Portfolio sample · authored design rationale
From expert notes to a teachable sequence
The briefing combines useful facts, loose fragments, an unsupported draft claim, and details outside an adviser’s task. This record shows how the information is shaped: clarify the product model, resolve targeted questions, then keep what supports explanation, setup, care decisions, and customer language.
Targeted clarification
Questions raised by the notes
These are authored design probes with resolved fictional answers. They separate general science from the sample product before content is shaped.
- Where exactly do the parts sit when the liner is seated? Resolved: outer pot below; removable liner and roots above; wick runs through liner, with its upper end in mix below the root ball and lower end at the reservoir base.
- What does MAX mean, and where is it relative to the liner? Resolved: it is the upper fill limit, below the liner base. The intervening gap is deliberate; never instruct an adviser to exceed MAX.
- What can an adviser do if the lower wick end misses water? Resolved: inspect seating and restore physical contact while staying at or below MAX. Pre-wetting cannot bridge a gap.
- Does Wick One prescribe a refill schedule or guarantee a duration? Resolved: no. Check reservoir and mix moisture regularly against plant-care needs; no fixed day count or “never overwater” claim.
- Which plants and mixes are approved? Resolved: the sample only demonstrates a moisture-preferring foliage plant with compatible potting mix. No universal list was supplied; ask support when suitability is uncertain.
- What are capacity, wick material, cleaning, and replacement details? Resolved: unspecified in this simulation. Do not invent them; route product-specific questions to product support.
Source-to-learner edits
Turning source notes into learner guidance
Each “before” is an exact excerpt from the fictional packet. The learner version is authored for this lesson and preserves the relevant product boundary.
Before · E02, exact
“The visible MAX mark is below the liner base; the gap is intentional.”
After · learner text, exact
“Its visible MAX mark is an upper fill limit, not a target to exceed.”
Why: translate placement into the operational meaning of MAX. Destination: Mechanism, reservoir explanation.
Before · E04, exact
“A low reservoir with wet mix is not a reason alone to add water immediately.”
After · learner feedback, exact
“A low reservoir alone does not mean refill now. The mix is still wet, so check both observations against the plant’s care needs.”
Why: turn the observation into a specific next step without a diagnosis. Destination: Practice check 2, incorrect-choice feedback.
Before · E05, exact
“Enjoy two weeks of worry-free watering. Wick One delivers the perfect amount, so you’ll never overwater.”
After · learner model, exact
“The reservoir stores water below the liner, and the wick carries it into the potting mix when it reaches both. We still check the mix and reservoir against the plant’s care needs. I can’t promise it will last two weeks.”
Why: reject the unsupported duration and outcome while keeping the water path and continuing-care limit. Destination: Teach-back model. The claim remains an unapproved draft in the source packet.
Content decisions
What goes into the lesson
| Packet | Decision | Reason and lesson destination |
|---|---|---|
| E01 · customer concern, towel analogy | Keep; simplify | Preserve the customer’s concern and the bounded analogy. Mechanism: paper-towel note. Teach-back: customer asks about hands-off duration. |
| E02 · reservoir, liner, wick, MAX, gap | Keep | Critical geometry and physical contact. Mechanism: cutaway anchors #mechanism; MAX and reseating in setup #setup. |
| E03 · setup fragments / “add water until you can see it” | Keep; simplify | Convert fragments into four visible actions; reject vague fill wording. #setup. |
| E04 · care guidance | Keep | Retain regular checks and no fixed schedule; practice low-reservoir/wet-mix decision. #practice, #teach-back. |
| E05 · two-week marketing draft | Reject as learner guidance | Unsupported duration, perfect-dose, and overwatering promises conflict with resolved product rules. Exclude from learner guidance; retain in the source packet and this design record as the claim to interrogate. |
| E06 · support observations | Keep; simplify | Use the two observed cases for practice feedback; self-review the customer explanation, with no score. #practice and #teach-back. |
| E07 · finish, carton, supplier ideas | Defer | Off-scope production details do not support adviser performance; capacity and material remain unknown. No lesson destination. |
| E08 · general context / sources | Keep; simplify | Use only brief, linked background context; never present sources as product validation. Mechanism and lesson credits. |
Sequence rationale: first show where water is and how the wick connects it; then rehearse setup in workable order; then decide what to do in two common moments; finish by answering the customer in the learner’s own words. This moves from a visible model to action to judgment to explanation.
Accuracy review
Revisions against the product rules
I checked the draft against the resolved product rules and revised the wording:
- Changed any loose “add water until visible” language to fill no higher than MAX; if there is excess, remove it before reseating the liner.
- Added the deliberate space between MAX and liner, and removed any suggestion that raising water can repair a wick gap.
- Separated the water level from potting-mix moisture; a low reservoir alone does not trigger an immediate refill.
- Removed the two-week, perfect-dose, and “never overwater” promises. The final lesson offers no fixed refill interval or automatic plant diagnosis.
The response model is a self-check, not a score. A real release would need product-owner and horticultural review against actual product documentation.