← Back to ai-literacy case
ai-literacy · deliverable

Text-based Storyboard — Train the AI, Check the AI

Kit 4 · Train the AI, Check the AI · deliverable · designed and built by I Wayan Usada · fictional composite (Nordwind Software and its customer are invented)

Design premise

Consequence before instruction: a fluent AI draft is confident and subtly wrong, and the habit is a four-rung check at the moment of send. Revised after the build so it describes what ships (one 3D lesson, 01-lesson-interactive.html; the separate 3D page is retired and redirects here).

Scene plan

#SceneOn screenThe learner doesFeedback
AThe confident draftAI reply to a billing complaint, drafted in 4 secondsreads it“confidence is not correctness”
BHotspot huntthe same draft with 5 marked passages, 3 real risks and 2 safe linesopens passages (click, or Tab and Enter)each real risk is marked up on the draft on screen, with why; safe lines say why they are fine; the ladder unlocks after all 3 risks
CThe Verify ladderone rung at a time; options shuffled per visitpicks the fix for each rungwrong picks explain the failure and stay on the rung; each rung takes you to its source on the desk, fixes its line in the on-screen draft and ticks the checklist on the divider
DThe send decisionthe corrected draftsends the verified reply, or the originalthe original replays the customer’s reopened ticket four days later

The 3D workstation (v3)

Wednesday 13 August, 17:52, end of a shift on Nordwind’s support floor; the city goes blue beyond rows of empty desks with locked screens. Seated view from the agent’s chair. The draft is in the reply composer on the main screen next to the ticket record; the second screen holds the knowledge base and the team chat; on the desk a desk-pad calendar for August, headset, mug and a desk lamp; pinned to the fabric divider the printed brand-voice card and a four-line verify checklist. The lamp swings onto the paper source of the current rung (calendar, voice card). After the send decision, one cut to the customer’s kitchen table: his phone shows the reply that was sent (and a message from his own finance team if it was the original). The lesson’s dates were made consistent for this build: written and sent on Wed 13 Aug, the original promised Fri 15 Aug, the real credit lands Tue 19 Aug. No sound; people stay off-screen.

F1 · 17:52 at the workstation: the AI draft on the main screen, the knowledge base and team chat on the second, the city at dusk beyond.
F1 · 17:52 at the workstation: the AI draft on the main screen, the knowledge base and team chat on the second, the city at dusk beyond.
F2 · The support floor at the end of the day: empty desks, locked screens, a last row of ceiling panels still on.
F2 · The support floor at the end of the day: empty desks, locked screens, a last row of ceiling panels still on.
F3 · Scene B: the draft in the reply composer, word for word as in the panel, next to the ticket record.
F3 · Scene B: the draft in the reply composer, word for word as in the panel, next to the ticket record.
F4 · The three real risks marked up on the screen: no ticket reference, the invented clause, the wrong date and unverified amount.
F4 · The three real risks marked up on the screen: no ticket reference, the invented clause, the wrong date and unverified amount.
F5 · Rung 1, KB match: “clause 4.2” returns 0 results; “Rate Guard settlement” returns the real policy.
F5 · Rung 1, KB match: “clause 4.2” returns 0 results; “Rate Guard settlement” returns the real policy.
F6 · Rung 2, ticket math: the ticket rows lit, and on the calendar 12 Aug approved, five business days counted, 15 Aug crossed out, 19 Aug circled.
F6 · Rung 2, ticket math: the ticket rows lit, and on the calendar 12 Aug approved, five business days counted, 15 Aug crossed out, 19 Aug circled.
F7 · Rung 3, brand voice: the printed card on the divider, the lamp turned onto it.
F7 · Rung 3, brand voice: the printed card on the divider, the lamp turned onto it.
F8 · Rung 4, owner for money: the team lead in the chat, “amounts are Billing’s (OWN-3)”.
F8 · Rung 4, owner for money: the team lead in the chat, “amounts are Billing’s (OWN-3)”.
F9 · The checklist on the divider, all four rungs ticked.
F9 · The checklist on the divider, all four rungs ticked.
F10 · Scene D: the verified reply on the main screen, each fixed line marked green.
F10 · Scene D: the verified reply on the main screen, each fixed line marked green.
F11 · The cut: the customer’s phone on his kitchen table on Tuesday 19 August, the verified reply and Billing’s settlement note.
F11 · The cut: the customer’s phone on his kitchen table on Tuesday 19 August, the verified reply and Billing’s settlement note.
F12 · The same table if the original was sent: his finance team asks where “clause 4.2” and the €412 are.
F12 · The same table if the original was sent: his finance team asks where “clause 4.2” and the €412 are.

Text version. 01-lesson-text carries the same draft, risks, rungs and outcomes as text, generated from the lesson's content module, and is the 3D lesson's “Text version” link (also the fallback when WebGL is unavailable).

The four rungs (one set of names everywhere)

  1. KB match: every policy claim is in the knowledge base (catches the invented clause 4.2).
  2. Ticket math: every date and reference comes from the ticket (catches 15 Aug vs 19 Aug and the missing ticket ID).
  3. Brand voice: one plain apology, no intensifiers, no “!”.
  4. Owner for money: amounts are confirmed by Billing; Support commits to process only.

The earlier 3D module called the rungs “Run → Verify → Reflect → Send” and the action map “source, fact, tone, commitment”; both now use the guideline’s names.

What is not scored

Nothing in the lesson is scored; it is a practice run for a team huddle (see the facilitator note). The earlier storyboard promised hotspot scoring and over-flagging costs that were never built.

Prefer the source? Download the raw markdown.