Original fictional training examples. Use invented information in practice notes. Notes and choices are not sent to a server or automatically saved. These exercises provide learning feedback, not certification or validated hiring scores.
Choose a fictional track
Use Avery’s mortgage case or Riley’s service-supervisor case. Experienced leaders may instead invent an equivalent role and operating brief. Keep all names and information fictional. Allow roughly 90–150 minutes after the courses; revise as needed rather than rushing to finish.
What to submit to yourself
Assemble the eight sections below. Each section must be consistent with the others: your forecast cannot override capacity, your outreach cannot promise an unknown condition, and your readiness plan must match the role you described.
1. Role and business brief
Define actual work outcomes, essential requirements, working conditions and approval owners.
Completed mortgage model
Mortgage model: one supported LO start; a second only after processing-capacity approval. Preserve scenario access and referral service. Operations confirms capacity; licensing and HR own relevant clearances.
Completed universal model
Universal model: supervisor coaches six technicians, coordinates two shifts and resolves escalations. Two early starts weekly are confirmed. Manager validates essential requirements; prestige preferences do not substitute for task evidence.
2. Sourcing and research plan
Choose two appropriate sources, task-related search concepts, a relevance review and information boundaries.
Completed mortgage model
Mortgage model: use appropriate public professional research and voluntary referral introductions. Review evidence of business-development method, not just a volume claim. Record source/date and unknowns without borrower identities or employer lead lists.
Completed universal model
Universal model: test service supervisor, support lead and shift-coordinator variants against coaching and handoff tasks. Review ten results, change one concept and retain an auditable search log. Consider adjacent experience without assuming qualification.
3. Outreach and follow-up
Write an honest opening, one relevant question and an explicit stop or follow-up rule.
Completed mortgage model
Mortgage model: identify the lender recruiting purpose and ask whether discussing referral-partner support is useful. Do not infer dissatisfaction. Close on a decline; one requested check-in is not permission for indefinite outreach.
Completed universal model
Universal model: identify the employer and actual supervisory work. Disclose the confirmed early-start requirement before interviews. Let the person choose whether to continue; use approved contact channels and preference handling.
4. Evidence and comparison plan
Choose two job-related criteria, common questions or verification steps, evidence anchors and unresolved conditions.
Completed mortgage model
Mortgage model: interpret the same twelve-month individual funded-production scope; distinguish company leads from independently developed relationships. Compare candidate priorities with verified processing/product conditions. Leave unknown terms with authorized owners.
Completed universal model
Universal model: assess escalation judgment and coaching with pre-agreed behavioral questions and neutral probes. Record personal actions, trade-offs and outcomes. Use a proportional fictional work sample if appropriate; do not score personal similarity.
5. Decision and communication
Identify the decision owner, material conditions, candidate communication and a justified proceed/pause/no recommendation.
Completed mortgage model
Mortgage model: pause the decision while a material product condition is unanswered. Proceed only when the candidate can assess verified trade-offs and approved employment conditions. Do not guarantee income or future volume.
Completed universal model
Universal model: obtain the planned coaching evidence before the decision. Manager and authorized HR owners approve any offer. Explain the actual schedule and conditions; provide an honest status update if timing changes.
6. Readiness and first-90-day plan
Define pre-start gates, first-week task readiness, a 30/60/90-day plan, owners and escalation routes.
Completed mortgage model
Mortgage model: licensing owner verifies relevant authority; technology tests access; operations confirms supported workflow. No unauthorized borrower/pipeline transfer. At day 30 review expectation gaps, at day 60 coach an observed workflow or skill, at day 90 review support and agreed outcomes.
Completed universal model
Universal model: test handoff-system access before judging performance. First week: practice a fictional handoff with manager feedback. Day 30: review schedule/support; day 60: assess coaching work with evidence; day 90: review task readiness and remaining development needs.
7. Measurement and review
Define a matching cohort, observation window, assumptions, actual results and a review decision.
Completed mortgage model
Mortgage model: two desired starts with illustrative rates 50%,40%,25%,20% require 4 offers,10 interviews,40 conversations,200 unique contacts, rounded backward. This activity scenario does not override one-start initial capacity. Track eligible starts to a defined retention date rather than claiming all placements are retained.
Completed universal model
Universal model: a completed cohort of 200 contacts,40 conversations,10 interviews,4 offers and 2 starts yields 20%, 25%, 40%, 50% stage rates. Do not combine different calendar-event populations. Review candidate feedback and readiness alongside activity; zero denominator means N/A.
8. Risks, trade-offs and next action
Name the two most material unknowns, a stop rule, an owner, a review date and what would change your recommendation.
Completed mortgage model
Mortgage model: product availability and processing capacity are material uncertainties. Operations/product owners confirm them before commitments. Pause affected activity if authority or access is unresolved. Review in one week; no response is not implied clearance.
Completed universal model
Universal model: coaching evidence and tested system access are open dependencies at their respective stages. Use consistent evaluation steps and delay unsupported performance conclusions. Manager owns evidence review; technology owns access; set explicit review dates.
Build your editable project
Write your plan before expanding the model sections. Download your notes to keep them; nothing is uploaded or automatically saved.
Self-review rubric
For each dimension use: Revise—missing, contradictory or unsupported; Developing—plausible but missing evidence, an owner or a decision condition; Ready for discussion—specific, consistent and supported, with remaining uncertainty explicit. This is a learning rubric, not a professional certification or validated assessment.
- Work and fit: The brief identifies actual outcomes, working conditions and justified essentials; the recommendation follows the person’s priorities rather than title prestige.
- Evidence and uncertainty: Facts, assumptions and unknowns are separated; claims have a source or verification owner; the plan does not invent outcomes.
- Communication and choice: Outreach purpose is clear; material conditions are disclosed; declines and follow-up preferences are respected.
- Evaluation quality: Criteria and evidence are job-related and consistent; missing evidence is addressed through an appropriate predefined process.
- Execution and ownership: Capacity, readiness, approvals, handoffs and escalation routes are named; an unsupported promise is not treated as a plan.
- Measurement and learning: Cohorts, denominators, observation windows and scenario assumptions are explicit; the review can change an action.
- Information handling: The learning submission contains fictional information only; professional work would use approved systems and authorized processes.
- Coherent recommendation: The final proceed/pause/no decision follows the evidence, explains trade-offs and names what would change the decision.
Readiness checklist
Tick only after you can point to the relevant part of your project. These checks are page-local and are not proof of competence.
Stress-test the whole plan
- Cut onboarding capacity in half. Which dates and promises must change?
- Change one candidate priority. Does your recommendation still follow the person’s needs?
- Discover that a reported number uses a different denominator. Which calculations must be rebuilt?
- Receive a no-contact request. Which process and automation steps must stop?
If any dimension needs revision, return to the matching course and fix the plan. Ask a trusted reviewer to explain the recommendation back to you using fictional information only; do not send personal records through the academy. A few days later, defend your decision without the model open.
Useful tools and next steps