Purpose

Use this lesson to improve a result through deliberate versions and tests. The aim is to produce work that a colleague can review and act on, not merely text that sounds convincing.

Lesson Explanation

Scenario: A first draft of a training outline is too advanced for new hires.

Better instruction: Revise version 1 for new hires: define technical terms, add one worked example per section, and limit each module to 20 minutes. Compare version 2 against those three changes.

Iteration is not random regeneration. Keep the original goal, name the observed defect, change only the relevant instruction, and compare versions using defined tests. This preserves learning about what improved the result. Version 2 addresses terminology, examples, and 20-minute modules, with a comparison.

Work in a short cycle: provide the relevant input, state the result and limits, inspect the draft against the acceptance criteria, then revise the instruction when a requirement is missing. Keep the final human decision with the person responsible for the work.

Practice Questions

1. A first draft training outline is too advanced for new hires, and the next attempt is a completely different regeneration with no reference to the original goal. What does this lesson say about this approach?

   View Answer

   Iteration is not random regeneration – the original goal should be kept, with the observed defect named and only the relevant instruction changed.

2. What does this lesson recommend doing to “preserve learning about what improved the result”?

   View Answer

   Comparing versions using defined tests, rather than regenerating randomly without tracking what changed and why.

3. Write an iteration instruction for revising a too-technical onboarding guide for new hires, following this lesson’s approach.

   View Answer

   Something like: “Revise version 1 for new hires: define technical terms, add one worked example per section, and limit each module to 20 minutes. Compare version 2 against those three specific changes.”

4. A second draft is compared against the first using three specific, named criteria that were the reason for revision. What principle does this reflect?

   View Answer

   Comparing versions using defined tests, consistent with this lesson’s guidance on iteration.

5. What three things does this lesson say should happen when iterating on a prompt: keep the goal, name the defect, and what else?

   View Answer

   Change only the relevant instruction.

6. A prompt is regenerated five times with no changes at all between attempts, hoping for a different, better result by chance. What does this lesson say about this approach?

   View Answer

   This reflects random regeneration, which this lesson explicitly distinguishes from genuine, deliberate iteration.

7. A completed iteration process names the original goal, identifies the specific defect (too advanced for new hires), changes only the relevant instructions, and compares the new version against defined tests. What does this reflect?

   View Answer

   A complete, deliberate iteration process following this lesson’s full guidance.

8. Why does this lesson emphasize changing “only the relevant instruction,” rather than rewriting the entire prompt each time?

   View Answer

   Changing only the specific element related to the identified defect allows you to know what actually caused the improvement, preserving learning about what worked.

9. A second draft of a document addresses the original defect (too long) but also introduces unrelated changes to tone that weren’t part of the original goal. What does this lesson suggest about this outcome?

   View Answer

   This risks losing track of what specifically improved the result, since unrelated changes were introduced alongside the intended fix.

10. Why does this lesson recommend naming “the observed defect” specifically, rather than a vague sense that something needs to improve?

    View Answer

    A specific, named defect allows for a targeted, relevant instruction change, rather than an unfocused revision that might not address the actual problem.

11. A team revises a report outline for being too dense, specifically shortening only the sections flagged as dense, and compares the result against a defined readability check. What does this reflect?

    View Answer

    Deliberate, targeted iteration following this lesson’s process, rather than random regeneration.

12. Why might “keeping the original goal” matter during iteration, according to this lesson?

    View Answer

    Without anchoring to the original goal, successive revisions could drift away from what was actually needed, even while addressing surface-level defects.