Harbor AI-assisted practice — initial input Fictional exercise. Initial source state only. No employer/client material. TASK PROMPT Help me choose a useful page change for Harbor Field Notes using only the attached initial packet and search CSV. All material is fictional. 1. Parse the CSV. List its dates, units and scope; compare each query with itself across the two windows. Show the source rows and calculations in a compact table. Keep impressions separate from clicks. 2. Map source IDs P1, P2, S1, S2, S3, C1 and C2 to their current, historical or unconfirmed claims in this initial source state. Find contradictions and unknowns. Quote the exact words behind claims that would go on the page. 3. Describe the reader decision and label audience assumptions. Propose two useful treatments, including a simple corrected notice with official links. Explain what each helps a person do, what Harbor can credibly add and what it must not invent. Fit verification and maintenance into the four-hour scenario. 4. Give me one source claim and one CSV calculation to spot-check. Stop for my corrections and decision before drafting the page. Do not fetch a later source update or a worked answer. 5. After I choose, help draft the first-screen words and a box sketch: answer, source/uncertainty and next action. Include a task someone could try, observable failure, a source-check owner and a safe fallback. Mark tests as proposed unless I supply observations. Do not invent interviews, live checks, source URLs, map geometry, event facts or results. Keep observations, interpretation and missing evidence separate. I make the final choice; challenge my reasoning rather than treating the AI recommendation as the answer. INITIAL PACKET: fresh-project.md # Harbor project: make the arrival decision easier Fictional practice packet. Read this packet and the search CSV below first. On the Harbor practice page, save your first version before opening the source update, and draft your revision before opening the worked comparison. Everything here is newly authored teaching fiction. Harbor Field Notes, the venue, the sources, page extracts, report rows, capabilities and resource limits are fictional. Nothing is adapted from employer/client data or presented as real audience research. ## Your brief You help a small local-events publication before its next venue event. The editor wants people to know where to arrive and how to check what they may bring. You have four staff-hours for one primary page assignment, including source verification and a written test/maintenance handoff. This is a scenario constraint, not a promised completion time for learners. Choose a page and format, then show the actual first answer and a simple sketch. A concise correction with good source links can beat a larger panel or new article. Explain the reader decision, the credible value your publication adds and why the alternative is less useful under this brief. You must account for a known accuracy problem before visitors rely on the page. Do not leave the old entrance advice in place simply because you prefer to build another feature. If you choose a different primary page, state who makes that correction and include its effort in your scope. There is no hidden second editor or extra budget. The publication can read and verify the supplied public notices and draw original explanatory diagrams. It has no exclusive venue access, completed visitor interviews, accessibility certification, licensed street geometry or exclusive event data. A schematic can describe supplied street/gate relationships; it cannot invent a walking route, distances or a fully accessible journey. ## Current page extracts — fictional October 28 snapshot **P1. /visit/ — “Visit Harbor Field”** > Plan your visit to Harbor Field. Regular public opening: Saturday, 10am–4pm. Bring a small bag. For event restrictions, check the venue's event notice. [Event notice] The link points to S1 below. No dimensions or approved-bag list are hidden elsewhere in this supplied extract. Regular visiting hours are not a separately confirmed November event schedule. **P2. /directions/ — “Getting to Harbor Field”** > Main visitor entrance: West Gate, Dock Street. Accessible drop-off is at West Gate. [Venue access page] The link points to S2 below. No current alert appears above this instruction. ## Source excerpts — fictional October 28 check **S1. Venue event notice** > For the November open day, bag restrictions will be posted after the safety review. Do not assume restrictions from a previous event apply. General visiting hours remain listed on the visit page. **S2. Venue access page** > During Dock Street works, visitor entry and accessible drop-off move to East Gate on Mill Lane. This arrangement applies until the access notice is withdrawn. This confirms an entry/drop-off instruction. It does not provide map geometry, the end date of the works, a closure order for West Gate or a complete accessibility assessment. **S3. Publisher's old event note** > Last spring we used small clear bags. This is a historical personal account, not the venue's November policy. ## Other answers in this finite packet **C1. Weekend Picks directory** > Harbor Field is a popular Saturday outing. See our top ten places nearby. It links to the venue homepage. The supplied excerpt has no event-specific entry or bag guidance. **C2. Fan discussion from the spring event** > Last time we used West Gate and took clear bags. This is a dated anecdote. It is not a current official access or bag rule. The venue already supplies authoritative facts through S1 and S2. Your publication does not own those facts. The creative question is whether it can make the combined arrival decision easier while preserving source authority and update limits. These few excerpts cannot establish an industry-wide content gap or show that no competitor serves the task. ## Supplied search report Open `fresh-project-searches.csv`. Each row is a complete aggregate for its named query, page and 28-day window in this finite fictional packet. The rows do not cover every search or the entire site. No missing day exists within these declared aggregate windows. Compare each query's own September and October rows. Separate impressions from clicks; do not let the larger topic count make the priority decision for you. The counts do not establish why a change occurred, audience importance, a market size or whether a new page is necessary. There is no current URL inspection, search-results capture, AI citation report, analytics conversion report or completed learner/visitor test. Do not invent one. ## The editor's proposed alternative “Could we make a new bag-rules page first? The bag query has more impressions, and the spring note gives us something definite to say.” This is authored teaching dialogue, not an actual AI output. Explain which parts of that proposal the packet supports, what it leaves unresolved and what you would do instead. Do not treat spotting an error as the finished project. ## Make the work usable Use the first-attempt fields on the Harbor practice page. Keep these together: 1. A reader hypothesis and an evidence note with source IDs. 2. A chosen page/format, the alternative you rejected and the four-hour scope. 3. Actual first-answer copy and a sketch showing source links, uncertainty and the next useful action. 4. A visitor-task test protocol and maintenance handoff. Leave results unfilled unless a test actually occurs. Save the first version. Only then open the follow-up and draft your revision on the practice page. The update may change facts without changing your priority; explain the difference. SEARCH CSV: fresh-project-searches.csv provenance,window_start,window_end,query,page,impressions,clicks fictional teaching data,2026-09-01,2026-09-28,harbor field bag rules,/visit/,80,4 fictional teaching data,2026-10-01,2026-10-28,harbor field bag rules,/visit/,160,4 fictional teaching data,2026-09-01,2026-09-28,harbor field accessible entrance,/directions/,30,3 fictional teaching data,2026-10-01,2026-10-28,harbor field accessible entrance,/directions/,24,2 RECORD YOUR DECISION AFTER THE SPOT-CHECK Who needs help, and what are they deciding? Name a person, the arrival decision and what you are assuming about them. Your response: What did you verify, and why this approach? Spot-check one source claim and one CSV calculation from the AI output. Cite the source IDs and rows, correct any error, then explain your choice, four-hour scope and smaller alternative. Your response: What would you put on the page? Choose the page and format. Draft the first answer; describe or sketch the supporting layout in words. Your response: How would you check and maintain it? Describe a visitor task, observable success or failure, who rechecks the sources and what would change your decision. Label unexecuted tests as plans. Your response: