Please wait while this page is prepared.
Applied AI / Free mini-course
Build a small evaluation that reveals errors as well as speed. Compare the whole workflow and write a decision that respects what ten examples can tell you.
Free · ₹0 · about 25 minutes · self-paced reading + practice
By Dr. Swapnil Sahoo · for adult learners · no account required
01 / Read and try
Start with the decision the test must inform: should a team trial AI-assisted purchase-request summaries? Define acceptable output before seeing results. The summary must preserve the requested item, quantity and deadline, identify missing approval and contain no invented supplier commitment. Distinguish an editable omission from a critical error that could authorise spending or expose restricted information. Agree who labels a case and how disagreements are resolved. Otherwise, an attractive result can quietly change the meaning of success.
02 / Read and try
A small set is useful when it exercises the task’s boundaries. Build ten synthetic cases: four routine requests, two with a missing field, two with contradictory quantities, one containing irrelevant personal details and one asking the assistant to ignore the approval rule. Record the expected handling before running the test. Keep the same cases and criteria for the baseline and assisted workflow. Ten deliberately selected cases can expose weaknesses; they cannot establish a dependable error rate for every future request.
03 / Read and try
Measure from the start of the task to a reviewed result. Fast drafting can shift work into correction and exception handling. Compare total time, output quality and escalation together. In the invented result below, 25 minutes are saved across ten cases, but a critical failure blocks unsupervised use. A proportionate next step might be to revise the brief and rerun a fresh, varied set under human review. Adoption is a decision about the complete process and its remaining risks, not a reward for using a tool.
04 / Make a decision
Put the idea to work · guided practice
A public demonstration using original hypothetical material. Explore choices and compare your reasoning. This activity does not submit work, count towards assessed progress or issue a certificate.
Original hypothetical exercise: Ledgerleaf tests purchase-request summaries on ten synthetic cases. Human-only work totals 120 minutes. Assisted work takes 20 minutes to draft, 60 to review/correct and 15 to escalate. Six cases are acceptable, three need correction and one invents supplier approval. The team had defined invented approval as a critical failure. All numbers and results are fictional.
Choose the next action and write the evidence needed before expanding the pilot. Try a different choice to see how the reasoning changes. Feedback is written instructional guidance, not AI-generated advice.
Your notes stay on this page unless you choose to save them in this browser or download them. They are not sent to the Lab. Avoid personal, employer, customer or confidential information. Browser-saved notes can be read by someone using this browser profile.
This is one defensible response. Your recommendation may differ if you explain the assumptions and evidence.
Keep the momentum
Turn a vague request into a task another person can check. Practise defining the input, expected output, evidence and human decision before choosing an AI tool.
Try the next course →Explore the proposed full programme, its capstone and assessment rubric. Dates and enrolment details are separate from this free course.
Explore the programme →This course provides self-practice and written guidance. It does not submit work, certify completion or promise a professional outcome.