Skip to main content

Checkpoint Gate: Readiness for Semester 0

Use 1–2 focused hours to inspect and explain existing module/project evidence. This is an integration check, not another round of full labs. Keep your first explanation before consulting calibration; command documentation and accessibility tools are allowed. Mark assistance. Copying the key or an author packet cannot establish independence.

Fifteen prompts​

Answer each with the relevant file/history/observation link and a short explanation. A reviewer may ask you to demonstrate one uncertain claim on a disposable copy. Missing practical work must be repaired in its original module.

Study — prompts 1–5​

  1. Show your observable outcome, available capacity and fallback. Explain why the plan fits.
  2. Locate your two actual session records on separate occasions. Distinguish intended work, actual result and assistance; identify one independent learning check.
  3. Explain one workspace/access choice that helps you start or resume. Give its limitation without disclosing private circumstances.
  4. Contrast one process measure with one learning measure from your record. What would each fail to establish?
  5. Show the planning-cycle review and one evidence-based adjustment or justified decision to keep the method. Explain recovery after a real interruption or labeled rehearsal.

Environment — prompts 6–10​

  1. Locate a saved practice file from its parent folder. Explain the relative and full paths and the difference between opening a file and changing folders.
  2. Inspect an existing fixed-format log and explain a taught filter for lines beginning status=done . Distinguish matching records from distinct topics and preserve the source. Use the supplied exam fixture if needed; general email extraction is not required.
  3. Show your editor before/after change and the reopened saved file. Explain what an unsaved buffer would fail to prove and how to undo the change.
  4. Reconstruct or inspect your isolated configuration evidence. Distinguish saved definitions from the running shell's state; explain why deleting an alias line does not remove the already-loaded alias.
  5. Explain the existing one-input shell script with a space-containing path, standard output/error and exit status. Explain its missing-file case and why counting newline characters does not count all possible logical lines.

Git — prompts 11–15​

  1. Use your history/status evidence to distinguish working, staged and committed content. Explain your selective staging and ignored-file check.
  2. Show the divergent branches, conflicting versions, resolved content and merge history. Explain why both edits needed a decision and how the practiced abort/retry protected the baseline.
  3. Show the proposal, review and revision, naming solo rehearsal or actual reviewer accurately. Explain why a same-device copy claim cannot become a device-failure guarantee.
  4. Show actual recovery evidence: identify the intended commit/file, chosen operation, inspected result and effect on history. Explain the limits of stash/reflog from your module practice; do not simulate a real secret leak or force push.
  5. Explain your local synchronization evidence: what fetch changed, what required integration, why the stale push was rejected, and how both changes survived. Distinguish this same-device exercise from off-device backup or human teamwork.

Scoring and independent gates​

Each prompt earns 1 point when the explanation is correct, supported by the requested evidence and independently defensible; otherwise 0 with a precise missing item. No half points. Record all 15 decisions and reasons. Require at least 12/15 (80%). Use prompt calibration only after the attempt. After solution exposure, reassess failed reasoning with a changed file, constraint or history case and preserve both attempts.

The numeric score does not waive critical gates. Before advancement, inspect:

  • Readiness computer, arithmetic and technical-reading results; algebra may be scheduled alongside Semester 00, before Semester 01.
  • SS1–SS3, R1–R3, C1–C3, S1–S3, DS1–DS3 and AL1–AL3 each at 2/2, including two actual sessions, actual restored content and independent transfer.
  • Module 2 18/20 or better plus all required practical checks; Module 3 21/23 or better plus all required practical checks.
  • Complete project and cumulative review, disclosed assistance and closed repairs.
  • Practical exam at least 75% overall and 70% in every section.

A missing outcome above is a critical gap even with 15/15. A zero on a checkpoint explanation identifies a targeted repair; use the original module criterion to decide whether a critical skill is still missing. Do not change the denominator when a task is inconvenient.

Decision and next step​

Record pending, repair required, or provisionally demonstrated by self-assessment, with the scope/date of any independent review. There is no Week 3 deadline or automatic extra-week cure. Reforecast from actual work. Keep one short handoff in the shared record; no second mock project, peer session or one-page memo is required. Continue through the bridge only when all advancement conditions hold.