{
  "title": "Professional training examples for evaluating AI coaching",
  "source_page": "https://fiund.com/industries/professional-training-data",
  "authorship": "Original fictional Fiund editorial exercise. No actual operating records or third-party source assets are included.",
  "example": {
    "title": "Evaluate a role-play response against an original rubric",
    "context": "A fictional adult role-play concerns confirming a work expectation. It uses independently authored dialogue and evaluates an example response, not a real employee.",
    "records": [
      [
        "RUBRIC-T1",
        "Original training rubric",
        "A complete practice response must confirm the requested deliverable and ask for the missing due date before giving a completion plan."
      ],
      [
        "PROMPT-T2",
        "Fictional scenario",
        "A request names a deliverable but supplies no due date or evidence about the colleague's motives."
      ],
      [
        "ANSWER-T3",
        "Practice response",
        "The speaker proposes a due date and calls the colleague careless without asking a clarifying question."
      ],
      [
        "REVIEW-T4",
        "Independent reference",
        "The reviewer flags the invented deadline, missing clarification and unsupported motive judgment."
      ]
    ],
    "question": "Which rubric conditions does T3 fail, and which observations should the evaluator avoid inventing?",
    "answer": "T3 does not ask for the missing due date and substitutes a proposed deadline for confirmed information. It also adds a negative motive claim unsupported by T2. Cite those specific response features and the rubric. The evidence supports evaluation of the authored answer, rather than a judgment about any real person's work, character or employment outcome.",
    "failureModes": [
      "Rewarding a polished completion plan while ignoring the required clarification.",
      "Treating an unsupported motive claim as a fact from the scenario."
    ],
    "fields": [
      [
        "Learning objective and rubric",
        "Preserve the exact criteria used to review the response."
      ],
      [
        "Allowed scenario evidence",
        "Keep missing facts explicit."
      ],
      [
        "Response and rationale",
        "Connect each judgment to quoted or identified response features."
      ],
      [
        "Reviewer disagreement",
        "Record independent labels and how unclear criteria are resolved."
      ]
    ],
    "holdout": "Write a second original scenario whose due date is supplied but deliverable scope is missing. The clarifying question should change with the evidence.",
    "boundary": "Use recruited consenting adults and original curriculum. Exclude actual students, employee evaluations, client material and confidential workplace records. No real employment or educational decision is made."
  }
}