Create a small searchable team handbook with consistent article structure, ownership and a stale-content review process.
A fictional workshop team repeatedly asks how to prepare a room, update an event listing and close registration. Three handbook articles should answer those tasks. Each needs an owner, review date, prerequisites, steps and completion check. The project uses no real staff contacts or internal records.
| Article | Owner role | Review interval days |
|---|---|---|
| Prepare a room | Operations coordinator | 30 |
| Update an event listing | Content editor | 30 |
| Close registration | Event lead | 14 |
Group knowledge by the work a reader needs to complete rather than by the author’s filing habits. The OneNote lesson provides an example of organizing notes, but the required project uses plain local files so no specific subscription is necessary. Keep names and navigation consistent across formats.
Create a three-article index with task-based titles.
Handbook information structure
Record your result and evidence here or in a separate file.
A reader can choose the relevant article from the task name.
Replace vague titles such as General information with the actual task.
A procedure needs an audience, prerequisites, ordered actions and a completion check. Put warnings or conditions before the action they affect. Keep one main action per step where practical. The template should help writers produce useful instructions, not merely repeat the same decorative sections.
Write the room-preparation article using the supplied template.
First complete handbook article
Record your result and evidence here or in a separate file.
The completion check is observable and prerequisites appear before the steps.
Ask a reader what they need before step one.
An owner is responsible for keeping the article useful, not necessarily for performing every task. Record the last verified date and the next review date. A review interval is an editorial policy, not proof that a future review already happened. Keep missing or overdue dates visible.
Create a registry for the three articles and calculate next review dates from a chosen baseline.
Knowledge registry
Record your result and evidence here or in a separate file.
Each article has an owner role and an explicit review interval.
Use ISO dates and retain the baseline used for calculation.
A small handbook needs a clear index and links that stay valid when files move. Test whether task names and a few common synonyms lead to the right article. A search mechanism should expose its limits; a local browser find is not a full enterprise search engine. Keep broken-link checks part of the review.
Write the other two articles and test the index links.
Three-article handbook
Record your result and evidence here or in a separate file.
Every index link opens the intended article and each page links back.
Use stable relative filenames and test from the packaged folder.
A review checks whether the procedure still matches the work and whether its evidence is current. Mark a changed step, record the reason and update the verified date only after checking it. The exercise can simulate a change without claiming that real organizational procedures were validated.
Simulate a changed registration deadline rule and update the relevant article with a revision note.
Review and revision log
Record your result and evidence here or in a separate file.
Only the affected article’s verification date changes after the simulated review.
Do not mass-update dates to make a registry look current.
Deliver the index, three complete articles, template, owner registry, link check and revision log. Ask a reviewer to find one procedure using a task description and record the actual result if performed.
Verification dates reflect actual review status and no external scheduling or organizational validation is invented.
| Criterion | Points | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence and correctness | 30 | Calculations, source use and results match the supplied case; limitations are honest. |
| Required artifacts | 30 | All five stage outputs and the capstone handoff are present and inspectable. |
| Reasoning and decisions | 20 | Choices, assumptions, alternatives and the case-specific critical condition are explained. |
| Reproducibility | 10 | A reviewer can follow the stated steps and distinguish expected from observed results. |
| Clear communication | 10 | Labels, units, structure and evidence references make the work easy to review. |
Score at least 80/100, supply every required artifact, and satisfy the path-specific critical condition. Rework missing evidence before marking complete.
The registry has three articles. With a chosen baseline of 2026-10-13, the 30-day reviews fall on 2026-11-12 and the 14-day review on 2026-10-27. These are planned review dates for the fictional handbook, not external scheduled reminders.
This is a local handbook and review process, not a deployed knowledge platform or an automated team workflow.