This is the period you could teach Monday. Not a portfolio piece. Not a hypothetical unit. One lesson, one lab, integrity in the body — not in an appendix.
Why this matters
The last three lessons produced parts. Parts do not run a room. A complete packet is what a substitute, a co-teacher, or Friday-you can pick up: job, proof, sequence, lab card, integrity card, rubric, instructor notes. If any of those is missing, you will improvise, and improvisation is how Grok becomes the author.
The standard is the same as the rest of Russell Tech work. It has to hold up in the room, not only in the thread.
Teach
Build in one thread so the parts cannot drift. Name it capstone — [course] — [lesson title]. Bring the skeleton, the integrity pack, and the lab OS forward. Do not start from “make me a lesson.”
The packet (required sections)
- Header. Course, audience as they actually are, date or day, exact minutes, room or LMS.
- Job. One verb, one object, one context. Yours. Not Grok’s upgrade.
- Proof. What you will collect, including the disclosure card.
- Sequence. Timed. Start, work, close. Who talks. What is on the board.
- Grok lab card. Surface, thread name, open, send, may / may not, stop. If this period does not open Grok, say so and still include an instructor-side Grok use (design or critique) so the track stays honest — but the student job must still stand offline. Prefer a period where students do open Grok for one named task. That is the point of this capstone.
- Integrity card. Allowed, not allowed, disclosure, consequence for hiding the thread or inventing a measurement/source. The sentence: using Grok is not the same as submitting Grok’s work.
- Rubric. Five rows that survive Grok. No tone. No creativity. Weights to 100. A short oral or point-at-the-work row.
- Instructor notes. What you will demo (never the full answer). What you will not paste. The two oral questions. The offline fallback.
Assembly order. Paste your prior artifacts into the thread as source, then tell Grok to reconcile them, not replace them. If the skeleton’s job and the integrity cheat-test disagree, the job wins and the rubric changes.
Cheat-test is not optional. After the packet exists, Grok plays a student who wants full marks and will hide the tool. You read which rows still fail. You patch one thing: a local proof, a filename rule, an oral, a required screenshot. Then you reprint the packet. A packet that has never been attacked is a first draft.
What you still own. Outcomes. Grades. Whether this period belongs in the course. Grok does not get to add a week of homework or a 40-point essay. If the packet grows, cut it. One period.
What you still must not put in the thread. Real student names, IDs, unpublished work, your full key if that key is also the student pathway. Use a stand-in. Attach the class file you would actually issue.
Done looks like this. You could hand the packet to a colleague and they could run the period without calling you, except for account access. You could sit the lab yourself in twenty minutes and produce a disclosure card that is not a farce. You would put your name under the rubric.
If you do not teach, sit the other chair: you are a student or a workplace trainer building the lesson you wish the course already had, for a course you are in. The packet still has to be runnable by the person who owns the room. Note that on the header.
Worked example
The drainage lab becomes a packet, not a vibe.
Header: Intro geospatial, 16 students, Thursday 50 minutes, lab PCs, grok.com. Job stays the instructor’s. Proof: 10-line card, PNG with three arrows, disclosure, sampled 60-second point. Sequence matches the OS clock. Lab card names the PNG, the critique-only role, the thread name. Integrity card bans inventing acres and bans hiding the thread. Rubric B from lesson 2, with the screenshot filename rule added after the cheat-test. Instructor notes: demo is how to name the thread and how to attach the PNG — not a “good” set of questions. Fallback on the back of the card. Two orals: “Point at the feature” and “What did you refuse to quantify?”
Grok, cheating, still tried a generic slough paragraph. The filename rule and the oral keep that at a low score. The instructor did not add a detector. He added a pointing task.
That packet is teachable. A four-page theory of AI in education is not.
Your turn
Open grok.com. One new thread. You will send three messages, in order. Use the same real course as the rest of this track. Attach or paste the class file (stripped) if you have one.
Exercise d-edu-l04-e1
| Field | Value |
|---|
| whereToDo | grok.com |
| time | 35 min |
Copy-ready prompts
Message 1:
I am in Grok Mastery (Russell Tech), Pathway D, Education, capstone.
Reconcile these sources. Do not replace my job or invent standards.
[paste Lesson Skeleton]
[paste Integrity Card and rubric]
[paste Classroom Lab OS]
Course and minutes:
Job (verbatim):
File or object students will use:
Students will open Grok for this one task:
Write a Complete Lesson Packet with the eight required sections:
Header, Job, Proof, Sequence, Grok lab card, Integrity card, Rubric, Instructor notes.
Keep it short enough to run. No extra homework. No new outcomes.
After the packet, list NEED — facts you still lack.
Stop there.
Message 2:
Cheat-test. You are a student who wants full marks and will hide Grok.
Do not write a full submission.
List:
- The 10-minute cheat path
- Which rubric rows you still fail
- One patch that kills the cheat without adding a detector
Wait for me to accept or reject the patch.
Message 3 (after you accept or reject):
Reprint the Complete Lesson Packet with the accepted patch only.
Then add:
- Teach-Monday check: three lines a colleague would need
- Integrity line (verbatim): "Using Grok is not the same as submitting Grok’s work."
- Session stamp: today's date and "Capstone packet written by Grok in this thread."
Do not add a unit plan.
Artifact to paste
- The reprinted Complete Lesson Packet (all eight sections).
- The cheat-test (path, failing rows, patch) and whether you accepted the patch.
- The session stamp and the integrity line.
- Two lines from you:
I could run this on: plus a date.The student still has to: plus the one thing Grok cannot do for them.
Rubric
- Pass: Packet is Grok-authored, stamped, and complete in eight sections. Job is yours. Students have one named Grok task and a disclosure. Rubric has no tone/creativity row. Cheat-test exists. You name what the student must still do. Course is real.
- Fail: A unit outline. A packet you typed offline and attributed to Grok. No integrity card. No lab card. “Understand AI” as the job. A hypothetical course. No cheat-test. Missing stamp.
Common failure
The common failure is the showcase unit. You ask Grok for a week of lessons, a slide deck, and a newsletter to parents. Nothing is runnable on Thursday. Cut until one period remains.
The other failure is integrity as a footer. A beautiful lab and a single line that says “follow the academic honesty policy.” That policy did not survive contact with this assignment. If the cheat-test still scores full marks, you are not done.
What’s next
This track is done when the packet is on your desk, not when the thread feels finished. If you also work in the field or a shop, Pathway D’s geospatial and business tracks are separate four-hour jobs — same standard, different artifact.
