Pilot, Retention and Repair Record

Use this record while studying, not as a form to reconstruct at graduation. There are no pilot results yet. An author running the examples is not a beginner pilot or independent review.

You may keep all these fields in the shared pilot record. Do not duplicate session logs; this page defines the programming tasks and their progression rules.

Before starting

Record prior programming experience, entry-diagnostic result, relevant arithmetic/file-navigation repairs and any accessibility needs affecting the learning format. Keep personal information private; a public report needs only an anonymous learner identifier. Record the curriculum version and whether a reviewer is independent or the learner is self-assessing.

During each study session

Copy this short template into your own notes:

Date and lesson/task:
Active minutes: reading __ / implementation __ / investigation __ / assessment __ / repair __
Elapsed waiting time (separate):
Expected result or concept prediction:
Observed result and evidence location:
Help used (documentation / human hint / generated code / none):
Confusing instruction or missing prerequisite:
Next smallest repair:

Do not count one activity twice. Pauses and waiting for another person affect the calendar, not focused hours. Finishing the estimate is not passing. Exceeding it is evidence to investigate, not a personal failure.

Immediate progression

Demonstrate the immediate requirements in every dimension of the module rubric, including the original reading-page transfer and first-over-budget clinic task. Record these immediate results separately from the delayed transfer evidence; final 10/10 remains pending until both delayed checks and any required repairs are closed. A self-assessed pass permits provisional continuation into Algorithm Intuition; it is not an independent endorsement. Reserve 2–3 additional focused hours across the two retention checks below, including one bounded repair. If more repair is needed, record it separately. These hours are excluded from the module's initial 38–57-hour allowance.

Set the common anchor date

Record the date you first demonstrate all immediate requirements, including the assessment and clinic. Schedule the following checks about 7 and 28 days after that same date. Record planned dates, actual dates and actual elapsed intervals. A late check should be completed and reported honestly, not backdated or automatically failed. A check not yet due remains pending, not passed or failed.

Check after about seven days

Without your earlier implementation, solve a new boundary task: given nonnegative whole package weights and a capacity, return the number of initial packages that fit without exceeding capacity. Stop before the first package that would exceed it; do not skip heavy packages. Empty input gives zero. Predict at least four cases and explain why this differs from returning a zero-based rejection index. Use documentation but no generated solution. Reviewer calibration is in the answer key; preserve the attempt before viewing it.

If you cannot explain equality, state or the return convention, mark transfer as repair required. Work through a smaller fresh case, then retest another variant. Continue unrelated orientation reading, but do not mark programming readiness complete or pass the Semester 00 exit checkpoint while a failed retention gate remains open.

Check after about four weeks

On fresh data, find the longest run of qualifying readings after the rule changes from “at least the target” to “within the inclusive interval [low, high].” Inputs are validated whole numbers and low is no greater than high. Include empty input, both endpoints, values outside each end and a tied longest run. Explain how the state meanings survive while the qualifying predicate changes. If the learner reaches the Semester 00 checkpoint earlier, this check remains scheduled and readiness stays provisional until closed.

These intervals are curriculum design choices, not an experimentally optimal schedule. IES guidance supports spaced learning, retrieval and explanatory questions in general; it does not validate this particular adult curriculum or workload.

Pilot review decision

After each learner completes the module, compare estimated and actual time by category; record assistance, repeated errors and open rubric categories. With only one learner, report the individual observation, not an average for all beginners. Revise ambiguous instructions and prerequisite placement before increasing volume. Keep old and revised versions so the next pilot can test the change.

Release claims must distinguish authored, examples checked, lab verified, independently reviewed and learner piloted. Independent review and learner timing remain pending until real evidence exists.