Plan a timetable that obeys its constraints

Before you begin

• Logic onramp; inspect the worked fixture before beginning.
• A text editor/spreadsheet for the manual route. Hosted Python/Jupyter for code exercises; applicable dependencies are in requirements.txt.
• For actual AI calls, a legitimate available cloud service and authorised learner credentials; no particular provider or country is mandatory.

Free original, non-accredited practice. Self-review is not independent assessment. No particular provider, payment platform or country is mandatory; use a legitimate available route or explicitly labelled manual practice.

Translate prose into constraints

A planner needs a representation of resources, allowed actions and hard constraints. A readable plan can still double-book a room. Check feasibility separately from preference scores; a cheaper invalid schedule is not a better solution. Write resource limits and precedence in testable form. Inspect the supplied input before using any tool. Write the decision rules in your own words and calculate one small result independently. The reference output is an answer key for this deliberately bounded fixture, not proof of general capability. Policy for this project: One room, at most one task per slot. Task B must follow A. C cannot use slot 1. Enumerate valid schedules before selecting the first deterministic result. For learners across regions underserved or excluded by mainstream providers: verify country eligibility, language, account/identity requirements, data terms, cost, quota and connectivity before choosing a cloud service. Use only legitimate available alternatives; never bypass restrictions or invent a country/account. No service access? Complete the labelled manual/fixture route without claiming a live AI run.

Worked example

SOURCE (authored fixture):
{
  "tasks": [
    "A",
    "B",
    "C"
  ],
  "slots": [
    1,
    2,
    3
  ]
}
INDEPENDENT FIXTURE TARGET:
{
  "valid_schedules": 2,
  "selected": {
    "A": 1,
    "B": 2,
    "C": 3
  }
}

Your practical task

1. Write resource limits and precedence in testable form.
2. Open input.json and expected.json from the practice pack; keep an unmodified original.
3. Record a manual prediction and the relevant rule before consulting the answer key.
4. Perform one small change and predict its effect before rerunning.
5. Keep the result and your reasoning in the lesson notes; do not mark a simulated run as live.

Evidence to keep

• Translate prose into constraints — a saved, inspectable artefact tied to the supplied rule.
• A baseline or change-test record with expected/observed results and a limitation.

Mistakes to watch for

• Force B into slot 1: no feasible schedule exists.
• Treating a supplied answer key, an authored example or self-review as independent field validation.

Check your understanding

Which exact input, rule and expected value would let another learner falsify your conclusion in this activity, and what remains untested?

No-service / offline route

Use the supplied fictional JSON, expected results and paper/text evidence log without a provider account. Manual or constructed completion is labelled; it is not a live cloud integration or trained-model run.

Enumerate the small search space

A planner needs a representation of resources, allowed actions and hard constraints. A readable plan can still double-book a room. Check feasibility separately from preference scores; a cheaper invalid schedule is not a better solution. Use permutations to find all valid assignments. Establish a baseline before changing prompts or code. Keep the original input immutable. Record expected values, observed values and whether each comparison passed. If the expected file conflicts with a justified policy, investigate rather than forcing a convenient match. Policy for this project: One room, at most one task per slot. Task B must follow A. C cannot use slot 1. Enumerate valid schedules before selecting the first deterministic result.

Worked example

MANUAL BASELINE / compare every named field
{
  "valid_schedules": 2,
  "selected": {
    "A": 1,
    "B": 2,
    "C": 3
  }
}
Keep a separate observed-result column; the answer key is not a model response.

Your practical task

1. Use permutations to find all valid assignments.
2. Open input.json and expected.json from the practice pack; keep an unmodified original.
3. Record expected and observed values separately; explain every mismatch.
4. Perform one small change and predict its effect before rerunning.
5. Keep the result and your reasoning in the lesson notes; do not mark a simulated run as live.

Evidence to keep

• Enumerate the small search space — a saved, inspectable artefact tied to the supplied rule.
• A baseline or change-test record with expected/observed results and a limitation.

Mistakes to watch for

• Allow only two slots: three distinct tasks cannot all fit.
• Treating a supplied answer key, an authored example or self-review as independent field validation.

Check your understanding

Which exact input, rule and expected value would let another learner falsify your conclusion in this activity, and what remains untested?

No-service / offline route

Use the supplied fictional JSON, expected results and paper/text evidence log without a provider account. Manual or constructed completion is labelled; it is not a live cloud integration or trained-model run.

Separate feasibility from preference

A planner needs a representation of resources, allowed actions and hard constraints. A readable plan can still double-book a room. Check feasibility separately from preference scores; a cheaper invalid schedule is not a better solution. Choose a deterministic order only after rejecting invalid plans. Build one inspectable transformation or bounded AI prompt. Keep calculation and validation deterministic where possible. If you make a permitted hosted call, save the actual response separately from the authored examples and verify its material claims; the supplied reference never simulates a live model. Policy for this project: One room, at most one task per slot. Task B must follow A. C cannot use slot 1. Enumerate valid schedules before selecting the first deterministic result.

Worked example

PROJECT CONTRACT:
One room, at most one task per slot. Task B must follow A. C cannot use slot 1. Enumerate valid schedules before selecting the first deterministic result.
HOSTED REFERENCE: open hosted-lab.ipynb or run reference.py with all fixture files together.
EXPECTED CONSTRUCTED RESULT:
{
  "valid_schedules": 2,
  "selected": {
    "A": 1,
    "B": 2,
    "C": 3
  }
}

Your practical task

1. Choose a deterministic order only after rejecting invalid plans.
2. Open hosted-lab.ipynb and the reference code from the practice pack; keep an unmodified original.
3. Record expected and observed values separately; explain every mismatch.
4. Perform Relax C restriction: count changes; do not silently change the original rules.
5. Keep the result and your reasoning in the lesson notes; do not mark a simulated run as live.

Evidence to keep

• Separate feasibility from preference — a saved, inspectable artefact tied to the supplied rule.
• A baseline or change-test record with expected/observed results and a limitation.

Mistakes to watch for

• Relax C restriction: count changes; do not silently change the original rules.
• Treating a supplied answer key, an authored example or self-review as independent field validation.

Check your understanding

Which exact input, rule and expected value would let another learner falsify your conclusion in this activity, and what remains untested?

No-service / offline route

Use the supplied fictional JSON, expected results and paper/text evidence log without a provider account. Manual or constructed completion is labelled; it is not a live cloud integration or trained-model run.

Test an impossible request

A planner needs a representation of resources, allowed actions and hard constraints. A readable plan can still double-book a room. Check feasibility separately from preference scores; a cheaper invalid schedule is not a better solution. Return infeasible instead of breaking a hard rule. Change one assumption at a time and predict the result first. Retain the failure, the revision and the rerun evidence. A failure is useful information: hiding a bad output or editing a test target after seeing the answer destroys the value of the experiment. Policy for this project: One room, at most one task per slot. Task B must follow A. C cannot use slot 1. Enumerate valid schedules before selecting the first deterministic result.

Worked example

CHANGE TESTS — predict before running:
1. Force B into slot 1: no feasible schedule exists.
2. Allow only two slots: three distinct tasks cannot all fit.
3. Relax C restriction: count changes; do not silently change the original rules.
Keep the original expected.json unchanged.

Your practical task

1. Return infeasible instead of breaking a hard rule.
2. Open failure-tests.md from the practice pack; keep an unmodified original.
3. Record expected and observed values separately; explain every mismatch.
4. Perform Force B into slot 1: no feasible schedule exists.
5. Keep the result and your reasoning in the lesson notes; do not mark a simulated run as live.

Evidence to keep

• Test an impossible request — a saved, inspectable artefact tied to the supplied rule.
• A baseline or change-test record with expected/observed results and a limitation.

Mistakes to watch for

• Force B into slot 1: no feasible schedule exists.
• Treating a supplied answer key, an authored example or self-review as independent field validation.

Check your understanding

Which exact input, rule and expected value would let another learner falsify your conclusion in this activity, and what remains untested?

No-service / offline route

Use the supplied fictional JSON, expected results and paper/text evidence log without a provider account. Manual or constructed completion is labelled; it is not a live cloud integration or trained-model run.

Explain heuristics honestly

A planner needs a representation of resources, allowed actions and hard constraints. A readable plan can still double-book a room. Check feasibility separately from preference scores; a cheaper invalid schedule is not a better solution. A heuristic can speed search without proving a globally best answer. Review what the fixture cannot establish. Explain who owns the decision, where human approval is needed and which access or professional constraints remain. Do not describe a small educational success as production readiness, certification, legal compliance or a guarantee. Policy for this project: One room, at most one task per slot. Task B must follow A. C cannot use slot 1. Enumerate valid schedules before selecting the first deterministic result. For learners across regions underserved or excluded by mainstream providers: verify country eligibility, language, account/identity requirements, data terms, cost, quota and connectivity before choosing a cloud service. Use only legitimate available alternatives; never bypass restrictions or invent a country/account. No service access? Complete the labelled manual/fixture route without claiming a live AI run.

Worked example

REVIEW BOUNDARY:
One room, at most one task per slot. Task B must follow A. C cannot use slot 1. Enumerate valid schedules before selecting the first deterministic result.

ACCESS / NOT TESTED: unavailable provider, unsupported language and absent external feedback must remain explicit.

Your practical task

1. A heuristic can speed search without proving a globally best answer.
2. Open README.md and your evidence log from the practice pack; keep an unmodified original.
3. Record the human decision owner, limitations and any untested service access.
4. Perform one small change and predict its effect before rerunning.
5. Keep the result and your reasoning in the lesson notes; do not mark a simulated run as live.

Evidence to keep

• Explain heuristics honestly — a saved, inspectable artefact tied to the supplied rule.
• A baseline or change-test record with expected/observed results and a limitation.

Mistakes to watch for

• Allow only two slots: three distinct tasks cannot all fit.
• Treating a supplied answer key, an authored example or self-review as independent field validation.

Check your understanding

Which exact input, rule and expected value would let another learner falsify your conclusion in this activity, and what remains untested?

No-service / offline route

Use the supplied fictional JSON, expected results and paper/text evidence log without a provider account. Manual or constructed completion is labelled; it is not a live cloud integration or trained-model run.

Deliver a verified planning sandbox

A planner needs a representation of resources, allowed actions and hard constraints. A readable plan can still double-book a room. Check feasibility separately from preference scores; a cheaper invalid schedule is not a better solution. Attach a validator and the rules beside every proposed plan. Deliver a reproducible bundle rather than a screenshot alone. Include inputs, rules, output, failure tests, a short README and residual limitations. Ask another person to follow the instructions if possible; self-review and actual external review must be labelled separately. Policy for this project: One room, at most one task per slot. Task B must follow A. C cannot use slot 1. Enumerate valid schedules before selecting the first deterministic result.

Worked example

HANDOFF MANIFEST:
input.json — immutable source
expected.json — fixture answer key
actual.json — result actually observed
evidence-log.csv — baseline plus three changes
README.md — reproduction and access route
limitations.md — unresolved failures, rights, approvals and scope
Never bundle a credential.

Your practical task

1. Attach a validator and the rules beside every proposed plan.
2. Open README.md and your evidence log from the practice pack; keep an unmodified original.
3. Record the human decision owner, limitations and any untested service access.
4. Perform one small change and predict its effect before rerunning.
5. Keep the result and your reasoning in the lesson notes; do not mark a simulated run as live.

Evidence to keep

• Deliver a verified planning sandbox — a saved, inspectable artefact tied to the supplied rule.
• A baseline or change-test record with expected/observed results and a limitation.

Mistakes to watch for

• Relax C restriction: count changes; do not silently change the original rules.
• Treating a supplied answer key, an authored example or self-review as independent field validation.

Check your understanding

Which exact input, rule and expected value would let another learner falsify your conclusion in this activity, and what remains untested?

No-service / offline route

Use the supplied fictional JSON, expected results and paper/text evidence log without a provider account. Manual or constructed completion is labelled; it is not a live cloud integration or trained-model run.

Capstone self-review

Score each criterion 0 (missing), 1 (partial), or 2 (demonstrated). A self-review pass needs at least 8/10 and 2/2 on the critical safety/limits criterion. This is learner practice feedback, not verified assessment.

• Defined task and preserved input: Original input and the project policy are retained; the actual question is clear.
• Checked baseline: The supplied baseline reconciles field by field; unsupported live-run claims are absent.
• Three failure/change tests: All three specified changes have predictions, observed results and explanations.
• Repeatable handoff: Another person can follow the README; supporting practice evidence and unresolved limits are included.
• Safety, rights and access honesty — critical: One room, at most one task per slot. Task B must follow A. C cannot use slot 1. Enumerate valid schedules before selecting the first deterministic result. Regional access route is legitimate; credentials and private data are absent; manual/constructed work is clearly labelled.

Review questions

Practice files

• README.md
• evidence-log.csv
• expected.json
• failure-tests.md
• hosted-lab.ipynb
• input.json
• lab_engine.py
• reference.py
• requirements.txt

References and editorial limits

Original authored practice material; deterministic fixtures build-tested. Not independently expert-reviewed or learner-validated. Time estimates unvalidated.

• Python itertools documentation

Browse all build paths → · Curriculum overview