grceng.academy
Review lab 40 bonus XP

Review the AI use-case register

Start labRead the room

Objectives

Six AI use cases have been registered ahead of the quarterly governance forum, each with a self-declared risk tier and a set of controls.

Accept the registrations whose tier and controls actually match the decision the system makes. Reject the ones where the tier is understated, the oversight is nominal, or the evaluation evidence does not exist.

Verdicts are accept or reject. Every rejection needs one reason code from: risk-underrated | oversight-nominal | no-evaluation.

Use-case register (self-declared)

U-1  Meeting-notes summariser. Tier: low. No personal decisions. Human reads output. Eval: n/a documented.
U-2  CV screening that rejects candidates below a score. Tier: low. Reviewer sees only the shortlist. Eval: none.
U-3  Fraud model that freezes customer accounts automatically. Tier: high. Human review within 24h. Eval: completed, documented.
U-4  Credit limit assistant. Tier: high. "Human in the loop" is an analyst who approves in bulk, 400 cases an hour. Eval: completed.
U-5  Code completion in the IDE. Tier: low. Output reviewed at PR. Eval: n/a documented.
U-6  Clinical triage suggestion tool. Tier: medium. Nurse may override. Eval: planned for next quarter.

Checks the server runs (3)

  • Every line in the fixture carries a verdict
  • Accept and reject land on the right lines
  • Each rejection cites a valid reason code

Check names are all you see here: the expectations that decide pass or fail, and the reference solution, stay on the server.

Step-by-step hints

The guided walkthrough, in full. It is free: no XP cost, and it does not touch the paid hint ladder or the reveal gate.

  1. Step 1

    Read the request before the artefact

    Registration is where a system's obligations are set. Read each line as a claim about consequence, oversight and evidence: three separate claims that can fail independently.

  2. Step 2

    Judge every line, including the boring ones

    Six registrations, six verdicts. Three are honest and should be waved through; the forum needs to know which.

    Every line in the fixture carries a verdict

  3. Step 3

    Separate what is wrong from what is merely ugly

    Start from the affected person: what happens to them if the model is wrong, and can they contest it? That answer sets the tier before any control is considered.

    Then test the oversight claim against arithmetic. Review that cannot physically happen at the stated volume is not review.

    Accept and reject land on the right lines

  4. Step 4

    Say why, in the vocabulary the programme uses

    Understated consequence, oversight that exists only on paper, and missing evaluation evidence are three distinct rejections: name the one that would remain after fixing the others.

    Each rejection cites a valid reason code

Rules summary

  • XP on pass

    40 bonus XP the first time every check goes green.

  • Paid hints

    2 available. Each costs 25% of the lab XP (about 10 XP).

  • Reveal solution

    Scores 0 XP and unlocks only after 3 check runs.

  • Attempt cap

    60 check runs per learner. The runner warns you in the last 10.

  • Drafts

    Your editor content is saved in this browser, so a reload will not lose work.

  • Walkthrough

    Always free and never penalised: use it before spending a hint.