# Session 3 Handout: Your Role Playbook

<p class="meta">FAST-06 Occupation-Specific AI Role Labs · 7formations · Instructor: Wadood Chaudhary · All examples fictional</p>

## Why this session matters

A playbook is only useful if someone else in your role can follow it and get the same safe result. Today you finish ten procedures, have a same-occupation peer follow them cold, fix what breaks, and demonstrate one live. You leave with ten things you can do better tomorrow morning.

## Key concepts

### 1. What makes a procedure usable

- **Specific trigger:** "When a guest emails pre-arrival questions," not "emails."
- **Steps with locations:** "Open Front Desk > FAQ v2026-10," not "use the usual FAQ."
- **The actual prompt:** copy-ready, with placeholders for sanitized input.
- **Concrete check:** what against what, and what to do if it fails.
- **Data rule:** what to strip; what never to use.
- **Honest time:** by hand vs. with AI including checking.
- **Owner and last-tested date.**

### 2. Peer review in the same occupation

Your peer follows two procedures without asking you anything, then completes W4:

| Question | Why |
| --- | --- |
| Could you follow each step? Where did you get stuck? | Hidden knowledge |
| Is the check concrete? | Vague checks fail silently |
| Is the data rule right for our role? | Peers know the real risks |
| Is the time realistic? | Keeps the playbook credible |

Every question your peer had to ask is a missing instruction.

### 3. Honest time and the retire list

If checking erases the time saved, or the risk outweighs the benefit, retire the procedure or mark the task "no AI." A playbook with eight solid procedures and two honest retirements is stronger than ten weak ones.

### 4. The lightning round

Two minutes: name the task, show the sanitized input, run the prompt, **show the check**, and say what you'd fix. The check is the point.

## Worked example: peer review fixes

| Original | Peer note | Fixed |
| --- | --- | --- |
| "Use the usual template" | "Which one? Where?" | "Templates > Appeals > Appeal_Template_v3 (placeholders only)" |
| "Check it" | "Check what?" | "Every amount matches the variance report; every cause is in my notes" |
| "Saves an hour" | "Including checking?" | "By hand 20 min; AI 3 + check 6 = 9 min" |
| "Paste the customer email" | "That includes their phone number" | "Write a sanitized one-line summary first; strip names, contact, order numbers" |

## Checklist: playbook ready

- [ ] Ten cards (or fewer plus an honest retire list).
- [ ] Every card: trigger, steps with locations, prompt, concrete check, data rule, time, owner.
- [ ] Two cards followed cold by a same-occupation peer.
- [ ] All peer notes resolved.
- [ ] Stored in an approved shared location with a review date.

## Do and don't

| Do | Don't |
| --- | --- |
| Write for a colleague, not yourself | Rely on what's in your head |
| Show the check in your demo | Show only the output |
| Retire procedures that don't pay off | Keep them to reach ten |
| Store the playbook where the team can find it | Keep it in personal chat history |
| Retest after tool updates | Assume prompts work forever |

## Try this at work

1. Use three procedures this week; log time and issues.
2. Ask a colleague to follow one cold.
3. Agree with your manager where the team playbook lives.

## Glossary

| Term | Meaning |
| --- | --- |
| Role playbook | Ten procedure cards for one occupation |
| Cold test | A peer follows a procedure without help |
| Retire list | Procedures dropped, with reasons |
| Lightning round | Two-minute live demo of one procedure |
| Last-tested date | When the procedure last worked as written |

## Key takeaways

- Usable means a same-occupation peer can follow it cold.
- The check is the heart of every procedure.
- Honest time decides what stays.