Course 07 Implementation Spec: The "That's Not My Job" Audit

1. Title and Source Files Used

Course title: The "That's Not My Job" Audit

Owned output file: 07-not-my-job-audit/07_not_my_job_audit_course_content.md

Source files used as base truth:

• 07-not-my-job-audit/curriculum.md
• 07-not-my-job-audit/website-prompt.md

Source-of-truth commitments for this spec:

• Preserve the core thesis: total ownership compounds; role conservatism shrinks careers.
• Preserve the 2-week, 5-session structure from the curriculum.
• Preserve the four core student outputs named or implied in the curriculum and website prompt:
• ownership interview writeup
• avoidance audit
• role boundary map
• personal expansion framework
• Preserve the central tension: healthy expansion is not the same thing as reckless overreach.
• Preserve the website prompt's tone: bold, high-contrast, culture critique with practical responsibility rather than anti-work posturing.

2. Design Decisions at the Top

Instructional design decisions

1. The course is built around identity shift, not information transfer.

Students should leave with a changed decision rule, not just vocabulary about ownership culture.

1. Case studies are used as proof-of-possibility, not hero worship.

Each story must be analyzed for conditions, tradeoffs, and failure risk so the course does not teach performative overextension.

1. The personal audit is the center of gravity.

The interview project gives external evidence; the avoidance audit forces internal honesty. Session 4 therefore carries the highest emotional and developmental load.

1. The course teaches bounded ownership.

The expansion-vs-overreach framework must appear in every session so students do not misread the course as "always do more."

1. Assessment prioritizes specificity, judgment, and self-awareness over polish.

Students should not get top marks for persuasive generic writing with no evidence.

1. The course is implementation-first.

Every session ends with an artifact or artifact draft. Students should never finish a class with only discussion notes.

Facilitation design decisions

1. Facilitators should use a serious but slightly provocative tone.

The course works best when it feels like a critique of passive professional behavior, not a soft leadership seminar.

1. Psychological safety must be explicitly created before the avoidance audit.

Students will be naming moments where they stayed silent, avoided action, or hid behind role language.

1. Mixed-experience cohorts must be normalized.

Some students will have jobs; some will only have school, volunteer, family, or community roles. The facilitator should repeatedly define "role" broadly.

1. Students must be pushed toward concrete examples.

Any answer that stays at the level of values, personality, or abstract ambition should be redirected into a real incident.

Experience and presentation design decisions

1. Use the website prompt's visual language as a teaching motif.

The clean corporate surface, burning orange accent, and "slash through NOT" motif should be echoed in slides, worksheets, and prompts.

1. Frame the course as an audit, not a motivational challenge.

Students are diagnosing reflexes, mapping boundaries, and building decision rules.

1. Use repeated contrast pairs throughout materials.

Examples:

• lane staying vs system seeing
• responsibility vs martyrdom
• initiative vs interference
• expansion vs overreach
• temporary scope stretch vs permanent chaos

3. Delivery Model Assumptions

Cohort and setting assumptions

• Cohort size: 12 to 28 students
• Age range: 15 to 25
• Prior work experience: mixed; examples may come from jobs, school projects, sports teams, clubs, family businesses, churches, or community organizations
• Delivery window: 2 weeks
• Core meeting cadence: 5 live sessions x 90 minutes
• Async workload: approximately 3 to 4 hours total across the course

Live delivery assumptions

• Sessions are instructor-led and discussion-heavy.
• Students should work in rotating pairs and small groups of 3 to 5.
• A visible timer is required for pair shares, audit writing blocks, and presentations.
• Whiteboard, slides, or digital board should be available for synthesis.

Async delivery assumptions

• Students conduct one real interview outside class between Sessions 2 and 3.
• Students submit draft artifacts before Sessions 4 and 5 so facilitators can spot weak work early.
• Students may complete written reflections by hand, in docs, or in LMS text boxes, but final assessed artifacts should be typed.

Materials and tools assumptions

• Core materials:
• slide deck
• interview guide handout
• role boundary map template
• avoidance audit worksheet
• expansion framework template
• presentation template
• Optional digital tools:
• shared doc or LMS
• polling or form tool for entry diagnostics
• AI/LLM evaluator for first-pass scoring and feedback

Accessibility and inclusion assumptions

• Students may not currently hold formal jobs; all prompts should allow school, family, and community examples.
• Students may not have easy access to senior professionals; acceptable interviewees include parents, relatives, supervisors, coaches, older peers, or community leaders with meaningful responsibility.
• If a student cannot secure a live interview, the fallback is one published interview plus a short reflection on its limits. This fallback should pass the course but should not automatically earn top marks.

Safety and culture assumptions

• The facilitator explicitly states that the course does not reward burnout, savior behavior, or undermining authority.
• Students are told they can anonymize names, companies, and sensitive details in written work.
• Students are told that honesty about hesitation, fear, or avoidance is scored positively when paired with analysis.

4. Detailed Course Content

Module 1 / Session 1: The Anatomy of Role-Based Thinking

Session goal: Establish why job descriptions exist, why they become limiting, and why "that's not my job" is often a reflex rather than a rational judgment.

Session outcomes:

• Students can explain why roles exist in organizations.
• Students can identify at least two costs of excessive role conservatism.
• Students produce an initial "role drift" reflection that becomes seed material for later artifacts.

Session 1 run of show

Session 1 facilitator guidance

• Do not let the session collapse into anti-management rhetoric. Keep reminding students that roles are both necessary and limiting.
• When students generalize about "lazy coworkers" or "bad bosses," redirect to system dynamics and personal judgment.
• Use repeated phrasing: "The problem is not roles. The problem is worshipping roles."

Session 1 student artifacts

• Quickwrite on the provocation
• Role drift reflection draft
• Exit ticket observation target

Module 2 / Session 2: The Expansion Stories - Case Studies

Session goal: Analyze real and plausible examples of ownership expansion, isolate enabling conditions, and distinguish admirable action from survivorship-biased mythmaking.

Session outcomes:

• Students can name common features across three expansion stories.
• Students can articulate risks, tradeoffs, and failure modes in each story.
• Students leave with a clear brief for the ownership interview assignment.

Session 2 run of show

Session 2 facilitator guidance

• Make students judge each case, not just admire it.
• Repeatedly ask:
• What did the person understand?
• Who did they communicate with?
• What would failure have cost?
• Was this scalable behavior or a one-off rescue?
• If students romanticize heroic sacrifice, introduce the question: "What system failure required this rescue in the first place?"

Ownership interview assignment launch details

Required questions:

1. Tell me about a time you did something that was definitely not your job and it mattered.
2. What were you thinking at the moment? Were you afraid?
3. Did you get in trouble? Did you get credit?
4. Looking back, what would you have done differently?
5. What would you tell someone younger about stepping outside their role?

Required follow-up moves students must try at least twice:

• "What made that possible?"
• "What were you afraid would happen?"
• "Who else was affected?"
• "How did you know this was yours to touch?"
• "If someone else copied your decision, when would it go wrong?"

Session 2 student artifacts

• Case comparison matrix
• Failure-version rewrite
• Interview plan and outreach commitment

Module 3 / Session 3: The Ownership Interview Review

Session goal: Turn raw interview stories into analyzable evidence and identify the class-wide pattern language of successful expansion.

Session outcomes:

• Students extract lessons, not just anecdotes, from interviews.
• Students identify recurring patterns across interview data.
• Students produce a working outline for the formal interview writeup.

Pre-session requirement: Students arrive having completed the interview or, at minimum, secured a published interview fallback and one real outreach attempt.

Session 3 run of show

Async fieldwork expectations for Module 3

• Live interview time: 30 to 45 minutes
• Transcription or structured notes: 30 minutes
• Writeup drafting: 90 minutes
• Total expected async time: 2.5 to 3 hours

Session 3 facilitator guidance

• Students often retell interviews as neat moral stories. Interrupt that. Ask where the tension really was.
• Students often under-analyze the fear component. Push them to recover emotional and political risk, not just task difficulty.
• If an interviewee presents themselves as flawless, ask the student what might be missing, uncertain, or reputationally cleaned up in the story.

Session 3 student artifacts

• Group pattern chart
• Interview writeup outline
• Draft or near-final ownership interview writeup

Module 4 / Session 4: The Personal Audit

Session goal: Convert external insight into self-diagnosis by mapping role boundaries, naming avoidance behavior, and learning the expansion-vs-overreach framework.

Session outcomes:

• Students complete a role boundary map.
• Students complete an avoidance audit with multiple real incidents.
• Students can apply the expansion-vs-overreach test to their own scenarios.

Session 4 run of show

Session 4 facilitator guidance

• This is the most vulnerable session. Name that directly.
• Reward honest admissions like "I avoided this because I feared looking arrogant" or "I did not want extra work."
• Do not reward guilt spirals. Move students from shame toward judgment and design.
• If students choose examples that are too small, ask for a problem that had actual consequences.

Required structure for the role boundary map

Each student map must include:

• one primary role
• one secondary role
• at least 3 items in explicit scope
• at least 3 items in implied scope
• at least 3 items just outside scope
• at least 2 items way outside scope
• one note on where they most often hide behind ambiguity

Required structure for the avoidance audit

Each student audit must include at least 4 incidents, and each incident must name:

• the observed problem
• the context
• the assumed owner
• the feared consequence of stepping in
• the likely cost of not acting
• whether action would have been healthy expansion, overreach, or uncertain

Session 4 student artifacts

• Completed role boundary map
• Completed avoidance audit
• One analyzed incident using the expansion-vs-overreach framework

Module 5 / Session 5: Presentations and Personal Operating System

Session goal: Synthesize all prior work into a practical, personal expansion framework and test it publicly through presentation and peer review.

Session outcomes:

• Students present a personal operating system for stepping in or stepping back.
• Students receive peer and LLM-ready feedback against clear criteria.
• Students leave with one near-term behavioral commitment.

Session 5 run of show

Required presentation structure

Students must cover all four elements from the curriculum:

1. What the avoidance audit revealed
2. What the interview taught them
3. What healthy expansion means in their actual context
4. One specific thing they will do differently starting next week

Session 5 facilitator guidance

• The presentation is not a self-branding speech. It is a decision system presentation.
• Ask follow-up questions that test realism:
• "What would stop this from becoming overreach?"
• "Who do you need to communicate with first?"
• "What kind of problem is still not yours to own?"
• In the close, connect ownership to trust, capability, and system visibility, not just ambition.

Session 5 student artifacts

• Final presentation
• Personal expansion framework
• Peer feedback forms
• Final commitment statement

5. Assignments and Artifacts

A. Ownership Interview Writeup

Weight: 25%

Deliverable: 1,200 to 1,500 words

Required sections:

• interviewee context
• the "not my job" moment
• perceived risk and fear
• what happened next
• what the student believes the story proves
• what the student would borrow, reject, or adapt

Minimum evidence requirements:

• at least 2 direct quotes or clearly marked paraphrases
• at least 1 explicit description of the stakes
• at least 1 explicit description of communication or lack of communication
• at least 1 student judgment about whether the act was healthy expansion, overreach, or mixed

B. Role Boundary Map

Weight: 15%

Deliverable: one-page map or equivalent structured document

Required components:

• explicit scope
• implied scope
• just outside scope
• way outside scope
• role ambiguity note
• one pattern the student wants to change

C. Avoidance Audit

Weight: 20%

Deliverable: structured worksheet with at least 4 incidents plus a 250-word synthesis

Required components:

• incident list
• fear or hesitation named
• cost of non-action estimated
• classification of healthy expansion / overreach / uncertain
• synthesis paragraph on the student's reflex pattern

D. Personal Expansion Framework

Weight: 25%

Deliverable: 600 to 900 words or equivalent slide framework

Required components:

• personal trigger pattern
• criteria for stepping in
• criteria for stepping back
• communication rule
• risk check
• handoff or ownership rule
• near-term application scenario

E. Final Presentation

Weight: 15%

Deliverable: 3-minute presentation with 1-minute Q&A

Required components:

• summary of audit findings
• insight from interview
• explanation of framework
• one concrete next-week commitment

6. AI/LLM Grading and Assessment Framework

Assessment model

The LLM should act as a first-pass evaluator, not the sole authority. Its job is to score observable evidence, identify missing components, and generate actionable feedback. A human should review any submission flagged for ambiguity, emotional concern, or likely hallucinated detail.

Core grading principles

1. Grade evidence, not confidence.

Confident but generic writing should score below modest but specific work.

1. Reward honest self-observation.

Students should receive credit for accurately naming fear, avoidance, status concerns, or uncertainty.

1. Penalize unsupported moralizing.

Statements like "great leaders always step up" without analysis should not score highly.

1. Separate initiative from recklessness.

High scores require visible judgment about communication, capability, and recoverability.

1. Do not over-penalize writing polish.

Grammar and style matter only when they block meaning.

LLM evidence checks by artifact

Ownership Interview Writeup

• Detect whether a real incident is described with context, action, stakes, and outcome.
• Check for at least one fear, conflict, or uncertainty signal.
• Check whether the student interpreted the story rather than merely retelling it.
• Check whether the student made a judgment about expansion vs overreach.
• Flag submissions with suspiciously generic content, no scene details, or no interview voice.

Role Boundary Map

• Check all four boundary zones are present.
• Check that items are concrete tasks or responsibilities, not vague traits.
• Check whether the "just outside" zone shows real judgment rather than impossible fantasies.
• Flag maps with fewer than required items or unclear role definitions.

Avoidance Audit

• Check incident count and completeness.
• Check that fear is named in plain language.
• Check whether the student estimated the cost of inaction.
• Check whether classification decisions are justified.
• Flag audits that list only trivial incidents with no real stakes.

Personal Expansion Framework

• Check for explicit decision rules.
• Check that communication appears as a requirement, not an optional afterthought.
• Check for a boundary statement describing when not to step in.
• Check for one concrete future application.
• Flag frameworks that are motivational slogans rather than operational rules.

Final Presentation

• Check whether all four required presentation elements appear.
• Check for concrete example use.
• Check actionability of the final commitment.
• Flag presentations that describe values without a decision rule.

Suggested scoring mechanics

• Score each major criterion on a 1 to 4 scale:
• 4 = strong and specific
• 3 = competent and mostly complete
• 2 = partial, vague, or uneven
• 1 = missing, generic, or misunderstood
• Convert to weighted percentages by artifact.
• Provide criterion-level notes before overall judgment.

Automatic LLM flags requiring human review

• Possible fabricated interview or implausibly polished invented dialogue
• Signs of acute distress, exploitation, retaliation, or unsafe work context
• A framework that encourages policy violations, deception, or undermining teammates
• Repeated contradiction between the student's evidence and conclusions
• Submission too short to verify required evidence

Recommended LLM output structure

For each artifact, the LLM should return:

1. completion check
2. rubric scores by criterion
3. 2 to 4 evidence-based observations
4. 2 concrete revision moves
5. overall level: strong / competent / weak / incomplete

7. Rubrics, Scoring Criteria, and Evaluator Prompt Guidance

A. Ownership Interview Writeup Rubric

B. Role Boundary Map Rubric

C. Avoidance Audit Rubric

D. Personal Expansion Framework Rubric

E. Final Presentation Rubric

Suggested evaluator prompt for the LLM

Use this prompt with the relevant artifact pasted after it:

You are evaluating a student submission for Course 07, "The 'That's Not My Job' Audit."

Your job is to score the work based only on visible evidence in the submission. Do not reward confidence, polish, or grand language unless it is supported by specifics. Reward honest self-awareness, concrete examples, judgment about expansion vs overreach, and practical decision rules.

First, perform a completion check against the required components.
Second, score each rubric criterion on a 1-4 scale.
Third, justify each score with short evidence-based notes that quote or paraphrase the submission.
Fourth, provide 2 strengths and 2 revision moves.
Fifth, give an overall level: Strong, Competent, Weak, or Incomplete.

Important constraints:
- Penalize vague moralizing and generic leadership language.
- Do not penalize minor grammar issues unless meaning is unclear.
- Flag the submission for human review if the story seems fabricated, unsafe, or too incomplete to verify.
- If the student shows honest uncertainty and good judgment, score that positively.
```

## Additional evaluator heuristics

- If the student names no concrete fear, the score cannot exceed competent on self-awareness criteria.
- If the student gives no communication plan, the personal framework cannot exceed partial on decision quality.
- If the student never addresses overreach, the personal framework cannot earn top marks.
- If the interview writeup contains no stakes or consequences, story specificity should score 2 or below.
- If the avoidance audit includes fewer than 4 incidents, completion must be marked incomplete even if the writing is strong.

---

## 8. Feedback Strategy: Strong, Average, Weak Responses and How an LLM Should Respond

## Global feedback posture

The LLM should sound direct, specific, and developmental. It should not flatter students with empty praise. It should identify what is working, what is missing, and what the next revision should change.

### Strong responses usually look like this

- They use real incidents with stakes, not generic opinions.
- They name fear, politics, capability, and communication.
- They distinguish "I could help" from "I should take over."
- They sound honest rather than heroic.
- They end in a usable decision rule.

**How the LLM should respond to strong work:**
- confirm exactly what evidence made the work strong
- name one way to sharpen nuance, not rewrite the whole piece
- push the student toward portability: "Where else will this rule apply?"

### Average responses usually look like this

- They have the right parts but are under-specific.
- They summarize events more than analyze them.
- They gesture at overreach without giving a concrete boundary.
- They contain one useful insight but not yet a full operating system.

**How the LLM should respond to average work:**
- identify the missing layer of detail
- ask for one additional real example or one clearer decision rule
- turn vague statements into revision questions

### Weak responses usually look like this

- They rely on slogans like "leaders take initiative."
- They avoid naming fear, risk, or tradeoffs.
- They present expansion as always good.
- They include no scene details, no consequences, or no personal application.
- They read like the student is trying to sound impressive rather than truthful.

**How the LLM should respond to weak work:**
- state clearly that the submission is too generic to score highly
- point to the missing required evidence
- give a concrete rescue plan: add one incident, name one fear, state one communication step, define one stop condition

## Artifact-specific feedback guidance

### Ownership Interview Writeup

**Strong:** The student captures a vivid story, includes stakes, and explains what the story reveals about judgment, trust, and risk.

**Average:** The student retells the event competently but has limited commentary or weak extraction of lessons.

**Weak:** The writeup reads like a cleaned-up anecdote with no analysis, no quotes, and no tension.

**LLM response pattern:**
- praise specificity where present
- ask "What exactly made this theirs to touch?"
- ask "What would have made this overreach instead?"

### Role Boundary Map

**Strong:** The zones are concrete, realistic, and reveal where the student hides behind role ambiguity.

**Average:** The map is complete but blurry at the edges.

**Weak:** The map uses vague categories like "leadership things" or "helping others" without tasks.

**LLM response pattern:**
- ask the student to convert categories into actual behaviors
- challenge one item in "just outside" and one in "way outside" to test judgment

### Avoidance Audit

**Strong:** The audit contains real incidents, candid fear naming, and sober cost-of-inaction analysis.

**Average:** The audit is honest but light on consequences or classification logic.

**Weak:** The audit is defensive, trivial, or written to avoid discomfort.

**LLM response pattern:**
- identify the strongest incident and tell the student to deepen that one further
- if weak, explicitly ask for a less sanitized example

### Personal Expansion Framework

**Strong:** The framework functions like a decision system with clear triggers, checks, communications, and stop rules.

**Average:** The framework has values but weak operational detail.

**Weak:** The framework is motivational language with no boundary management.

**LLM response pattern:**
- test the framework with a scenario
- ask who the student must notify before stepping in
- ask what would make them step back

### Final Presentation

**Strong:** Clear, evidence-based, and committed to one real behavioral change.

**Average:** Understandable but somewhat abstract or repetitive.

**Weak:** Vague, overly polished, or disconnected from prior artifacts.

**LLM response pattern:**
- assess whether the audience could actually use the student's rule
- if not, ask for the exact sentence they would tell themselves in the moment of hesitation

## Final note for evaluators

The course succeeds when students become more accurate about responsibility, not merely more aggressive about taking it. The highest-scoring work should show initiative with restraint, courage with communication, and ambition with system awareness.