---
id: prj-weekly-status-from-notes
schema: project/1
layer: garden
title: Turn messy notes into a status draft you can check
outcome: A weekly status update that takes less time to write, points to the note behind every claim, and flags what is missing or contradictory instead of smoothing it over.
roles: [programme coordinator, project manager, team lead, operations staff]
time_box: 25 minutes
tool_access: Any general AI chat assistant (free tier is fine). Use only notes you are allowed to share with that tool, or the invented sample below.
practises: [cmp-frame-the-outcome, cmp-describe-the-task, cmp-check-the-result, cmp-use-responsibly]
concepts: [con-smallest-useful-version, con-verification, con-hallucination, con-human-in-the-loop, con-privacy-and-data]
skills: [frame-the-problem, build-brief, prove-it]
resources: [res-anthropic-ai-capabilities-limitations, res-perplexity-evaluating-ai-high-stakes]
source:
  claim: A small evidence-to-status step, where AI drafts from your notes and cites them while you check every line, is a better first build than an automated reporting agent.
  evidence: The example learning loop in the AI Practice Commons product plan. It is a design proposal, not a tested result or a study.
  limits: Nobody has yet measured time saved or error rates for this exercise. How well it works depends on how complete your notes are and on the tool you use.
origin:
  kind: ai-proposed
  by: "seed agent 2026-10-16"
  rationale: Turns the product plan's example learning loop into a card a learner can run in one sitting, with sanitized inputs and a check, a failure test and a reflection built in.
---

## Why this matters

A weekly update usually takes longer to format than to think through. AI can do the formatting, but a smooth draft can hide a guess. If one status in a report is wrong, the people reading it make decisions on bad information. In this project you keep the speed and can trace every line back to a note.

## Smallest useful build

One status draft, where each line cites the note it came from, plus a short list of exceptions: anything missing, unclear or contradictory. Any AI chat will do, and it takes about 25 minutes.

## Sample inputs

Invented notes for a made-up volunteer mentoring programme:

```text
Mon: venue for kickoff confirmed (community hall, 40 seats). Venue contact to send map.
Tue call: 14 mentors signed up so far, target 20.
Wed: mentor count is 12, two dropped out? check
Wed: budget for snacks approved, $300
Thu: mentee survey closes Friday. 31 responses.
Thu: someone needs to own the welcome email. No owner yet.
```

If you use your own notes, remove names and anything confidential first.

## Steps

1. **Name the decision first.** Before you open the AI tool, write one line: who reads this update, and what they will decide from it. Then write your own one-line guess at the overall status.

2. **Ask for a cited draft and an exceptions list.**

   ```text
   Below are my notes from this week. Write a status update for my manager, who uses it to decide whether the kickoff stays on schedule. For each status line, add the note it came from in brackets, quoted exactly. Do not include anything the notes don't say. After the update, add a section called "Exceptions" that lists anything missing, unclear or contradictory in the notes. Notes:
   [paste notes]
   ```

3. **Check every line yourself.** Go through the draft line by line and find each quoted note. Mark any line that has no source, or a source that doesn't say what the line claims. Then ask:

   ```text
   I found these problems in your draft: [list them]. Fix only those lines. For any line you can't support from the notes, move it to Exceptions instead of rewording it.
   ```

4. **Compare with your guess.** Put your one-line guess from step 1 next to the draft's overall status. If they differ, work out which one the notes support.

## Check it

- Every status line has a quoted source that you found in the notes.
- The mentor count conflict (14 versus 12) is in Exceptions and not resolved silently.
- The welcome email with no owner is flagged.
- Nothing appears that isn't in the notes, such as an invented date or a reason someone dropped out.

## Break it

Delete the Thursday survey line and add `Fri: kickoff moved to next month` without changing anything else. Run step 2 again. Does the draft notice that the new date conflicts with the rest of the plan, or does it write a confident "on track"? Write down what it did.

## Reflect

- Did the draft change anything you would tell your manager, or did it only save typing?
- Which line would you have sent unchecked if you hadn't been looking?
- What still needs a person to decide, rather than a better prompt?

## Next iteration

Run the same prompt next week on a fresh set of notes. If it holds up twice, save the prompt and your checklist as a reusable template. Turn it into an automation only once you know where the notes come from, who can see them, what happens when a note is missing, and who owns the result.