INDUSTRY FIELD GUIDE
Community college transfer mapping records for AI
A course can have an equivalency under one agreement and a different treatment under a later program.
NAICS 611210 · Junior Colleges
A course can have an equivalency under one agreement and a different treatment under a later program. The Department of Education publishes a guide on articulation agreements. A college can test document matching with fictitious course codes and no individual transcript. Department of Education articulation agreement resource
Invent two sending courses, a receiving program and two agreement periods. Match one course explicitly. Give the other a similar title without a confirmed equivalency. Ask which source supports the mapping and what a registrar needs to check. Include one change that applies to a later entering group.
Use invented policies and codes. Keep student records, individual credit decisions and institution-specific agreements out unless independently authorized. The exercise does not award credits.
Describe a fictional transfer records sample
Original Fiund exercise
An equivalency is bounded by the agreement and entering group
A fabricated transfer map uses invented courses, programs and entry years. The exercise awards no credit and gives no advice about a real student's eligibility.
| Record | Source | What it records |
|---|---|---|
| CC1 | Practice agreement A | For program River and entering group 2026, sending course X101 maps to receiving R110. |
| CC2 | Practice agreement B | For River entering group 2027, X101 maps to elective E100. B does not revise the 2026 group. |
| CC3 | Course title list | X102 is titled like R110 but has no equivalency entry in either agreement. |
Question for the model
What mapping is documented for X101 in each entering group, and does the similar X102 title establish an equivalency?
Show the reference answer and checks
CC1 documents X101→R110 for River's 2026 entering group. CC2 documents X101→E100 for the 2027 group and explicitly leaves 2026 unchanged. CC3 supplies title similarity for X102 without a confirmed equivalency. The model should report the two scoped mappings and flag X102 for an authorized registrar review rather than inventing a mapping or applying the later group rule retroactively.
- Applying the newest agreement to every entering group.
- Inferring course equivalence from a similar title alone.
Fields to preserve
- Sending course and receiving program
- Identifies both ends of the mapping.
- Agreement and entering-group scope
- Limits the rule to its stated population.
- Explicit equivalency evidence
- Distinguishes a mapped course from a lookalike title.
Test another case
Add an amendment to agreement A covering X102 for 2026 only. Ask the model to resolve that group while retaining the unresolved 2027 mapping.
Use fictional policies and codes. Exclude transcripts, student identities, protected institutional agreements and individual credit decisions.
Discuss a contribution
Describe the sources you control, the task they could support and what has already been checked. Use the existing-data assessment for an archive or the collection brief for a new recording project. The contributor agreement defines Fiund’s licensing authority and compensation. A guide or fictional exercise does not establish an accepted collection or a sale.