Capability demonstration

Use with Chapter 16. This is a book-developed practice record, not a validated SSA-CMM examination. Keep your own actual evidence separate from the constructed Himura Inc. examples below. No coding is required.

Blank demonstration record

Capability claimed: State one operation and its boundaries.

Task and intended user:

Starting materials, current instruction, and permitted assistance:

Prior practice examples:

Fresh input and why it challenges reuse:

Expected properties written before seeing the output:

Stop or clarification conditions:

Unaided explanation: What can I explain before opening the records?

Assisted attempt: Save the exact supplied input/instruction and actual output.

Review: Point to each requirement’s supporting source or failure.

Diagnosis: What does the evidence establish about the cause? What remains uncertain?

Repair and new attempt:

Evidence of capability within this scope:

Evidence still needed before delegating more work:

Time spent preparing, producing, reviewing, and repairing:

Worked task: fictional Himura Inc.

Prepare an example action list from the supplied synthetic notes for workshop design. Use the current instructions-v3, retained core review criteria, and relevant verdicts. The task does not authorize contacting anyone or choosing an unresolved date. These are authored specimens, not an actual model evaluation.

Fresh input C16

C1. The coordinator agreed to upload the accessible slides by Tuesday.
C2. The group suggested asking the library about a larger room.
    Nobody accepted that task and no timing was discussed.
C3. The facilitator agreed to send the revised handout by Thursday.
C4. Another note says the facilitator agreed to send the same revised
    handout by Friday. The packet establishes no order or supersession.
C5. The group agreed to shorten the opening discussion. No owner or
    deadline was assigned.

This input combines supported dates, a suggestion, conflicting dates, and an agreed item with missing details. It changes the combination and wording of earlier cases. It is not a statistically independent sample from real meetings.

Expected properties

• Keep the slides action, coordinator, and “by Tuesday” from C1.
• Keep the library inquiry as a suggestion with owner and timing unspecified.
• Keep the handout action and facilitator; preserve “by Thursday” and “by Friday” as unresolved competing deadline claims, with clarification required.
• Keep the shorter opening discussion as an agreement, with owner and deadline unspecified.
• Cite the relevant source lines and invent no missing details.

Constructed first candidate

The candidate handles the date conflict but promotes a suggestion into an agreement and copies an unsupported owner into it. A neat table and success on the hardest-looking case do not make the remaining rows correct.

Review and diagnosis

Verdict: Rewrite row 2. C2 establishes only a suggestion and explicitly says nobody accepted the task.

Instruction inspection: The supplied v3 already says to separate suggestions from agreements and use owners only when supported. Unlike Chapter 7’s incomplete migration, the requirements here are present. The displayed specimen therefore illustrates a rule violation. Its text does not establish an internal model cause.

Repair: Correct row 2; retain the supported rows. For another actual attempt, make source extraction visible before formatting and review every item against its own cited lines. That proposed process change still needs a fresh check; copying the corrected table is not evidence that a new run followed it.

Reviewed corrected candidate

Clarification held for the human: Which handout deadline applies? No contact is sent by this exercise.

Permissible conclusion about the specimen: The corrected table follows the displayed source under the stated criteria. It does not establish repeated model reliability, delivery capacity, learner improvement, or paid demand.

Fresh challenge for the reader

Before viewing anyone else’s answer, prepare a separate note packet that includes one accepted explicit date, one unresolved detail, and a suggestion that resembles an assigned action. Keep its expected properties separate from the input you supply to the assistant. Save the first output, even if it fails. Review it and explain the defect yourself before asking for a correction.

To test an unfamiliar boundary, include an explicitly authorized later amendment only as a proposed extension requiring its own reviewed handling. The earlier unresolved-conflict examples do not establish that extension’s behavior.

Acceptance criteria

The demonstration is useful when another person can inspect the actual input, supplied instruction, first output, review, and repaired attempt; distinguish your unaided explanation from assisted performance; and tell which conclusions the evidence supports. A failed first attempt is acceptable evidence of a limit when accurately diagnosed. Do not replace it with a polished answer and call the sequence successful.

Common failure and repair

The test repeats a memorized answer: Change a meaningful source relationship, preserve an independently written expected result, and retain the actual first response.

A strong row conceals a weak one: Inspect each item against its own source. Keep disagreement or missing evidence visible.

Every failure gets a longer rule: Inspect the actual supplied version first. A violated explicit requirement calls for a process or reliability investigation; the output alone cannot establish why the model failed.

Assisted performance becomes an unaided claim: Record the help used. Demonstrate the unaided part separately and keep both useful results distinct.