify more than one future check? If yes, you are building authenticity capital. If the move only improves the storefront quickly, it is cosmetic rather than a footprint. --- *Related worksheets:* [Honest AI policy](honest-ai-policy.md), [Trust compass](trust-compass.md), and [Personal trust perimeter](trust-perimeter.md). *Volume voice:* be verifiable, not loud. --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Evidence package before a dispute > Practicum for **Volume 3, Chapters 6 and 10**. Time: 20 minutes for one situation. > A worksheet for money, work, transactions, and reputation. It does not replace advice from a qualified professional. Build verifiability before a conflict begins. Choose one situation where an error would be expensive. Connect four layers in advance: **what happened, source material, context, and an independent record**. --- ## 1. Describe the future dispute in one sentence > If a dispute begins, I will need to confirm that _________________________________ Do not write, "I am right." Write a fact someone can check: an instruction was given, a result was approved, an item had a certain condition when transferred, or a publication existed on a certain date. ## 2. Gather four layers | Layer | What belongs in the package | What I have | |---|---|---| | **Event** | date, participants, action, amount, or subject | | | **Source** | original file, email, contract, photo, or recording | | | **Context** | messages before and after, document version, call record | | | **Independent record** | statement, system log, email header, or confirmation from another person | | If you fill only the source row, the package is weak. A polished file does not explain where it came from or what happened around it. --- ## 3. Choose your situation ### Money - contract, invoice, and original payment details; - separate confirmation of a change in recipient or amount; - payment order, receipt, and statement; - bank case number and the time you reported the incident; - company approval log, if one exists. **Rule for the future:** Confirm new payment details and urgent payments through an independent channel. ### Work - written employment or project terms; - task description and definition of done; - versions of the result and comments on them; - email or system record of approval; - log of the delivery and later changes. **Rule for the future:** Turn an important spoken promise into a short same-day email: "Have I understood this correctly?" ### Transaction - contract and attachments; - photos or video of the item's condition before transfer; - serial number, included parts, and meter readings; - transfer document, receipt, and shipping record; - confirmation from the other party or an independent participant. **Rule for the future:** Record the condition before the item or access changes hands. ### Reputation - original post or message; - full page address and date; - screenshot with the surrounding page, not only a cropped sentence; - archived copy, platform notice, email, or another person's screenshot; - log of reports to the platform and its responses. **Rule for the future:** Record the content, account, address, time, and platform response. --- ## 4. Check independence Ask four questions about each item: 1. Is it stored only with me? 2. Could someone change it without leaving a trace? 3. Which person or system can confirm it independently? 4. Will that record still exist in a month? **Weakest layer in the package:** _________________________________________________ **One move today:** ________________________________________________________ --- ## 5. How much is enough for a video, a hire, or a payment? A formal dispute is the extreme case. You usually need to answer a smaller question: **How much verification is enough for this decision?** The answer depends on the cost of being wrong, not on how strange the item looks. ### What a credential really confirms | Credential or evidence | What it confirms | What it does not confirm | |---|---|---| | Diploma or certificate | the person completed a program at a stated time | that they can do the work today | | Platform review | someone posted positive words | that the author exists or had the claimed experience | | Case study or portfolio | a result is shown | that this person produced it | | Product demo | the system works on prepared data | that it will work on your data | | Named recommendation | the author is willing to put their reputation behind the statement | that they examined the work closely | | Independent audit or measurement | a third party checked something with a stated method | that the method fits your situation | | Signed file or provenance record | origin and change history | that the content is true | ### How much to check at different levels of risk | Decision | What you lose if you are wrong | Enough verification | |---|---|---| | Watch or forward something funny | nothing | none; save your attention | | Cite something publicly as fact | your reputation | primary source and date | | Hire someone | months of work and access | live conversation, work artifacts, and one independent person who will stand behind the reference | | Pay or change payment details | money, often with no way back | confirmation through a channel known **in advance**; for a large amount, add a second signer or limit | | Share data or access | the change may be irreversible and may affect other people | all of the above, plus a written basis and an expiration date | Record the result as one of three states: **confirmed, probable, or unknown**. Apply the state to this decision, not forever. Strong verification does not pretend to settle everything. It makes the remaining uncertainty visible. > Turn the table toward yourself. Which claims **about you** can survive these questions? Which parts of your portfolio or proposal still depend on "take my word for it"? Continue with the [Trust footprint map](trust-footprint-map.md). --- ## What looks like evidence but often is not - a screenshot without an address, date, or context; - a forwarded video instead of the original; - an "enhanced" recording with no preserved original; - a clearly named file with no history of how it appeared; - your own log with no link to another system; - a spoken agreement that everyone remembers differently. --- ## First page of the package ```text What happened: When: Participants: What must be confirmed: Where the original is stored: Derivative copies created: How integrity was checked: Independent record: Who was notified and when: Who keeps the package: Next deadline: ``` Do not collect everything. The package should help the next person, such as a bank employee, editor, or lawyer, quickly see origin, integrity, and context. *Related worksheets:* [The first day with an important file](chain-of-custody.md), [Personal trust perimeter](trust-perimeter.md), and [Trust footprint map](trust-footprint-map.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Trust inside the company: bot register and hiring protocol > Practicum for **Book 3, *The Economics of Trust*** (the Verifiability and Creation house, work track). > Time: one meeting. For a manager, small-business owner, or anyone who hires people. People are no longer the only voices speaking for your company. The website chat, an email autoresponder, and an assistant inside the customer portal can all make promises to a client. Someone is responsible for each promise. Across the table, the same problem appears in reverse. The candidate on screen may be a constructed scene rather than the person you think you are interviewing. These two problems have the same root. Work through them in order. Everything below costs nothing. --- ## 1. Company bot register List every automated voice. Fill in the register once, then update it whenever you add a channel. | Bot or channel | Where it speaks | Says it is software in the first line? | Owner of its words (name) | What it promises for us | |---|---|---|---|---| | `______________` | | | | | | `______________` | | | | | | `______________` | | | | | | `______________` | | | | | Three rules for filling it in: - **The owner is a person, not a department.** "Support" cannot take responsibility. A named person can. - **A bot's name and photo are decoration, not disclosure.** They do not replace the line "You are speaking with a software system." - **An empty owner cell is an answer, not an omission.** If you have not assigned an owner, you are responsible for the channel's words. > The line "You are speaking with an AI assistant" is cheap before a scandal and expensive after one. This register is internal. Its public version is the [Honest AI policy](honest-ai-policy.md), which explains the same arrangement in language a client can use. --- ## 2. Hiring protocol: avoid hiring someone who does not exist Faking a resume, face, and voice can cost less than completing an interview. A sharp eye is not enough. A procedure creates a **trail and consequences**, while a fake candidate tries to avoid both. ### Before the interview - [ ] Tell the candidate in writing and in advance if you will record the interview. - [ ] Get consent to process personal data before the conversation, not after it. - [ ] Check that the contact method leads to the same person named in the application. ### During the interview - [ ] Make at least one stage live and spontaneous rather than fully scripted. - [ ] Use one move from this list: change language in the middle of the conversation, ask to see the working environment, ask an unplanned question, or return to a detail the candidate mentioned ten minutes earlier. - [ ] Watch how the person improvises, not how polished the image looks. A prepared scene can survive the script. A departure from it is harder. ### After the offer - [ ] Before granting access, confirm identity through an independent channel, not the channel the candidate used to approach you. - [ ] Do not grant access to money and data on the first day or through one approver. - [ ] If something does not match, pausing before access costs almost nothing. Giving access to the wrong person can cost everything. **Person responsible for this protocol:** `__________` --- ## Result: one move this week Do not implement everything at once. Choose the move that closes the most expensive gap: > **Our move:** ______________________________________________ > > **Owner:** __________ **Due date:** __________ The first move is often the least exciting one: assign a human owner to every bot. --- *Related worksheets:* [Honest AI policy](honest-ai-policy.md), the public side of the register; [Personal trust perimeter](trust-perimeter.md), the second channel for expensive instructions and a junior employee's right to verify; and [Trust compass](trust-compass.md), which sorts a workweek by the cost of error and assigns a "trust" or "verify" mode to each task. --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # Chain of custody: the first day with an important file > Practicum for **Volume 3, Chapter 10**. Time: 10 to 15 minutes. > This is a practical first-preservation protocol, not digital forensics or legal advice. An important file rarely loses a dispute because it looks unconvincing. The problem is often simpler. Nobody knows where the file came from, whether it changed, or who handled it. This worksheet helps you preserve your options. It cannot guarantee that a bank, newsroom, or court will accept the file, but it can stop you from destroying a useful trail yourself. --- ## Start with four actions ### 1. Save the original - Take the source file from the device or service where it first appeared. - Do not make a messenger copy your only copy. The service may compress the file or remove some metadata. - Create a working copy. Store the original separately and do not edit it again. - Preserve the nearby context: the conversation, email, call record, receipt, and login log. **Path to the original:** ________________________________________________ ### 2. Record who, when, and what | Date and time | Who had the file | What they did | Recipient or storage location | |---|---|---|---| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Fill in the log right away. You can add to your own log later, so the log alone proves nothing. Its value comes from links to independent records, such as an email, cloud version history, bank case number, or police report number. ### 3. Create an independent record of the file Choose a method that matches the cost of a possible error: - A **checksum** shows that two files match bit for bit. It does not identify the author or prove a date by itself. - A **channel with an external timestamp**, such as a company system, cloud version history, or registered case, can help show that the file already existed at a certain time. - A **specialist or notary** is useful when a dispute is already likely and the cost of an error is high, not simply "just in case." **Checksum or external record:** __________________________________________ ### 4. Do not improve the original Noise reduction, upscaling, editing, and a command such as "make it clearer" create a derivative version. That version may be easier to inspect, but it is no longer identical to what the device recorded. - Leave the original untouched. - Give an enhanced or cropped version a different name. - Record which tool created the derivative copy and why. --- ## During the first day - [ ] Contact the bank on the same day if money is involved. Save the case number. - [ ] Save the bank statement, receipt, and recipient details. - [ ] Export the conversation or email with dates and technical headers when they are available. - [ ] Record the names of people who witnessed the event or saw the file. - [ ] Ask the employer, platform, or contractor to preserve system logs if they control them. - [ ] If a dispute is likely, contact the right party: the bank and police for money or fraud, a lawyer for a contract or workplace issue, or a fact-checking desk for a publication. ## What usually weakens a file - the only copy is a forwarded message or screenshot; - renaming the file without recording its original name; - editing the original; - deleting nearby messages and notifications; - waiting a long time before creating the first independent record; - assuming that "the recording speaks for itself." --- ## Transfer record Copy this block every time you transfer the file: ```text File: Original name: When and where it appeared: Received from: Checksum: Transferred to: Date and method of transfer: What was transferred: original / exact copy / derivative copy Changes made: Related independent record: ``` --- This protocol is based on [NIST SP 800-86](https://www.nist.gov/publications/guide-integrating-forensic-techniques-incident-response): record every action involving digital material, preserve the source, and verify integrity. NIST describes it as a practical guide to computer forensics, not legal instructions for every country. *Related worksheets:* [Personal trust perimeter](trust-perimeter.md), [Evidence package before a dispute](evidence-package.md), and [Trust and the law](../watch/trust-regulation.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. # An honest AI policy: trust as part of the product > Practicum for **Book 3, *The Economics of Trust*** (the Creation house). Time: 20 to 30 minutes. > A one-page worksheet for an independent professional or small business. You will leave with a short statement you can show a client without embarrassment. Clients increasingly want to know where you use AI, where a person stays involved, and who takes responsibility when the machine gets something wrong. Silence can look like concealment. An honest AI policy is not a legal document. It answers the client's questions before they have to ask. People pay a premium for honesty, not for a business that pretends to be either "fully human" or "fully AI." --- ## Part 1. Where we use AI and where a person takes over Review your services and mark each one honestly: | What we do | AI works on its own | AI works under human review | A person does the work | |---|---|---|---| | `______________` | | | | | `______________` | | | | | `______________` | | | | Rule: **the higher the cost of an error for the client, the farther right you should move.** A person must stay responsible when the work affects money, health, legal rights, or an irreversible decision. --- ## Part 2. Who takes responsibility for an error? Write one sentence a client can understand without a lawyer: - The person responsible for the result is: `__________` (a name or role, not "the system"). - If AI makes an error, the client should do this, and we will do this: `__________________` - The client can reach a person here, without fighting the bot: `__________________` > Easy access to a person is a product feature, not overhead. It matters even more when every competitor sends clients to a bot. --- ## Part 3. Set a boundary: who are you not right for? Trust grows when you say clearly **who you cannot help** and what you will not do. A boundary does not drive away the right clients. It helps them see that you are not promising everything to everyone. - We **do not** take on: `__________________` - We are not a good fit if the client needs: `__________________` - We will not compromise these principles: `__________________` > A boundary filters out poor fits and makes your offer easier to trust for the people you can help. "We are not for everyone" is more honest than "we serve everyone." --- ## Part 4. Put it into one paragraph Combine your answers into a short statement for your website, profile, or offer: > "We use AI for `___` so we can work faster and at lower cost. A person always takes part in `___` because an error there would be expensive. `___` is responsible for the result. If something goes wrong, email or call `___`, and a person will review it. We do not take on `___`; another provider will be a better fit for that work." This is your honest AI policy. Update it whenever you change what you hand over to a machine. --- *Related worksheets:* [Trust footprint map](trust-footprint-map.md) and [Trust compass](trust-compass.md). *Volume voice:* clients pay a premium for work they can verify and for people who speak honestly, not loudly. --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. --- reading_level: b2-c1-technical title: "Trust compass: two territories, two sides, one move" description: Choose the depth of verification before a costly decision and define what you show in return. --- # Trust Compass: two territories, two sides, one move > Practicum for **Book 3, *The Economics of Trust*** (the Compass house, Chapter 13). > Time: 40 to 60 minutes. The compass does not promise to detect a fake. It helps you choose the depth of verification in advance, name its limits, and avoid checking everything. The compass has four parts: - **needle:** the cost of an error; - **depth:** from no verification to independent confirmation; - **two sides:** how I verify others and what I show when others verify me; - **four norms:** shared rules that nobody has to invent under pressure. --- ## 1. Set the needle before you read the message Start with one question: **What will I lose if I am wrong?** Do not judge how convincing the message looks. The other party controls the presentation. You control the cost of an error. | Depth | When to choose it | What to do | |---|---|---| | **No questions** | The error is small and reversible, such as a video, image, or someone's opinion | Do not verify it. Save your attention for expensive decisions | | **One question** | You plan to cite, forward, or base an opinion on it | Ask, "Where did this come from?" Find the source | | **All three plus independent support** | Money, access, documents, health, work, or reputation | Check the origin, speaker, and owner of responsibility. Move to a second channel that the sender does not control | My three expensive scenarios: 1. Home: ______________________________________________ 2. Work or business: _____________________________________ 3. One more: __________________________________________ --- ## 2. Home territory | How I verify | What I show when someone verifies me | |---|---| | A family check phrase stops a request. It does not authorize a payment | My family knows one stable number or channel where they can reach me | | Every request for money ends with a call I make to a saved number | I have already said, "The real me will not be offended by a check" | | Urgency triggers a pause until independent confirmation | Children and older relatives follow the same agreement and have permission to end the call | | An agent that can spend money has a written limit and action list | I can show my authority and the assistant's limits instead of trying to remember them after an error | One move at home this week: ____________________________________________________________________ For the full conversation and printable card, use the [Family trust protocol](family-trust-protocol.md). --- ## 3. Work and business territory | How I verify | What I show when someone verifies me | |---|---| | I always confirm an expensive instruction through an independent second channel | I have a canonical channel, a named decision owner, and a history people can check | | A junior employee may stop a senior person and receives thanks for checking | Colleagues and clients know who is responsible for what | | A bot identifies itself as a bot. The channel has a human owner, limits, and a clear way to reach a person | The [Honest AI policy](honest-ai-policy.md) explains where a machine works, where a person steps in, and who repairs an error | | A detector gives me a reason to ask questions. It does not make a decision about a person | Drafts, versions, sources, and live references let people verify my work without an oath | One move at work this week: ____________________________________________________________________ For the other side of the table, open the [Trust footprint map](trust-footprint-map.md). If an important file could become part of a dispute, use [The first day with an important file](chain-of-custody.md). You can fill both territories, save Markdown, and print the protocol in the [browser-based Trust compass](../skills/trust-compass/index.md). --- ## 4. End the check with an honest limit Verification rarely produces an absolute "authentic." It should answer a narrower question: Do I have enough support for this decision at this cost of error? | Limit | My note | |---|---| | **Confirmed** | | | **Probable** | | | **Unknown** | | Decision I will make with this limit: ____________________________________________________________________ --- ## 5. Four points of the compass A norm works when people say it aloud and apply it to everyone. 1. **Every family has its own phrase.** "If I call and ask for money, ask for the phrase. The real me will not be offended." 2. **Expensive actions require a second channel.** "We never transfer money because of one message. This rule applies to everyone, including me." 3. **A bot always identifies itself, and a person owns its words.** "A client must know whom they are speaking with. Every bot has a named person responsible for it." 4. **A detector does not pass sentence.** "A risk score from software gives us a reason to ask a question. It is not a basis for a decision about a person." Norm I will state first: ____________________________________________________________________ --- ## 6. Who else reads your trail? Some of the parties checking you are already software systems. A responsible person's name works better than "the team." A date works better than "recently." A number needs a unit. A research claim needs a primary source. - [ ] My important name, role, and specialty are stated consistently on the main pages. - [ ] My case studies include dates, source figures, and a clear result. - [ ] My main claims link to primary sources. - [ ] I document errors and corrections instead of hiding them. Compare two AI answers about you. A difference is not a verdict. It points to a missing or unstable source. For current context, see [the machine web](../watch/machine-web.md). --- ## The first ninety minutes 1. **30 minutes:** List the three places where a mistake would cost you most. 2. **30 minutes:** Create independent support for the most expensive scenario. Record whom you call, which saved number you use, what you ask, and what you do if nobody answers. 3. **30 minutes:** State one norm to your family or team. 4. **Two more minutes:** See what one person and two different AI assistants can find about you. > The useful result is not "I verify more." It is **"I verify somewhere else."** > The compass makes deception more expensive. It does not make anyone invulnerable. If you want one final artifact instead of notes from each section, complete the [one-page trust protocol](tom3-workbook.md#my-trust-protocol-on-one-page). For a completed composite example, see [Marina and her family](../cases/persona-family-trust.md). --- > **Draft translation, not author-reviewed.** The Russian edition is the source of truth. --- name: trust-compass description: >- Helps choose the depth of checking in advance from the cost of being wrong rather than from how convincing a message looks: no questions · one question · all three plus independent confirmation on a second channel. Produces a trust protocol for home and work. From chapter 13 of "The Economics of Trust". Use when the user asks whether a message, call, document or person can be trusted, how much checking is enough, or wants a rule for their family or team. Triggers "can I trust this", "how do I verify", "trust compass", "trust protocol", "I got a strange message". license: MIT --- # The trust compass (Practicum for "When Intelligence Became Cheap") 📋 A ready-made skill for an AI assistant. Drop this file into your agent's skills folder — or copy the block below into any chat. The compass does not detect fakes and does not decide whether a person, voice, image or file is real. It helps you name **what checking you decide in advance is enough** when being wrong is expensive. The worksheet this comes from, for filling in by hand: [The trust compass](../../playbooks/trust-compass.md). ```text Help me build a trust protocol using the trust compass from "The Economics of Trust" (chapter 13). The core rule: the depth of checking is set by the cost of being wrong, not by how convincing the message is. The other side controls how convincing it looks. I control the cost of being wrong. Three depths: — No questions: the mistake is small and reversible (a clip, an image, someone's opinion). Do not check; save the attention for what is expensive. — One question: I am about to cite it, forward it or form a view on it. Ask "where did this come from?" and find the source. — All three questions plus independent confirmation: money, access, documents, health, work, reputation. Check the origin, the speaker and the accountability — and step onto a second channel the sender does not control. Collect from me if I have not given it: 1. My three expensive scenarios: one at home, one at work, one of any kind. 2. Who usually gets in touch in them, and through which channels. What to do: 1. Assign a depth to each scenario and justify it by the cost of being wrong, not by how convincing the approach looks. 2. For the deepest scenarios, name a specific second channel the sender does not control. Not "call the number in the message" but "call the number I already had". 3. Help me separate three states honestly: confirmed · probable · unknown. "Probable" is not "yes"; spell out what I did not check. 4. Propose one household agreement and one work agreement — short enough to say out loud and remember in a hurry. 5. Finish with ONE move for the coming week. Discipline: - Do not rule that something "is fake" or "is genuine": you have no grounds for that. - Do not tell me to check everything. Attention is finite, which is the whole point of the compass. - Do not offer AI-detection services as proof. - Say separately what I will present when it is me being checked. Answer format: 1. Table: scenario | cost of being wrong | depth | what I actually do. 2. The second channel for the expensive scenarios. 3. The honesty line: confirmed / probable / unknown. 4. Two agreements: home and work. 5. One move for the week. ```