Life Level-up Guide

Lifelong Learning Guide for the AI Era

Han Xiankai

A lifelong-learning system for English, AI, real projects, difficult seasons, evidence, transfer, recovery, and responsibility.

https://byoungd.github.io/up/

CC BY-NC 4.0 · 2026-09-07

Reader's Guide: Put the Book Back into Life

This is not a textbook to memorise from first page to last, or a checklist waiting for you to complete. Think of it as a studio you can return to: bring a real problem, take away a smaller action, and carry the result back into life.

If this is your first visit, do not begin by asking how much you should finish. Ask: what do I most need to see clearly, complete, or stop today? That question chooses your entry point.

Choose Today's Entry Point

I only want to begin again

Read the Prologue: Do Not Rush to Change Your Life, then open the Learning State. Do not design a three-year plan. Record the real context, current baseline, and one action you can finish in 25–45 minutes.

I want to improve one concrete skill

If a first encounter is overwhelmed by unknown words and you do not know what to skip or check, read Vocabulary: From Familiarity to Retrieval in Real Tasks and use the Vocabulary Evidence Card to preserve decisions, eight-dimensional verification, unaided retrieval, and delayed transfer.

Use CEFR Goals and Self-check to name the context and baseline, then enter grammar, listening, reading, speaking, or writing. When familiar rules still change time, responsibility, condition, or certainty in real expression, read Grammar: Let Structure Serve Meaning, then track one high-impact structure with the Grammar Evidence Card. When audio collections grow but understanding still depends on captions, or each replay has no distinct job, enter Listening: From Sound Recognition to Real Understanding and use the Listening Evidence Card to preserve the first pass, error map, minimum scaffold, meaning reconstruction, and parallel transfer. When documentation feels slow because you translate word by word, lack domain background, or cannot deliver after reading, enter Reading: From Word-by-word Translation to Claims and Evidence and use the Reading Evidence Card to preserve version, barrier map, claims, technical facts, and output. When fluency exists only inside a memorised script, accent difference creates fear, or an unfamiliar follow-up ends participation, enter Speaking: Make Meaning Arrive and use the Speaking Evidence Card to preserve reference variety, listener retelling, interaction repair, and follow-up transfer. When you cannot leave your own draft, depend on sentence translation, or only have AI-polished prose, enter Writing: From Draft to Verifiable Revision and use the Writing Evidence Card to preserve sources, translation meaning changes, feedback uptake, asynchronous handover, and the decision to sign. Choose one main line at a time and use the relevant evidence cards to preserve a first sample, feedback, and a retest. More study is not necessarily deeper study; completing the action in a new situation is where ability starts to show.

I am preparing for a global role or remote interview

Read Job-search English: Bring Ability into Interviews and Remote Work before using one CEFR label to decide whether you are “good enough”. Choose one real role and use the Job-search English Evidence Card for an unscripted project explanation, unfamiliar follow-up, asynchronous update, and repair. After fourteen days, decide whether to apply while practising, repair one high-risk gap, or defer this role.

I have many resources but no artifact

Read Learning Anything with AI, then record the problem, sources, privacy boundary, and human judgment in the AI Task Brief. Use the Artifact Brief and Delivery Card to name the audience, completion standard, acceptance owner, and rollback. A chat log can help you begin. It cannot deliver for you.

I have many records but cannot tell whether I really changed

Open the Evidence Chain Template. Put baseline, immediate performance, delayed retention, and transfer on one page, then return to Evidence: How Change Becomes Visible to separate conclusions supported by evidence from interpretations that still need testing. Do not replace one independent retest with a longer table.

I do not know which worksheet to choose

For a first use, read the Toolkit Walkthrough and follow an explicitly synthetic 90-day Python example through Learning State, one AI task, an unaided baseline, a retest, and handover to a new conversation. Then open the Toolkit Overview, choose an entry by the block in front of you, leave the overview, and complete one real action.

I am supporting a middle-school-age learner

Read Family Learning: Return Ownership of Growth to the Learner before applying adult assumptions about time management, career projects, and AI accounts. Use the Family Learning Agreement to record learner voice, adult concern, school requirements, data boundaries, and a fourteen-day review separately. The learner speaks first; adults protect safety and environment without substituted work or all-day surveillance.

I am in a difficult season and my capacity is small

Read Recovery: Catch Yourself Before You Push Forward and Daily System. Reduce the target to safety, food, sleep, asking for help, and one minimum output. If low mood, sleeplessness, hopelessness, or thoughts of harm persist, contact someone you trust and seek qualified local medical or mental-health support. This book is not care.

Two Reading Modes, Used in Turn

One Complete Reading Arc

A complete read is not a race through page numbers. It lets the same question change four times: first see yourself, then open input, return to reality, and finally give the rhythm to time.

Stage | What to read | What to leave behind
See the starting point | Reader's Guide · Prologue | A one-page promise: real problem, baseline, minimum action, and boundary
Open input | CEFR Self-check and the vocabulary, grammar, listening, reading, speaking, and writing chapters | An English Diagnostic and one relevant evidence card
Return to reality | My Story, Narrative and Evidence, Echoes, Recovery, Decision-Making, plus AI Learning, Artifacts, and Evidence | One case review or real delivery, with change recorded in the Evidence Chain Template
Sustain and ship | First Week Practice, Family Learning when relevant, Daily System, Rhythm, 90-Day Action Plan, the book case study, and the Afterword | A first-week baseline and retest, one Rhythm Ledger, one cycle plan, one real-project handover, and a next review date

Read like a book

Follow the Prologue → Part I: Open Input → Part II: Return to Life → Part III: Amplify Ability → Evidence → Part IV: Practice and Recovery → Part V: Long-Term Action. This reveals how one question moves from language training into work, relationships, the body, and responsibility, then becomes a rhythm that can be tested and sustained.

Read like a studio

Jump from the Toolkit Overview, table of contents, or glossary to the obstacle in front of you. Pause after a section and write one judgment, do one exercise, or preserve a first sample. A week later, use the Evidence Chain Template and Weekly Review to check whether it transferred to a new task. You do not need to remember the whole book. You need the next action to become clearer.

These modes support one another. A complete read explains why the method is arranged this way; an on-demand read lets it do useful work today.

Leave Four Traces from Every Chapter

After a chapter, do not mark only “read.” Leave at least two of these four traces:

Trace | Question | Example
One judgment | What am I more certain about now? | “I will track one main question this week.”
One sample | What output proves I did the work? | A recording, an email, or an error list
One boundary | What must not be handed to a tool or an assumption? | Do not upload customer privacy; do not turn one story into a rule
One return point | When and under what condition will I retest? | Repeat the task with a new topic in seven days

If a chapter leaves only “that makes sense,” stop collecting. Rewrite it as an action that another person could see and you could inspect later.

What This Book Will Not Do for You

I will not choose a permanently correct career for you or package one personal story as a formula for success. I will not treat an AI answer as a fact, one smooth experience as proof of ability, or a beautiful schedule as a reason to hide the costs to your body, money, relationships, and privacy.

You may challenge any judgment here. First identify whether it is a research finding, personal experience, or hypothesis waiting for a test, then retest it in your own context. People have different resources, responsibilities, bodies, and risks. When a suggestion fails for you, that does not prove you did not work hard enough, and it does not automatically prove the suggestion was wrong.

When the Plan Is Interrupted, Return Here

Interruption is not an exception to this method. It is the reality the method must survive. Open the Learning State and mark what is complete, unconfirmed, costly, and next. If capacity has changed, return to the minimum viable day or the Rhythm Ledger instead of adding shame to the plan.

Add weight only after a repeatable rhythm returns. A reliable system is not one that never breaks. It is one that still knows how to come home after a break.

A One-Page Promise to the Reader

Before continuing, write four sentences:

The real problem I am handling now is:

The baseline evidence I already have is:

After this reading, I will complete this minimum action by:

The information, privacy, health, or relationship boundary I must keep is:

Those four sentences are enough to begin. Reading is not leaving life. It is giving life a direction that can be seen.

Prologue: Do Not Rush to Change Your Life

By Han Xiankai, pen name “Li Pu”.

In July 2017, a friend named W. was preparing for the TOEFL. She asked me: “How can I learn English efficiently?”

At the time, I thought it was a question about vocabulary, grammar, and study methods. I wrote down the detours I had taken: how to learn words, how to train listening, how to make an original English book feel less like a wall, and how to say the first imperfect sentence when you are afraid to speak.

Later I understood that she may have been asking a larger question: How can an ordinary person keep moving a little forward when time is limited, setbacks repeat, and life is far from ideal?

This guide grew from that question.

It begins with English because English is a concrete door. It can help you read an untranslated article, follow a work meeting, write to someone far away, and see the world through more than one information channel. But after the door opens, you still have to face yourself: how you use time, care for your body, carry failure, turn an idea into an artifact, and look after the people beside you.

I once imagined life as a game with an upgrade path. Finish one goal and receive the next piece of equipment; earn enough money and happiness will become stable; ship a product and your earlier choices will be justified. Then the company failed, my body stopped cooperating, and relationships and self-respect fell together. I learned that life is not a map waiting to be cleared.

Life is closer to a room that must be put back in order every day. Yesterday’s dust is still there. A broken piece of furniture cannot be repaired with a louder slogan. The weather outside does not follow our schedule. Progress often means sweeping the floor, saying the apology that is due, seeing a doctor, and finishing the next thing that can honestly be finished today.

This is not a book that promises to make you impressive. It offers four things:

An executable English path in which input, output, feedback, and review form a loop;

A way to work with AI that grows judgment instead of replacing thought;

A personal record that does not hide its mess, reminding us to place ability, work, relationships, and health on one timeline;

A 90-day action plan that gives what you read a chance to become work, feedback, and a new rhythm.

A Contract with the Reader

You do not have to read every page in order. Find the obstacle that is real today:

If you do not know why you are learning, start with Understanding.

If you keep forgetting, start with Vocabulary.

If you understand more than you can say, start with Speaking.

If you have many resources but no artifact, read Learning Anything with AI and the 90-Day Action Plan.

If you have many records but cannot tell whether anything changed, start with the Evidence Chain Template, then read Evidence.

If you do not know which worksheet to choose, open the Toolkit Overview and choose one entry point by the block in front of you.

If you are in a low season, read My Story, then sleep, eat, and decide what comes next.

Treat each chapter as a workbench, not an exam. Take one thing from it: a sentence, an exercise, a habit to stop, or a thought worth returning to. Knowledge that leaves no mark on life is still only a signpost.

A Reading Path You Can Revisit

Read through “problem → skill → tool → delivery → recovery”, or enter at the part that is most urgent today:

Problem: use Learning State to name the real context, baseline, and completion standard;

Skill: choose one of listening, reading, speaking, or writing and keep its evidence card;

Tool: if you use AI, read Learning Anything with AI and record sources, privacy, and human judgment in the task;

Delivery and verification: give the draft, recording, code, or report to a real person; use the Evidence Chain Template to compare the first version, feedback, delayed retention, and transfer; then schedule a retest in the 90-Day Cycle Map;

Recovery and return: when the plan breaks, return to Recovery and the Rhythm Ledger, restoring safety and minimum order before adding pressure.

This is not a required table of contents. It is a reminder that learning should return to life, and action should remain allowed to return to learning.

To the Person Opening This Page

You may be on a train with a phone full of saved links. You may have just lost a relationship and wonder whether you are stuck here forever. You may be pressed against a wall by work, debt, an exam, or illness, and even the word “effort” may sound exhausting.

I cannot promise that tomorrow will be better. I can say this: people are rarely rescued by one spectacular victory. We are more often held up by small, repeated actions that nobody applauds.

Learn five words today. Listen to real English for ten minutes tomorrow. Write an unpolished paragraph the day after. Finish a delayed task, send an overdue apology, eat on time, and turn off the light earlier. These actions look unrelated, but together they create evidence: I still have some influence over my life.

That influence need not be grand. It only needs to be real.

May you begin here not to become someone else, but to become more fully yourself.

Part I: Open Input

What matters about a door is not how impressive it looks. What matters is where it allows you to go.

English first appeared to me as a wall. On one side were tests, vocabulary lists, and repeated doubt. On the other were technical documents, courses, research, products, and people I had not yet met. I thought the wall would fall if I collected enough words. It took much longer to understand that a language is not stored knowledge. It is an ability built through use in real situations.

This part begins with English without using English to rank a person. It asks a practical question: when information no longer arrives already arranged in your familiar language, can you hear the main point, follow an argument, ask a question, explain a judgment, and complete work with another person?

Opening input does not mean letting more information flood your life. It means choosing what deserves to enter, learning how to understand and answer it, and keeping something of your own after the material closes.

Questions for This Part

What can I currently complete in listening, speaking, reading, and writing, rather than what is my average “level”?

How does a word, sound, or text move from something I have seen to something I can use under a new condition?

How does input pass through recall, expression, and feedback until it becomes independent ability?

When a rule is already familiar, why can structure still change time, responsibility, condition, or certainty in a real message?

Where can AI support practice, and where must it leave so that I complete the work myself?

When English enters job search, interviews, and remote collaboration, how do level directions become role tasks and evidence?

Do not let the weakest skill deny everything you can do, and do not let the strongest skill hide a real gap. A baseline is not a verdict. It is a map that gives the next action a direction.

Reading Path

Path | Chapters | What to leave behind
Locate the starting point | CEFR Goals and Self-check | One unpolished baseline for each of listening, speaking, reading, and writing
Build the method | Learning Principles · Vocabulary · Grammar | One real context, reusable chunks, one high-impact structure, and a retest date
Open understanding | Listening · Reading | A reconstruction of the main idea, difficulty categories, and source record
Enter expression | Speaking · Writing | First version, feedback, revision, and expression under a new condition
Use the tool | Learning English with AI | AI boundaries, an independent retest, and feedback from a real audience
Enter the role | Job-search English | Role language map, unfamiliar follow-up, asynchronous writing, and fourteen-day evidence

Do not advance every chapter at once. Choose one task that will occur in life: a meeting, email, document, explanation, or conversation. Open the abilities required by that task and let the other chapters remain quiet for now.

What to Carry Forward

At the end of this part, leave at least three things:

A baseline sample you can repeat thirty days later, including its unpolished structural choices;

One English output a real audience can understand, answer, or use; when the goal is employment, include an unfamiliar follow-up or asynchronous handover;

An Evidence Chain with time, conditions, and the next variable.

If you have only saved links, playback time, and the feeling of having studied, this part is not complete. Close the material, change the task slightly, and try again alone. Ability is what remains when the prompt leaves.

Enter the Work

Do not begin by deciding whether you are “good at English”. Begin with a sheet of paper and preserve what you can do today.

The door does not wait for perfect preparation. Often you push first, and only then does light enter through the opening.

CEFR Goals and English Self-check

The CEFR describes what a person can do with language in context. It is not an app score or a fixed vocabulary count. This page simplifies the Council of Europe global scale to help you choose a starting point; it does not replace a formal assessment.

Quick Overview

save an unpolished baseline for listening, speaking, reading, and writing separately;

translate an A1–C2 direction into a context, task, quality threshold, and deadline;

use seven-day, thirty-day, and twelve-week rhythms instead of chasing one average level;

retest under comparable conditions with a parallel task and outside feedback before choosing the next variable.

A1-C2: What Can I Do?

Level | Observable overall performance
A1 | Understand and use very common expressions; interact simply when the other person speaks slowly and helps.
A2 | Handle direct exchanges about familiar matters such as personal information, shopping, places, and work.
B1 | Understand the main points on familiar matters; handle most travel situations and briefly explain experiences, plans, and reasons.
B2 | Understand main ideas in complex concrete or abstract texts; interact fairly naturally and explain a viewpoint clearly.
C1 | Understand demanding, longer material and implicit meaning; use language flexibly in social, academic, and professional settings.
C2 | Understand almost everything heard or read with ease; synthesize sources, reconstruct arguments, and express fine distinctions precisely.

Source: Council of Europe, CEFR 3.3 Global Scale, accessed 2026-08-16. These are action-oriented summaries, not the official wording.

Four-skill Evidence

Choose one topic connected to real life. Complete the first version without looking things up and keep the raw sample.

Skill | 10–20 minute task | Check
Listening | Hear 2–4 minutes; record the main point, three details, and a retelling | Gist, detail, chunk boundaries, causes of misses
Reading | Read 600–1000 words; write five summary sentences and one challenge | Claim, evidence, inference, whether unknown words block meaning
Speaking | Record an unscripted two-minute explanation | Intelligibility, pauses, grammar, chunks, task completion
Writing | Write a 180–250 word email, explanation, or argument in 20 minutes | Purpose, structure, support, accuracy, revision

Save the samples in the English Diagnostic. Rate each skill separately when the profile is uneven.

Turn a Level into a Goal

A useful goal contains a context, task, quality threshold, deadline, and evidence.

In 12 weeks, I can deliver a five-minute project update covering context, progress, and risk. Listeners can restate the key points without switching language. I will keep recordings and feedback from weeks 1, 4, 8, and 12.

“Move from B1 to B2” is a direction, not a complete training goal. Progress is rarely linear and cannot be guaranteed by hours alone.

When the real goal is a global role or remote interview, do not turn B1, B2, or C1 into a universal hiring line. Continue to Job-search English, test project explanation, unfamiliar follow-up, repair, and asynchronous writing against one real role, then let the component evidence choose the next variable.

Seven-day Start

Day 1: complete four baselines and save the unpolished samples.

Days 2–5: choose one skill daily for 25–45 minutes of input, retrieval, output, and feedback.

Day 6: repeat the weakest task and compare error categories.

Day 7: complete the Weekly Review and choose one focus.

Thirty-day System

Complete at least one inspectable task in each skill every week; repeat the priority skill more often.

Classify errors as comprehension, vocabulary/chunks, pronunciation, grammar, structure, strategy, or attention.

Repeat an old task or a parallel task weekly and compare performance rather than feeling.

On day 30, repeat the baseline conditions and keep both samples plus external feedback.

Twelve-week Transfer

Weeks 1–4: establish rhythm with tasks below the frustration threshold.

Weeks 5–8: increase complexity and time pressure; transfer across topics.

Weeks 9–11: simulate the real exam, meeting, presentation, reading, or writing deliverable.

Week 12: complete the final task, obtain a blind or real-audience review, and choose the next cycle.

Feedback Rubric

Score each 0=not completed, 1=partly, or 2=consistently:

Task completion: did the intended information and purpose arrive?

Comprehensibility: could the audience understand without guessing?

Accuracy and range: did language choices support the task?

Organisation and fluency: was the message coherent without disruptive pauses?

Revision and transfer: could you improve from feedback and reuse it in a new task?

Use totals only for your own longitudinal comparison, never as a label for another person.

When accuracy and range remain weak, do not call every problem “bad grammar”. First ask whether the choice changes time, participants, negation, condition, or certainty, then use Grammar and the Grammar Evidence Card to track one structure that affects the task. Lower-impact variation can wait.

Carry the Self-check into the Next Cycle

This rubric describes performance in one task; it does not announce that you have “reached a level”. After the self-check, carry the result into Evidence: How Change Becomes Visible:

Save today's baseline instead of replacing it with the revised version;

record immediate performance after practice and what help you received;

remove the recent prompts and retest delayed retention after seven days;

change the topic, audience, or task after thirty or ninety days to check transfer.

When the four skills differ, track separate evidence chains. The value of a self-check is not a flattering label. It gives the next practice a point that can be compared.

Use the Evidence Chain Template to keep the four time points together instead of preserving only a final score.

Closing: A Level Is Only a Coordinate

A level can suggest how far away a task may be. It cannot tell you why the journey matters, and it cannot travel for you. A2, B1, or C1 describes performance under particular conditions. It is not the limit of a person, or a certificate of who deserves to be heard, trusted, or loved.

Real change is often quieter than a changed label: the first time you understand a stranger's request, finish explaining your reason in a meeting, or write an email the other person does not have to decipher. The label may remain where it was, while another usable road has already opened between you and the world.

Keep today's score, and keep today's awkwardness too. When you return, do not ask whether you finally deserve a letter. Ask which real task you can now complete more fully. A coordinate should help a person find a road, not pin them to the ground.

Learning Principles: Turn Effort into Verifiable Learning

Learning is easily mistaken for two things: spending a lot of time or feeling familiar with material. Finishing a video, highlighting a chapter, or understanding an answer can create “I know it” confidence. When the source closes, the cue disappears, and the task changes, another action must answer whether the ability remains.

I once confused visible effort with learning. At school I woke at 5:20, skipped midday rest, and read after lights-out. Time increased while performance fell. I interpreted failure as “not pushing hard enough” and added more. Later I could admit that, for me, chronic sleep loss, no error diagnosis, and mechanical hours made an increasingly expensive path that did not improve.

That experience does not prove early rising is ineffective or prescribe a schedule. It leaves a question worth retesting: when investment increases, do task performance, error type, retention, and physical capacity improve together? If not, add diagnosis before adding hours.

This chapter is the book's general protocol. It does not turn life into a laboratory. It helps you preserve enough evidence within finite energy: define a real delivery, save the unaided first version, use targeted input and retrieval, receive specific feedback, remove cues after a delay, change one condition, and keep the state outside any single conversation.

Chapter at a Glance

Turn “I want to improve” into an audience, action, quality threshold, deadline, and evidence.

Separate research findings, personal experience, and hypotheses waiting for a test.

Preserve an unpolished first version instead of letting a final product erase the start.

Build one learning loop from input, retrieval, output, feedback, and a state record.

Classify errors by task impact rather than blaming laziness or vocabulary size.

Make feedback change the next action instead of adding notes and advice.

Let performance set spacing while protecting sleep, body, and a returnable minimum capacity.

Keep goals, samples, errors, and next steps in a state file outside the session.

Test transfer under a changed topic, audience, mode, or time limit.

1. Define One Real Delivery

“Learn English,” “learn programming,” and “communicate better” are too large to choose today's action. Name the conditions in which language or knowledge must work:

Element | Question | Example
Audience | Who will understand, decide, or act from it? | New colleague, client, teacher, self
Action | What should the person do after reading or hearing? | Retell, reply, run, choose, continue
Input | Which concrete source will you process? | Two-minute audio, API page, email
Quality threshold | What counts as done, and what risk is unacceptable? | State gist and owner; preserve limits
Conditions | What are time, device, background, and permitted tools? | 20 minutes, no captions, dictionary allowed
Evidence | What work, test, or response will remain? | Recording, retelling, run result, reply

Write the goal like this:

In 12 weeks, I can deliver a five-minute project update covering context, progress, and risk. Listeners can restate the key points without switching language. I will keep recordings and feedback from weeks 1, 4, 8, and 12.

It guides action better than “move from B1 to B2”. A level describes performance under some conditions; it cannot replace a context, task, deadline, and evidence.

2. Separate Three Kinds of Claim

This guide keeps different evidence in different places:

Research evidence reports observations under specified samples, conditions, and measures; it suggests what to try, not what everyone will achieve.

Personal experience explains why I chose something; it is a narrative and a clue for your experiment, not a general rule.

Testable hypothesis is a judgment without enough evidence; turn it into an action, counterexample, or stop condition.

When advice omits its population, conditions, outcome, and source, return it to the hypothesis column. Plausibility is not fit for your task.

3. One Complete Learning Loop

For 25-45 minutes, move through six steps:

Define the task, audience, conditions, and acceptance standard.

Attempt it independently with the minimum permitted help and save the raw sample.

Diagnose whether the failure is language, structure, background, strategy, attention, capacity, or device.

Target input only at information needed for the current error.

Produce actively by retelling, writing, speaking, running, or deciding after closing the source.

Record feedback and state: result, help received, unknowns, and one condition to change.

“I watched it” is not a seventh step. The loop ends when you can complete a related action after the tool or source leaves, or can state more accurately why you cannot yet.

4. A First Version Is a Measure, Not a Verdict

The first version need not be attractive, but it must be comparable:

markdown

Real task and audience:
Material, version, and source:
Start/end time:
Permitted dictionary, captions, search, AI, and human help:
My acceptance standard:
First-version location:
What I completed then:
What remained uncertain:

Do not replace the first version with a later polished one or call one failed attempt stable ability. It answers: what could I do independently under these conditions?

For four English skills, use the English Diagnostic for listening, reading, speaking, and writing. Use a skill card when a bottleneck needs finer resolution.

5. Diagnose the Error Instead of Judging the Person

A weak result can come from different layers:

Layer | Typical sign | Next question
Language form | Form, sound, grammar, or spelling was not recognised | Which form changed the meaning?
Structure and meaning | Words are known but participants, time, condition, or relation were not parsed | Which relation cannot I explain?
Background and concept | Language is readable but the object or premise is unknown | Which domain fact is missing?
Strategy and tool | The same place is looked up repeatedly or a cue cannot be removed | Which scaffold stays, and when is it removed?
Attention and capacity | Errors cluster later and the body drops sharply | What minimum task is sustainable today?
Environment and device | Sound, network, font, or interface changes the result | Does performance change with another setup?

“Careless,” “not talented,” and “too little vocabulary” can end diagnosis too early. Preserve the error, choose one changeable condition, and test it. Diagnosis finds the next lever; it does not write a character judgment.

6. Retrieval Is Stricter Than Familiarity

Repeated exposure can make material familiar without making it available when needed. Retrieval includes:

writing a three-sentence summary after closing the source;

stating gist, detail, responsibility, and next step after listening;

explaining a concept without notes;

placing a new chunk in two new situations;

reproducing minimum run steps without example code;

asking a reader or peer to retell what they actually received.

Retrieval need not be so difficult that it only measures frustration, background, or capacity. The useful difficulty exposes a gap while leaving a route to repair. Record completion, cue, time, error, and response rather than “I worked hard”.

7. Feedback Must Enter the Next Action

Feedback is not better in larger quantities. Start with the one to three items that change the task:

Did the audience understand, decide, or complete the intended action?

Are facts, structure, and responsibility accurate?

Which recurring error deserves repair in the next attempt?

Sentence-level feedback should distinguish necessary correction, ambiguity, register choice, acceptable variation, and style preference. Ask for a retelling before discussing whether something sounds natural. A reviewer may reveal a blind spot while also carrying different knowledge and aims; accept, partly accept, reject, or defer with a reason.

If feedback only beautifies an old draft, it is not transfer. Turn it into a condition for a parallel task: change topic, audience, sound, time, or constraint, and change one main variable.

8. Spacing, Interleaving, and Sleep

Retrieval and distributed practice have substantial support in learning research, but no fixed calendar fits every learner and material. Use same-day, day 1, days 3-7, day 14, and day 30 as reminders, then adjust:

easy, accurate recall plus new-context use: lengthen the interval or add variation;

effortful success: keep a similar interval;

repeated failure: reduce material, shorten the interval, or repair prerequisites;

recognition without use: add production and cross-mode tasks;

sustained physical decline: downgrade, pause, or seek help instead of calling recovery laziness.

Interleave skills when useful, but do not change every variable at once or the cause of change becomes unknowable. Sleep, food, movement, and unassigned time are inputs to memory, attention, and return. Persistent sleep, mood, or physical problems need qualified professional care; this book does not diagnose.

9. Keep State Outside the Session

Chats, courses, and apps end. Learning state cannot live only inside them. Use the Learning State to keep:

markdown

Current main question:
What I know with evidence:
First and latest result:
Error categories and unresolved risks:
Tools used and verification boundary:
Smallest next task:
One condition to change next:
How I return within 24 hours after interruption:
Handover owner and review date:

At the next session, read the state and act. Do not ask a model to infer progress from an old chat. A state file is a fact page, not a performance diary.

10. AI Is a Scaffold, Not the Result

AI can question, explain, classify errors, generate counterexamples, simulate a reader, offer parallel tasks, and compare versions. Use an auditable order:

Save your task and first version.

Give the model only the minimum material needed for diagnosis.

Ask it to state uncertainty, sources, and possible misjudgments.

Return to primary material, dictionaries, run results, teachers, peers, or real audiences.

Close the tool and perform independently under a changed condition.

Write acceptance, rejection, and the next step into the state file.

The model cannot prove facts, carry privacy responsibility, complete an exam that forbids outside help, or decide whether you actually learned. Do not paste customer data, unpublished documents, identity records, medical privacy, or unauthorised third-party content.

11. Make Ability Move Across Conditions

Immediate performance describes one condition. Change at least one for transfer:

Keep | Change | Observe
Task | Topic | Do structure and strategy still work?
Topic | Audience | Do register, background, and explanation adjust?
Information | Mode | Does listening, reading, speaking, and writing support one another?
Genre | Time | Can the line and limits survive pressure?
Tool | Scaffold | Can work continue after the cue closes?

Change one main condition at a time. If everything changes, a lower score cannot tell you whether difficulty, background, or method caused it. Transfer does not require identical tasks; it requires the core action to remain callable.

12. Seven Days, Thirty Days, Twelve Weeks

Seven days: let a first version appear

complete a first version of one real task;

run three complete learning loops;

classify one recurring error;

remove the latest cue and perform a related task on day seven;

choose only one condition to change next week.

Thirty days: make rhythm sustainable

preserve one comparable output each week;

alternate an old task with a parallel task;

delete activities that create familiarity without use;

record sleep, capacity, time, and real response;

repeat under similar conditions on day thirty and state what cannot be inferred.

Twelve weeks: let ability enter life

preserve parallel samples in weeks 1, 4, 8, and 12;

add an unfamiliar topic, real audience, or time pressure midway;

complete a meeting, exam simulation, documentation check, email delivery, or public artifact;

let the result decide whether to continue, downgrade, change a variable, or stop.

13. One-page General Diagnostic

For a complete diagnostic:

choose one real topic and four tasks;

record conditions and complete listening, reading, speaking, and writing first versions;

name one task-critical error per skill;

choose one evidence card and one targeted repair per skill;

complete a parallel task on day seven and repeat one real delivery on day thirty;

state what changed, what did not, and what remains unsupported.

Do not average four scores into a personality judgment. Someone with B2 reading and A2 speaking does not need one “true level” first; they need the next task and evidence card that fit each component.

Sources and Boundaries

Dunlosky et al. (2013), Improving Students' Learning With Effective Learning Techniques: reviews ten techniques and their generalisability across learning conditions, learners, materials, and criterion tasks; practice testing and distributed practice receive high-utility assessments, while rereading and highlighting are more conditional.

Roediger & Karpicke (2006), Test-Enhanced Learning: compares testing with repeated study using prose materials and reports delayed-retention differences; sample, material, and measure do not guarantee every task.

Cepeda et al. (2006), Distributed Practice in Verbal Recall Tasks: reviews and quantitatively synthesises distributed practice in verbal recall; the useful interval depends on retention goal, material, and task.

Hattie & Timperley (2007), The Power of Feedback: analyses differences in feedback type, timing, and delivery; “feedback works” is not a reason to add undirected comments.

Rasch & Born (2013), About Sleep's Role in Memory: reviews sleep and memory-consolidation research; individual needs, health, and real schedules still require separate judgment.

Pashler et al. (2008), Learning Styles: finds no adequate evidence for matching instruction to fixed visual/auditory labels while cautioning that untested variants cannot all be declared false.

Research differs in sample, material, measure, and delay. Important work should return to current facts, primary sources, real audiences, and named accountable owners.

Related entry points: CEFR Goals and Self-check | Vocabulary | Grammar | Listening | Reading | Speaking | Writing | English Diagnostic | Evidence Chain

Closing: Give the Method to the Next Attempt

The temptation of a learning method is that it looks like a shortcut. A method begins to belong to you only when the material is closed, the cue is gone, the task has changed, and it can still help you finish something.

You do not need to memorise every researcher's name or turn life into continuous measurement. One plain loop is enough: attempt the task alone and let difficulty appear; obtain specific feedback; return after an interval; change one condition and see whether the ability travels with you.

A good method does not make you better at explaining how hard you have worked. It makes you more able to complete something when no one is reminding you. What remains is not the name of the method, but the knowledge of how to begin the next unfamiliar problem.

Vocabulary: From Familiarity to Retrieval in Real Tasks

When I first maintained this guide, I also liked collecting word lists. Every added page made progress look measurable. Yet language does not appear on demand merely because it has been saved. In an email, meeting, code review, or difficult explanation, the missing ability is often not having seen a word. It is choosing the right sense, collocation, register, and responsibility under limited time.

Delay, block, and risk, for example, can all appear in a project update, but they do not describe the same state. Whether work has stopped, may be affected, or is simply later than planned changes who must act, when to escalate, and whether to wait. A grammatically correct sentence can still send collaboration toward the wrong decision.

Vocabulary size is therefore not an inventory count. Vocabulary ability means recognising an expression in real input, deciding what it means here, retrieving it when needed, and allowing another person to understand, respond, or continue work.

This chapter follows a traceable path: preserve a first encounter before lookup; decide what to skip, infer, check, learn, or escalate; verify sound, form, sense, collocation, register, and concept separately; then remove the source sentence and card and retest across topic, mode, and real task.

Chapter at a Glance

Define the real task instead of substituting an isolated vocabulary total.

Preserve a first-encounter baseline and separate unknown words from unparsed sentences.

Decide whether to skip, infer, look up, learn, or professionally verify each unknown item.

Learn form, sound, current sense, collocation, grammatical behaviour, register, and concept separately.

Assess with unaided recall, timed retrieval, and real audience results, not familiarity after seeing an answer.

Let errors and use adjust spacing instead of treating fixed dates as a law of memory.

Verify AI-generated candidates with dictionaries, corpora, current documentation, and domain experts.

Track one topic, one first encounter, and one parallel task for fourteen days.

1. Define the Task Before the Total

"Expand my vocabulary" does not say what to learn today. Begin with the conditions in which language must work:

Task | Vocabulary ability required | Observable result
Listen in a meeting | Segment key chunks and responsibility in natural speech | Retell decisions, risks, owners, and dates
Read documentation | Identify terms, actions, and limits in the current version | Run a minimum check and point to the source
Explain aloud | Retrieve useful chunks under time pressure and repair | Listener retells the point without guessing from a script
Write an email | Select accurate sense, collocation, and relational tone | Recipient knows what to do and when to reply
Take an exam | Recognise or produce the range required by the task | Complete a new item rather than recognise an old card

One learner may read specialist terms yet fail to retrieve them in a meeting, or speak everyday English while confusing near-synonyms in a contract. Audience, material, time limit, permitted tools, and acceptance standard determine whether to test reception or production, breadth or precision.

Use the Vocabulary Evidence Card to keep the task, first encounter, verification, retrieval, feedback, and delayed transfer together.

2. Preserve an Unpolished First Encounter

Choose material close to the real task: a 150-300-word text, 60-90-second recording, email, API page, or short explanation. Record permitted captions, dictionary, translation, search, and AI. Then complete the first input or output without lookup.

markdown

Material, version, and source:
Real task and acceptance standard:
First-encounter time and limit:
Permitted support:
My gist, relationships, and next step:
Chunks I know with confidence:
Sentence/timestamp where meaning stopped:
How I handled unknowns then:

Do not attribute every failure to vocabulary. Sound segmentation, syntactic scope, background knowledge, layout, or attention may be the real barrier. Preserve the original cloze answer, retelling, recording, or draft so later comparison can show what lookup actually changed.

A first-encounter baseline is not a shame list. It asks which meaning arrived before tools, where guessing began, and which item truly blocked the task.

3. Make Five Decisions about Unknown Items

Not every unknown word deserves long-term review. Choose among five actions:

Decision | Use when | Minimum record
Skip | It does not affect gist, action, or safety and is one-off detail | Why it can wait
Infer | Syntax, contrast, example, or context provides usable evidence | Candidate sense and confidence
Quick lookup | It blocks current understanding but has low future value | Current sense and source
Learn deliberately | It recurs, is task-critical, and will be used within two weeks | Sound, collocation, retrieval cue, and retest
Verify professionally | Safety, law, medicine, finance, versioning, or business responsibility is involved | Primary definition, scope, and accountable owner

Inference before lookup can train contextual judgment, but do not protect a "no dictionary" rule at the expense of safety or fact. Low-risk reading can carry uncertainty; high-risk action must return to current primary documentation or a qualified person.

Select only five to eight high-value chunks for deliberate learning in one cycle. Their value comes from recurrence, task impact, connection to known language, and an imminent use, not from sounding advanced.

4. One Word Contains at Least Eight Questions

English = translation records only one candidate correspondence. Fuller vocabulary knowledge includes:

Dimension | Question | Example/evidence
Form | How is it spelled, inflected, and derived? | analyse → analysis → analytical
Sound | How does it appear through stress, phonemes, and connected speech? | Locate it without captions
Current sense | What exactly does it mean in this sentence? | Explain this use instead of listing every definition
Collocation/chunk | Which words normally complete the meaning with it? | pose a risk to, meet a deadline
Grammar | What follows it, and what can serve as subject? | Original sentence plus a structural contrast
Register/pragmatics | Do formality, politeness, stance, and identity fit? | kids / children / minors
Concept/reference | Is the real object or institution actually equivalent? | Versioned definition or counterexample
Retrieval condition | How fast does it arrive, and what cue is still required? | Timed speaking/writing without prompts

A word family is an estimation tool, not automatic knowledge. help, helps, helped, helpful, helpless may count as one family in some studies, while a learner may not know each derivative's sense, collocation, or tone. Abbreviations, API names, and fixed specialist expressions require current-version checks.

Words rarely work alone. Prioritise combinations that perform tasks: collocations, chunks, morphological relations, sentence slots, and register contrasts. They reduce live assembly without becoming an entire memorised script; the combination must remain adaptable in a new sentence.

5. The Relevant Sense Is Not Always Definition One

Polysemy creates the feeling of "I knew every word but misunderstood the sentence." Preserve the source before comparing senses:

markdown

Source sentence and location:
My first inferred sense:
Dictionary sense that fits this syntax and context:
Supporting collocation, example, or counterexample:
How a near-synonym changes responsibility, certainty, or tone:

Do not paste the first translated gloss into every setting. Learner dictionaries are useful for common senses, pronunciation, grammar labels, collocations, and examples. Corpus evidence can show whether an expression occurs in comparable contexts. Technical terms should return to current official documentation, standards, or code.

Translation can support comparison, but one first-language word may cover several English concepts, while two institutional terms that look equivalent may differ in scope. "Close enough" is not an acceptance standard for high-risk text.

6. Receptive Vocabulary Is Not Productive Vocabulary

Receptive reading means understanding after seeing; receptive listening means segmenting and understanding when sound arrives. Productive speaking and writing require retrieval before the answer is displayed, together with form, collocation, and register.

Using matched receptive and productive translation tests with L2 learners, Webb (2008) reported larger receptive than productive vocabulary sizes. Under fuller scoring, the gap increased in lower-frequency bands. The finding warns against turning recognition into a claim of use, while the size of any gap still depends on test direction, scoring, participants, and frequency range.

Move a chunk from reception toward production through four steps:

Explain its current sense in the source sentence.

Close the source and retrieve it from a situational cue.

Keep the function while changing people, time, topic, or tone.

Use it in an email, meeting, explanation, code review, or conversation and observe the response.

Reproducing only the training sentence is not transfer. Conveying the concept with an awkward collocation means meaning arrived but form still needs repair. Locate the failed dimension instead of calling every failure "not memorised."

7. Interpret Coverage Numbers Carefully

Earlier editions said that 1,000 words yield 75% understanding and 7,000 nearly 90%. Such unconditional equations mix counting units, corpora, modes, and definitions of understanding, so they are not retained.

Vocabulary research often discusses 95% and 98% coverage of running words. As an intuition, 95% leaves about one unknown in twenty and 98% about one in fifty. Actual difficulty still changes when unknowns cluster at decisive points, background is unfamiliar, or syntax is dense.

Schmitt, Jiang, and Grabe (2011) asked 661 participants from eight countries to read two texts and complete vocabulary and comprehension measures. The relationship between known-word percentage and comprehension was relatively linear, without evidence of a sharp threshold; the authors judged 98% a more reasonable target for academic texts. That group relationship is not an individual passport.

Using 1,000-word-family lists built from the British National Corpus and assuming 98% coverage for unassisted comprehension, Nation (2006) estimated roughly 8,000-9,000 word families for written text and 6,000-7,000 for spoken text. The estimates depend on family definition, corpus, proper-noun treatment, and the comprehension assumption. They are not universal goals for every learner, domain, or task.

Coverage is useful for choosing material. When unknowns are dense and task-critical, reduce difficulty, shorten the source, or build background. When most unknowns do not affect the line, continue reading instead of turning every page into a word list.

8. A Strong Retrieval Card Tests One Decision

The front should demand recall rather than another reading of the answer:

text

Context: a project dependency may affect the schedule; express that it creates risk.
Gap: The dependency may ____ a risk to the schedule.

The back preserves:

pose a risk to and a reliable source location;

current sense, pronunciation, part of speech, and register;

a second situation written by the learner;

one confusable expression and the difference;

the prompt to remove at the next retest.

Long cards turn review into rereading. If one failure combines pronunciation, sense, and collocation, separate the cues. If a card succeeds only with its original sentence, replace it with a cue closer to the real task.

Bidirectional translation cards can be a beginning, not the final condition. Real retrieval moves from intention, situation, or object toward expression rather than forever beginning with another-language label.

9. Let Performance Control the Interval

Forgetting is real, but no fixed "memory-curve calendar" fits every item and learner. Set initial checks for the same day, day 1, days 3-7, day 14, and day 30, then adjust from evidence:

fast accurate recall plus new use: lengthen the interval;

effortful success: keep or slightly lengthen it;

repeated sense/near-synonym confusion: add contrast and counterexample;

understood in text but missed in speech: add a no-text audio cue;

correct card but failed real task: pause new items and use timed output;

repeated failure: split the card, reduce volume, or repair concept, sound, and background;

no longer relevant to the task: archive it instead of reviewing forever because of sunk cost.

Webb, Yanagisawa, and Uchihara's (2020) meta-analysis included 100 effect sizes from 22 studies of flashcards, word lists, writing, and fill-in-the-blank activities. The abstract reports average immediate meaning/form recall gains of 60.1%/58.5%, falling to 39.4%/25.1% on delayed tests, with wide variation among activities. It supports deliberate learning and expected forgetting, not a guaranteed deck, interval, or individual outcome.

Anki can schedule intervals; it is not the method itself. Card count, streak, and mature-item totals deserve attention only when they change a decision to continue, split, transfer, or stop.

10. Let the Error Choose the Next Practice

Classify each weak result before adding more items:

Error | Likely gap | Smallest next repair
Form not recognised | Spelling, derivation, or inflection | Mark root/part of speech and use it in a new sentence
Sound not recognised | Phoneme, stress, linking, or boundary | Compare a short clip, then remove text
Wrong sense | First-definition dependence or ignored context | Contrast senses and add a counterexample
Awkward collocation | Isolated-word learning | Learn a whole chunk and inspect comparable corpus use
Wrong register | Relationship, formality, or stance ignored | Write the same intention for two audiences
Retrieval too slow | Cue does not match real intention | Give a 3-5-second situational prompt and answer aloud
Transfer failure | Dependence on source sentence, topic, or mode | Change topic, sound/text mode, or task and produce again

Ask a real reader or listener to retell the received meaning before discussing whether it sounds natural. Separate necessary repairs that change fact or relationship, acceptable variation, register choices, and individual style. More native-like is not automatically more suitable for the author and situation.

11. AI Generates Candidates, Not Lexical Authority

AI can produce contextual cloze items, compare near-synonyms, simulate audiences, offer counterexamples, classify errors, and generate parallel tasks. Use it in this order:

Preserve the first encounter and your own candidate.

Ask what layer of meaning each suggestion changes.

Request uncertainty, regional difference, and register limits.

Verify against a dictionary, corpus, current documentation, or domain expert.

Close AI and retrieve under time in a changed context.

Record acceptance, rejection, and reason.

Models can invent collocations, etymologies, quotations, and outdated technical definitions. Do not upload customer data, unpublished documents, exam answers, or unauthorised third-party material. Current primary sources and named owners decide high-risk terminology.

12. Technical Word Lists Are Indexes, Not Courses

The repository lists begin from tasks rather than daily quotas:

List | Task entry
Common | Everyday and cross-topic work
Prompt | AI tasks, constraints, and acceptance language
Vibe Coding | Agent collaboration and code review
JavaScript | Browser, front end, and asynchronous flows
Python | Data, automation, and scripting
Go | Services, concurrency, and deployment
Java | JVM and enterprise systems
PHP | Web back ends and legacy maintenance
Rust | Ownership, performance, and systems programming
Swift | Apple platforms and application development

Choose five to eight chunks from the current task and record documentation version and source. Produce once without the list and retest in a parallel task a week later. Languages, frameworks, and products change; a list cannot replace official documentation or current runtime evidence.

13. A Thirty-Five-Minute Session

Five minutes: state the task, audience, material, and acceptance standard.

Seven minutes: complete a no-lookup first encounter or unaided output.

Six minutes: decide what to skip, infer, look up, learn, or verify.

Seven minutes: check sense, sound, collocation, and register for five to eight chunks.

Seven minutes: close the source and speak or write in a changed situation.

Three minutes: record one main error and one cue to remove next.

Completion matters more than volume. On a low-capacity day, preserve one first encounter, one high-value chunk, and one unaided sentence. Do not spend all the time maintaining a card system instead of using language.

14. A Fourteen-Day Vocabulary Experiment

Day | Action | Evidence
1 | Choose a real topic/task and complete a first encounter | Raw understanding/output, conditions, and block
2 | Make five decisions about unknown items | Skip, infer, lookup, learn, and verify queue
3 | Verify eight dimensions of valuable chunks | Sense, sound, collocation, register, and sources
4 | Build cues that test one decision | Cards and scaffold-removal condition
5 | Complete cloze, retelling, or short writing without prompts | Retrieval time and error type
6 | Change one mode across listening, reading, speaking, and writing | Receptive/productive gap
7 | Test with real material or audience | Understanding, response, and repair
8 | Archive low-value items and keep five to eight | Selection reason and capacity change
9 | Contrast a near-synonym, counterexample, or common misuse | Meaning boundary and rejection reason
10 | Keep topic, change audience and register | Relationship and tone transfer
11 | Keep task, change topic | Chunk-structure transfer
12 | Let AI/a peer propose candidates, then verify | Source checks and uptake record
13 | Deliver under time pressure | Email, recording, explanation, or review result
14 | Close old cards/prompts and complete a parallel task | Evidence to keep, split, archive, or move on

Fourteen days is not a vocabulary-fluency deadline. It asks whether, after the source sentence, card, and immediate prompt leave, you can recognise, choose, and retrieve the chunks in a changed task.

15. Evidence That Vocabulary Is Becoming Ability

A first encounter preserves the line instead of letting every unknown item capture attention.

You can decide whether to skip, infer, look up, learn, or professionally verify an item.

You can explain current sense, source, collocation, register, and counterexample instead of only a translation.

You segment the item in natural speech and recognise its written form.

You retrieve it under time after the answer is closed.

A real reader/listener receives the intended meaning, relationship, and next step.

An error enters the next practice instead of merely increasing card volume.

Retrieval transfers across topic, audience, mode, or task.

You can archive what is no longer useful and return attention to current life.

Vocabulary growth does not always make a list longer. Sometimes it means knowing which unknown can wait while reading, which term must be precise in a meeting, and why a more impressive phrase is wrong for this relationship. Unknowns no longer stop you all at once, and familiarity no longer hides failed retrieval.

Sources and Boundaries

Nation (2006), How Large a Vocabulary Is Needed for Reading and Listening?: uses British National Corpus word-family lists and a 98% coverage assumption to estimate unassisted comprehension needs; counting unit, corpus, proper-noun treatment, and comprehension criterion limit transfer.

Schmitt, Jiang & Grabe (2011), The Percentage of Words Known in a Text and Reading Comprehension: a 661-participant, eight-country study found a relatively linear coverage-comprehension relationship without a clear sudden threshold; it does not guarantee individual or cross-genre outcomes.

Webb (2008), Receptive and Productive Vocabulary Sizes of L2 Learners: compares receptive/productive knowledge through matched translation tests; direction, scoring, frequency bands, and participant conditions limit interpretation.

Webb, Yanagisawa & Uchihara (2020), How Effective Are Intentional Vocabulary-Learning Activities?: a meta-analysis of 100 effect sizes from 22 studies reports substantial immediate/delayed and between-activity variation; averages do not guarantee a fixed schedule or individual result.

Pashler et al. (2008), Learning Styles: the review found no adequate evidence base for matching instruction to visual/auditory learner labels while cautioning that untested variants cannot all be declared false.

Senses, technical terms, corpus frequencies, products, and dictionaries change. Important tasks should return to current versions, primary sources, real audiences, and named accountable owners.

Related entry points: Grammar | Listening | Reading | Speaking | Writing | Learning English with AI | Vocabulary Evidence Card | Evidence Chain Template

Closing: Let the Word Arrive When Needed

What remains in memory is often not the first line of a dictionary entry but the moment you needed the word: explaining a risk to a colleague, asking a stranger for help, apologising to someone close, or finally entering a page you once had to avoid.

A list can preserve order; it cannot live for you. A word becomes ability only after entering sound, sentence, relationship, and consequence. Nor must it remain forever. Some words finish one piece of work and can be archived; others, used repeatedly, slowly grow into your own voice.

You do not need to own an entire language at once. Begin with a few words you truly need and let them return after the answer is hidden. They do not need to prove that you are clever. At the place where meaning would otherwise break, they only need to help you take one more step toward the world.

Grammar: Let Structure Serve Meaning

Grammar often removes direction in two opposite ways.

One approach imagines a legal code that must be memorised from first chapter to last: tense, clause, article, preposition, inversion, conditional, and every exception. Years of study can still end in hesitation over exercises and no available structure during real speaking or writing.

The other approach declares grammar unimportant and assumes enough listening and speaking will make it appear naturally. Input and interaction matter. But when the same structure repeatedly changes time, responsibility, condition, or certainty, refusing to examine it allows the same misunderstanding to return.

Grammar is neither criminal law outside language nor decoration that can always be skipped. It is how people arrange meaning: who did what, when it happened, whether it is complete, how cause and result connect, how certain the speaker is, what counts as background, and what the listener should notice first.

This chapter does not survey all English grammar. It offers a smaller path: begin with one real task and a raw sample; locate the structure that most affects meaning; clarify the choice through a short explanation and contrast; use it again in speaking, writing, listening, or reading; then remove the prompt and test it under a changed condition.

Chapter at a Glance

Grammar is first a choice of meaning and relationship, not a collection of terms.

Preserve a first version inside a real task before choosing the rule to study.

Separate meaning-changing, task-blocking, recurring, register, and low-impact errors.

Explicit explanation can clarify a structure, but the structure must return to meaningful output.

Build transferable foundations through sentence core, tense and aspect, noun reference, modality, clause connection, and information focus.

AI can compare versions, create parallel practice, and classify errors; dictionaries, corpora, teachers, and real readers remain important checks.

Track one structural problem for fourteen days instead of repairing all grammar at once.

1. Grammar Is Not Sentence Decoration

These sentences are short and perform different relationships:

text

I sent the report.
I have sent the report.
I will send the report after the review.

No sentence is “more advanced”. They distinguish a past event, a result that now holds, and a future action dependent on a condition.

Compare:

text

The service failed.
We caused the service to fail.
The service was taken offline after repeated failures.

Structure changes responsibility, focus, and point of view. A grammar choice shapes how a reader understands an event and whether the writer's action remains visible.

Ask first: what does this structure let the listener know, or what misunderstanding does it prevent? If you can name the form but not its job, the knowledge has not entered use.

2. Begin with Six Meaning Decisions

Do not distribute attention evenly across a traditional contents page. Six decisions expose many current gaps:

Meaning question | Common structure | Task question
Who participates and carries responsibility? | subject, object, active/passive, pronoun | Who acted? Who was affected? Has responsibility disappeared?
What is the time and state? | tense, progressive, perfect, time expression | When did it happen? Is it continuing? Does the result hold now?
Which entity? | article, number, countability, determiner | New entity, known entity, general class, or quantity?
What is negated or asked? | auxiliary, question word, scope of negation | Is the action, degree, or condition denied? What is the question seeking?
What is the logical relationship? | coordination, clause, condition, cause, concession | Cause, condition, background, contrast, or result?
How certain or forceful is it? | modal, adverb, hedging | Fact, possibility, advice, obligation, hypothesis, or polite request?

One task usually reveals one or two categories. Repair choices that change the result rather than restarting an entire grammar book after every error.

3. Preserve a Baseline in a Real Task

Choose a task that will occur soon: an email, project explanation, story, article retelling, request, interview response, or meeting. Finish a timed first version without grammar lookup or AI rewriting.

Use one sample:

Speaking: record an unscripted 90–120 seconds and transcribe it.

Writing: write 150–250 words in 15–20 minutes.

Comprehension: read or hear a short authentic passage, mark structural relationships you cannot explain, and reconstruct it in your own words.

Record:

markdown

Real task and audience:
Time and tool restrictions:
Raw sample location:
What the listener/reader understood:
Where misunderstanding, hesitation, or repeated rewriting occurred:
One structure most likely to affect meaning:

Do not ask for a complete correction first. The baseline preserves how you organised meaning. Without it, later comparison sees only two polished products.

4. Build an Error Map Instead of Calling Everything “Bad Grammar”

“My grammar is weak” is too large to train. Classify impact:

Type | Example | Priority
Meaning-changing | Time, negation, condition, or responsibility is misunderstood | Highest
Task-blocking | The request, conclusion, or next action is unclear | Highest
Recurring | The same structure appears across samples | High
Register mismatch | Possible grammar, but too strong, weak, or unsuitable for the email, interview, or relationship | Medium
Low-impact variation | Understanding is intact and the current task does not depend on it | Later

I work here since 2022 exposes a starting point and continuing state that have not been encoded clearly. Do not stop at the label “present perfect error”. Compare realities:

text

I started working here in 2022.
I have worked here since 2022.
I worked there from 2022 to 2024.

Confirm the intended reality before choosing the form.

5. Explicit Explanation Must Return to Use

Meta-analyses of second-language instruction report substantial effects for focused instruction and advantages for explicit treatments under many studied conditions. They also show that target feature, treatment, outcome measure, and research design affect observed results. This supports the value of clarifying a rule. It does not mean understanding an explanation equals spontaneous use.

Use six steps:

Notice: compare your error with two authentic examples.

Explain: write one sentence about the meaning served, not a long copied definition.

Contrast: change one condition and compare two or three forms.

Retrieve: close the explanation and choose from a situation.

Produce: return to the original task and make another version.

Retest: three to seven days later, change topic or audience.

Explanation makes the choice visible. Output makes it retrievable. Delayed testing asks whether it survived beyond the answer that was just seen.

6. Build Six Usable Foundations

Sentence Core and Verb

Identify the action and the participants it requires:

text

The team discussed the risk.
The team gave the client an update.
The change made the service slower.

Do not treat every long-sentence problem as missing vocabulary. When the core verb and participant positions are unclear, more adjectives make the sentence harder rather than richer.

Questions and Negation

Questions and negation depend on auxiliaries and scope:

text

Did the test fail?
Why did the test fail?
The test did not fail because of the network.

The last sentence can mean the network was not the cause, or that the test did not fail. Rewrite or add context when the real task needs one meaning.

Time and Aspect

Do not memorise tense as a calendar alone. Compare event, process, and present result:

text

We fixed the issue yesterday.
We were fixing the issue when the service restarted.
We have fixed the issue, so deployment can continue.

Draw the factual timeline before selecting the form. An unclear timeline rarely produces a stable tense choice.

Nouns, Articles, and Countability

Articles and number help a listener identify entities:

text

We found a problem.
The problem affects two services.
We need more information before making a decision.

Do not keep only count/non-count lists. Record whether your task introduces a new entity, refers back to a known one, names a general class, or expresses quantity.

Clauses and Logical Connection

Longer is not more mature. Name the relationship:

text

We delayed the release because two tests failed.
Although two tests failed, the rollback remained available.
If the final test passes, we will release tomorrow.

Cause, concession, and condition differ. A wrong connector changes reality; too many connectors can hide a paragraph with no main line.

Modality and Hedging

Remote work, interviews, and relationships require degrees of certainty:

text

This will fail.
This may fail under high load.
We should test it before release.
Could we review the assumption first?

Strength is not surface politeness. It expresses boundaries between evidence, responsibility, advice, and request.

7. Replace Long Rule Notes with Contrast Cards

Keep one small card per structure:

markdown

Meaning I need to express:
Two forms I confuse:
Example from authentic material:
Error from my first version:
My revised sentence:
One counterexample or boundary:
Parallel task on day seven:

Do not begin with ten pages of article rules. Keep: first mention a problem, later reference the problem, general statement problems can emerge. Expand the card when a real task introduces a new boundary.

A grammar note is useful when it supports the next decision, not when it appears complete.

8. Ask about Meaning before Form in Feedback

Address one to three issues in this order:

Did the task finish and did the message arrive?

Which structure changed time, participant, negation, condition, or certainty?

Which error recurs across samples?

Which remaining detail has little effect on the current task?

Do not request only a corrected answer. Ask:

markdown

Most likely interpretation of my original:
Meaning I intended:
Structure creating the difference:
Why the revision better matches fact and task:

A prettier sentence without a reason gives you a product, not necessarily a transferable judgment.

9. Notice in Listening and Reading; Retrieve in Speaking and Writing

Grammar should not live only in gap-filling:

Skill | Grammar task
Listening | Hear time, negation, condition, clause relationship, and degree of certainty
Reading | Track pronoun reference, modifier scope, sentence logic, and information focus
Speaking | Retrieve clear-enough structure under time pressure and repair after error
Writing | Make relationships inspectable and compare structural choices through revision

One week can follow one structure across skills. For conditions: hear two recommendations and mark conditions; read a risk email; propose a conditional plan aloud; write an update containing fact, condition, and next step.

10. Divide Work among AI, Dictionaries, Corpora, and Teachers

AI may:

Find recurring structures in your first version and classify impact.

Generate contrasts that change one condition.

Simulate audiences and describe likely interpretations.

Create parallel tasks and respond after your answer.

Compress a long rule into a meaning contrast card.

AI may also replace acceptable variation with one style, call a register preference an absolute error, or invent a rule. Check important delivery with reliable dictionaries, corpus examples, teachers, editors, or real audiences.

Use this order:

Submit your own first version.

Request at most three high-impact problems.

Ask it to separate error, ambiguity, register choice, and style preference.

Revise and explain your reason.

Close the tool and complete a parallel task.

Do not send a whole piece for polishing and infer learning from “sounds more natural”.

11. A Fourteen-Day Grammar Experiment

Day | Action | Evidence
1 | Complete the real-task baseline and choose one high-impact structure | Raw sample and error map
2 | Collect three to five authentic examples | Sources and meaning contrast
3 | Write one contrast card and make five contextual choices | Reasons for choices
4 | Return to the task for a second version | Before/after difference
5 | Produce five constrained speaking or writing examples | Recording/text
6 | Find the same structure in listening or reading | Input noticing record
7 | Remove the explanation and retest | Parallel sample
8–9 | Change topic or audience while keeping the meaning task | Transfer result
10 | Ask a real reader/listener to retell | Misunderstanding and feedback
11 | Repair only the one problem that still recurs | Third version
12 | Let AI/teacher introduce an unfamiliar variation | Decision and rejection reason
13 | Complete a new task under time pressure | Pressure sample
14 | Close tools, complete final retest, and choose next step | Keep/adjust/stop

When the structure no longer affects the task, do not remain for completeness. Move to another high-impact structure or return to vocabulary, listening, organisation, or content.

12. Evidence That Grammar Is Becoming Ability

Useful evidence includes:

Explain the real-world difference between two forms.

Recognise the same relationship in an unseen sentence.

Retrieve it under time pressure or self-repair after error.

Choose after seven days without the rule explanation.

Use it after topic, audience, or task changes.

Cause fewer misunderstandings about time, responsibility, condition, and certainty.

Distinguish necessary correction, register choice, and style preference.

Accuracy can increase without waiting for zero errors before communication. The current gate is that errors do not repeatedly change key meaning, recurring problems are visible, and the next cycle has one target.

Sources and Boundaries

Norris & Ortega (2000), Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: the meta-analysis supports focused L2 instruction and explicit treatments while describing limits in constructs, measures, and generalisability.

Spada & Tomita (2010), Interactions Between Type of Instruction and Type of Language Feature: the meta-analysis compares explicit and implicit treatment across grammatical features; average findings are not an individual guarantee.

Grammatical variation, register, and acceptability change across region, genre, community, and task. Important delivery should be checked against the current audience, reliable dictionaries/corpora, and professional feedback.

Related entry points: Learning Principles | Vocabulary | Listening | Grammar Evidence Card

Closing: A Sentence Is Not a Display Case for Rules

We learn grammar neither to turn every sentence into an examination nor to scan other people for mistakes. When language happens, people explain, request, refuse, take responsibility, guess, comfort, and change their minds. Structure matters because those relationships deserve to be heard clearly.

Begin with a sentence that is not impressive. Ask whether it tells another person who did what, when, how certain you are, and what comes next. Repair one place that changes meaning. When a rule enters a clarification, an email, a story, or an apology, it stops being stored knowledge and becomes an order by which meaning travels through hesitation to another person.

Listening: From Sound Recognition to Real Understanding

English once sounded like a wall without a visible joint. I recognised many words when they appeared in captions, yet movement made them swallow one another. With captions, I seemed to understand everything. Without them, only a few isolated sounds remained. I assumed that playing the same clip again and again would solve the problem. Repetition, however, can make confusion more familiar when each pass has no question to answer.

Listening is not the number of hours in which English surrounds the ear. It is what you can recover after sound passes: people, time, relationship, claim, and next step. It moves in two directions. The listener segments continuous sound into meaningful units, then uses context, structure, and questions to reconnect incomplete information.

This chapter does not offer an ever-longer channel list or treat blind listening, intensive listening, shadowing, and retelling as an unchangeable production line. It offers an observable loop: preserve the real first pass, locate the level of the barrier, open only enough support to solve it, close the text and reconstruct meaning, then change material, accent, or task after a delay to see whether ability left the familiar clip.

Chapter at a Glance

Define whether the task ends in an answer, decision, retelling, action, or collaboration before choosing material.

Preserve an uninterrupted first pass without full captions instead of replacing it with a revised answer.

Split "I did not understand" into technical, language, segmentation, structure, background, and attention problems.

Treat captions and transcripts as adjustable scaffolds, neither cheating nor permanent support.

Give each pass a different job: predict, listen, locate, repair, reconstruct, and act.

Use dictation and shadowing only for high-impact segments; they cannot replace gist, inference, and unfamiliar follow-ups.

Use intensive listening for resolution and extensive listening for stamina, matching both to current capacity.

Let AI generate transcript candidates and questions while keeping raw audio, copyright, privacy, and judgment with the person.

Track one main source and one parallel source for fourteen days.

1. Define the Listening Task

"Improve listening" is too large to train. Decide what you need to complete after the sound ends:

Task | Practice condition | Evidence of completion
Catch gist | 1-5 minutes, first pass without pausing | State topic, speaker purpose, and basic direction in one sentence
Recover critical detail | Include time, number, person, or condition | Record task-dependent details and mark uncertainty
Follow relationships | Interview, meeting, explanation, or argument | Separate claim, reason, example, turn, and unresolved question
Act | Instruction, tutorial, handover, or request | Complete a step, response, or next decision from what was heard
Enter interaction | Conversation, interview, or real collaboration | Answer an unfamiliar follow-up and repair unclear hearing
Transfer | Change topic, speaker, device, or pace | Complete a related task without the old material

The listener role matters. An exam asks for an answer, a meeting asks who will do what, and a friend's voice message may require emotion and implication. Tasks require different precision. Not every piece of audio needs a complete dictation.

Use the Listening Evidence Card to keep material conditions, first pass, error map, scaffolds, reconstruction, and delayed retest together.

2. Preserve a Real First Pass

Choose 30 seconds to five minutes of task-relevant material that you may lawfully access. Record before playing:

markdown

Material and source:
Task and completion standard:
Device, network, and environment:
Topic, speaker, or accent familiarity:
First-pass permission: pause / speed / captions / notes / replay

For a baseline, the first pass will usually remain at natural speed without pausing or full captions. Immediately write:

markdown

One-sentence gist:
Three certain details:
Speaker stance or purpose:
Uncertain timestamps:
Action I would take from what I heard:

Do not overwrite this answer after a second pass. The first pass is not a punishment. It reveals how understanding currently forms. For safety, medical, contract, or real-work communication, never refuse necessary confirmation merely to create a training condition. Training constraints and real responsibility are separate.

3. Do Not Call Every Failure "I Did Not Understand"

The same missing sentence can come from different causes:

Layer | Typical signal | Next action
Technical/environment | Distortion, delay, noise, unstable volume | Change device, environment, or source before judging ability
Unknown language | New vocabulary, word form, grammar, or expression | Check minimum necessary information; return to vocabulary or grammar evidence
Known but not heard | The caption is easy, but sound will not segment | Mark linking, reduction, stress, sound change, and word boundaries
Structure/reference | Words are audible, but agent, condition, or turn is unclear | Map chunks, pronoun reference, and logical relation
Background/inference | Language is accessible, but event, culture, or domain knowledge is missing | Add a small amount of background and reconsider the original audio
Attention/capacity | Fatigue, anxiety, memory overload, or excessive density | Shorten the material, reduce note-taking, or move to a higher-capacity time

Accent and speed often cross layers. An unfamiliar accent can make known words hard to segment; familiarity may reduce the barrier. Do not turn "different from the sound I know" automatically into "incorrect speech", and do not turn one fatigue error into a permanent ability judgment.

Choose only one to three problems that most affect the task. When the main line has been recovered, low-impact missing words can wait.

4. Material Is a Training Condition, Not a Collection

A main source earns its place through task fit, not view count or recommender prestige:

Segmentable: can it yield a complete 30-180 second meaning unit?

Reviewable: is there a reliable English transcript, and can automatic-caption errors be found?

Challenging but repeatable: does the first pass preserve some direction instead of collapsing completely?

Worth returning to: does the topic connect to work, life, interest, or a real audience?

Bounded: are access, copyright, recording, download, and sharing conditions clear?

Keep one main source for a week and prepare one parallel source with similar task and difficulty but different content. The main source is for repair. The parallel source tests whether you learned a method or memorised a clip.

Films, podcasts, courses, meetings, audiobooks, technical tutorials, and songs can all become material. The medium does not make them useful automatically. A familiar film scene may support early reconstruction. A real meeting may match work better but require strict privacy permission. Define the task first, then choose the source.

5. Captions Are a Ladder That Can Be Removed

"Never use captions" and "always use bilingual captions" can both hide the real problem. Use an adjustable scaffold ladder:

First pass without captions: write gist, details, and uncertain timestamps.

Replay only the problem segment: narrow it to 5-20 seconds before reading.

Open the English transcript: check words, boundaries, structure, and caption errors.

Check minimum information: use a definition or background only when necessary; do not begin with a full translation.

Close the text and listen again: ask whether sound now triggers meaning independently.

Remove after a delay: three to seven days later, retest with the old notes closed and a parallel source.

Captions at step three expose the sound-language relationship. They do not prove first-pass improvement. Translation can confirm gist quickly, but covering the original with it may leave boundary, structure, and stance problems hidden.

For real work, captions or meeting transcripts may remain appropriate risk controls. Training does not need to prove that assistance is never necessary. It needs to show what the assistance solved and what remains after it leaves.

6. Give Each Pass a Different Question

Ten mechanical plays are less useful than five passes with different jobs.

Pass One: Predict and Listen

Use title, situation, and task to predict likely people, chunks, and relationships, then hear the whole segment naturally. Prediction is not guessing an answer. It gives attention a direction.

Pass Two: Locate the Difference

Compare the first note with the second pass and mark timestamps. Ask whether the gap was a word, boundary, relationship, or background.

Pass Three: Minimum Repair

Open only the problem segment and necessary transcript. Write what you thought you heard, what was present, and why it did not segment.

Pass Four: Close the Scaffold

Close the text and listen at normal speed. If meaning appears only while the caption is visible, the sound-meaning connection is not yet stable.

Pass Five: Reconstruct Meaning and Act

Do not recite. Explain the gist, three key relationships, and next step in your own words. Follow the steps for a tutorial, write a handover for a meeting, or describe character choice and change for a story.

Process-oriented listening research suggests that guided prediction, monitoring, evaluation, and problem solving can change learning more than adding the same number of unguided plays. One classroom study in one language cannot guarantee the same effect for your material and conditions, so preserve delayed and transfer evidence.

7. Use Dictation to Open Critical Segments

Dictation can expose word boundaries, endings, function words, and spelling. Full-text dictation is expensive, however, and can reduce attention to a word checklist.

Choose only 5-20 seconds that change the task: a number, negation, condition, owner, proper name, step, or recurrently misheard chunk.

My sound candidate | Reliable transcript | Cause of difference | Retest in a new sentence
|  | unknown / segmentation / reduction / ending / attention |

When every word is written correctly but the gist remains unavailable, the problem is not dictation resolution. Return to whole-segment structure and meaning.

8. Move from Hearing into Speaking and Response

Shadowing can reveal sound. It cannot alone prove understanding or generation. Move one high-value segment into output:

Read the transcript aloud for clarity.

Delay-shadow slightly behind the audio.

Close the text and retell from three keywords.

Change one fact or position and explain again.

Answer an unfamiliar follow-up the material did not provide.

This path connects to Speaking. If shadowing is smooth and retelling is empty, shorten imitation and increase keyword reconstruction. If the gist is clear but detail cannot be spoken, the bottleneck may have moved to chunk retrieval rather than listening.

The final listening action is not always speech. It may be a confirmation email, process map, risk decision, or the sentence: "I did not hear the final number. Could you repeat it?"

9. Intensive and Extensive Listening Have Different Jobs

Intensive listening increases resolution: short, reviewable, guided by an error map, and followed by output. Extensive listening builds stamina and familiarity: longer, gist-first, tolerant of missing words, and worth returning to.

Do not disguise leisure viewing as intensive work, and do not turn every song into homework. Let some English remain life: a familiar audiobook during a walk, a programme while cooking, a song sung for pleasure. Choose one small segment for the evidence loop.

In high school, I listened repeatedly to New Concept English Book 3 until I could roughly retell and write much of it. At the time, I could not identify which repetition changed what. Looking back, what remained was not one recited text but familiarity with common chunks, rhythm, and information movement. Today I would preserve the first pass, error categories, and a parallel source instead of letting later results testify for the method from memory.

Extensive-listening studies suggest that sustained, level-appropriate, supported activity may improve fluency, while activity volume and transfer conditions affect outcomes. This supports long-term contact. It does not support the idea that background playback naturally becomes learning.

10. Add Accent, Speed, and Noise Gradually

The world will not always provide one speaker and clean audio. Increase transfer one condition at a time:

Same speaker, new topic.

Same topic, new speaker.

Familiar accent, changed pace.

Unfamiliar but clear English variety.

Light noise, delay, or multiple speakers.

Real meeting, interview, or live task.

Accent research highlights familiarity as more important than whether the accent resembles the listener's own. Make different sounds predictable, then check whether gist, detail, and action are recovered.

When remote-meeting devices or networks lose information, use transcripts, chat confirmation, and written follow-up. That is not failed listening. It is responsible communication design.

11. Divide Work among AI, Players, and Teachers

Tool/role | Useful work | What it cannot prove alone
Player | Return to timestamps, change speed, loop a segment | Plays and minutes are not understanding
Automatic captions/transcript | Offer boundary candidates, search, and location | Proper names, numbers, accents, and noisy segments may be wrong
AI | Generate prediction questions, classify gaps, ask parallel follow-ups | It may invent transcript, background, and speaker intention
Teacher/peer | Check sound, structure, inference, and task result | One explanation still needs a delayed retest
Real task | Test response, action, and repair | One smooth event is not stable ability

Give AI the timestamp and your judgment first:

text

This is my candidate transcript and gist for 00:42-00:51. First separate unknown language, known-but-not-heard wording, boundary, structure, background, or attention. Give one minimum clue, not a full rewrite, then one parallel sentence and one unfamiliar follow-up.

Do not upload unapproved meetings, customer, student, family, medical, or contract audio. Preserve copyrighted clips, transcripts, and notes only within permitted personal-learning use. Do not republish them.

12. A Fourteen-Day Listening Experiment

Day | Action | Evidence
1 | Choose a real task and main source; complete a no-caption first pass | Raw gist, details, timestamps, and conditions
2 | Build the six-layer error map | One to three high-impact barriers
3 | Use minimum transcript support on critical segments | Mishearing, transcript, cause, and new sentence
4 | Close the text and reconstruct meaning | Retelling, process, or action result
5 | Dictate and delay-shadow a high-value segment | Boundary and rhythm record
6 | Answer one unfamiliar follow-up | Understanding output not supplied in advance
7 | Close old notes and retest on parallel material | Gist, detail, and error-category comparison
8 | Keep topic, change speaker | Familiarity change
9 | Keep speaker, change topic | Background-knowledge change
10 | Add one unfamiliar English variety | Recovered content and uncertainty
11 | Repair only the barrier that still recurs | Third problem segment
12 | Let AI or a peer introduce a caption error or follow-up | Verification and rejection reason
13 | Complete an action or handover under time pressure | Decision, owner, and next step
14 | Close prompts, complete a new task, and choose the next cycle | Evidence for keep, downgrade, or replace

Fourteen days is not a deadline for "understanding native speakers". It asks whether, after scaffolds leave and material or speaker changes, you can recover key meaning and take the right action more reliably than on day one.

Evidence That Listening Is Becoming Ability

A missing word no longer destroys the whole first-pass main line.

You can locate the barrier in sound, language, structure, background, or attention.

You check necessary segments instead of covering the whole passage with translation.

Sound still triggers similar meaning after captions close.

You reconstruct in your own words instead of only repeating the model.

Seven days later, the method remains usable on parallel material.

Speaker, device, accent, or topic can change without destroying the task.

When critical information is unclear, you request repetition, confirm, and preserve written agreement.

Listening improvement is sometimes not "hearing more words". It is knowing how to continue after one word is lost, reconnecting understanding through relationship, context, question, and repair.

Sources and Boundaries

Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari (2010), Teaching L2 Learners How to Listen Does Make a Difference: in a semester study of 106 French L2 learners, the process-based metacognitive group outperformed the control group on the final comprehension measure; one language and classroom condition is not a personal guarantee.

Chang & Millett (2016), Developing L2 Listening Fluency through Extended Listening-focused Activities: the study compared graded-reader listening with different amounts of post-listening activity and found outcomes related to activity volume and cross-input transfer; it does not establish one universal repetition count.

Tauroza & Luk (1997), Accent and Second Language Listening Comprehension: the review and experiment foreground accent familiarity and do not support treating similarity to the listener's accent as the only advantage.

Automatic captions, platform functions, content availability, and copyright rules change. Important learning and work should return to reliable transcripts, original sources, current permission, and real-task verification.

Related entry points: Vocabulary | Grammar | Speaking | Learning English with AI | Listening Evidence Card | Evidence Chain Template

Closing: Hear the Person Behind the Sound

Listening is not catching every sound as if completing a checklist. Through rhythm, pauses, accents, and noise, it is noticing that someone is trying to make meaning arrive. At first English is one unbroken surface; later you hear a familiar chunk, an argument turning, or hesitation. You still miss words, but context and questions reconnect the thread. When sound becomes more than exam material, it becomes a human voice: another person's experience and way of seeing the world entering your life through the ear.

Reading: From Word-by-word Translation to Claims and Evidence

I once treated English reading as an endurance contest. My eyes moved right as quickly as possible, every unknown word stopped me for a translation, and a thickening notebook proved that I had not read for nothing. After finishing an article, however, I could rarely explain the problem the author was solving. A technical document was worse: I knew where each menu was, but not what a parameter would change.

Reading is not moving every word into another language. It is building meaning, structure, and judgment while some uncertainty remains. You need to know when to continue, when to verify, and when to separate an author's view from your own. You also need the reading to cause something after the page closes: a decision, explanation, test, or handover.

This chapter does not offer an ever-longer book list. It offers a retestable path: preserve a first pass, identify whether the barrier is language, structure, background, layout, or attention, use different passes to build a claim map and inference boundary, then close the source and explain, verify, execute, or deliver in your own words. A parallel source checks whether the method transferred.

Chapter at a Glance

Define whether the reading ends in an answer, decision, action, explanation, or handover.

Preserve a timed first pass instead of allowing lookup and AI rewriting to cover the real starting point.

Split "I cannot understand it" into vocabulary/grammar, sentence structure, background schema, layout/technical, and attention/capacity barriers.

Give intensive, extensive, and narrow reading different jobs instead of using one speed for every source.

Read technical documentation through version, goal, prerequisites, minimum example, constraints, failure, and verification.

Use translation and dictionaries to remove critical barriers without replacing English structure, source location, and independent reconstruction.

Compare definitions, evidence, dates, interests, and unstated assumptions across sources.

Use AI to extract candidate terms, question evidence, and create parallel tasks, never to decide what the source said for you.

Track one main source, one parallel source, and one real output for fourteen days.

1. Define the Reading Result

"Improve reading" is too large to start. Write the action you need after the text ends:

Task | Material and condition | Evidence of completion
Locate information | Notice, instruction, short report, or document with one clear question | Mark the source location and state the supporting line
Follow an argument | Comment, report, research abstract, or technical explanation | Map claims, reasons, evidence, limits, and unresolved questions
Read documentation | Guide, API page, migration note, error reference, or changelog | Run a minimum experiment and record version, input, output, and failure conditions
Build stamina | A novel, biography, or nonfiction text you will revisit for seven days | Keep chapter gist, changes in people/arguments, and delayed retelling
Synthesise sources | Two or three sources on one topic | Write a one-page comparison separating fact, inference, position, and date
Support a decision | Material with cost, risk, or responsibility | State choice, evidence, unknowns, next step, and exit condition

The reader role changes the standard. An exam asks for a located answer; a project asks for version verification; a friend's story asks you to understand relationship and feeling. Different tasks need different precision. Not every page needs to become an essay.

Use the Reading Evidence Card to keep task, source, first pass, barrier, claim map, and delivery together.

2. Preserve an Unpolished First Pass

Choose 300-1500 words, one documentation section, or one chapter you can attempt in twenty minutes. Record before starting:

markdown

Source title, author, origin, and version:
Publication date or documentation version:
Task and completion standard:
Reader/user:
Time limit:
Dictionary, translation, search, notes, and AI allowed:
Copyright, privacy, and retention boundary:

Read once without looking up every word, then write:

markdown

One-sentence gist:
How the text moves:
Three certain details:
What the author or maintainer wants me to believe or do:
One unresolved point:
Action I would take from this understanding:
First-pass time:

The first pass is a comparison point, not a verdict. Do not replace it with a polished translation. For safety, medical, legal, financial, or production material, necessary professional verification comes before an artificial no-support condition.

3. Split "I Cannot Understand It" into Six Layers

The next action changes by layer:

Layer | Typical signal | Next action
Vocabulary and grammar | Key form, collocation, or syntax is unfamiliar | Check minimum necessary information and return to vocabulary/grammar evidence
Structure and reference | Words are known, but modifier, agent, condition, or turn is unclear | Map sentence core, pronoun reference, and connections
Background and schema | Language is readable, but event, field, or cultural premise is missing | Add a small trustworthy background map, then return to the source
Argument and evidence | Sentences are visible, but claim, example, limit, and speculation blur together | Build a claim map and return to source locations
Layout and technical | Small PDF, broken link, wrapped code, mixed versions, or inaccessible format | Change format, enlarge, search the current version, or record the defect
Attention and capacity | Fatigue, anxiety, excessive density, or loss of the main line | Shorten the section, reduce simultaneous tasks, or move to a higher-capacity time

Unknown-word count describes the fit between source and vocabulary; it does not directly set a proficiency level. If almost every sentence blocks the gist, use easier parallel material first. Lowering the entry point does not lower the destination.

4. Five Reading Passes, Five Different Questions

Ten mechanical rereads are less useful than five passes with separate jobs.

Pass One: Locate Direction

Use title, version, contents, figures, and opening paragraph to predict the real problem. Finish on a timer without looking up words and write the gist.

Pass Two: Draw Structure

Label paragraph functions: background, problem, claim, reason, example, limit, action, or conclusion. In long sentences find the subject, core verb, condition, and turn before translating.

Pass Three: Check Critical Evidence

Look up recurring, domain-critical, reasoning-critical, or action-changing words and sentences. Record source location, definition source, and your interpretation. Do not use a whole-paragraph translation as verification.

Pass Four: Close Tools and Reconstruct

Without the source or dictionary, rebuild the movement in five sentences: problem, claim, evidence, limit, next action. Add one source-supported inference and one possible counterexample.

Pass Five: Enter the Task

Turn reading into action: answer a question, run a minimum example, write a confirmation email, compare sources, explain it to a reader, or ask the next question that reduces uncertainty.

Research syntheses show strong relationships between L2 reading comprehension and language components such as vocabulary, grammar, decoding, and listening. Strategy-instruction studies also suggest that prediction, monitoring, evaluation, and problem solving can be teachable processes. These findings are correlations or context-specific interventions, not substitutes for delayed testing under your own material, time, and task conditions.

5. Technical Documentation: Turn Pages into Verifiable Facts

Slow documentation reading is rarely only a vocabulary problem. A page may combine version, defaults, prerequisites, examples, exceptions, deprecation, and security boundaries. Read in this order:

Goal: whose problem does this page solve, and what result should appear?

Version: which release, platform, dependency, and date apply?

Prerequisites: what permissions, environment, inputs, data, network, and prior knowledge are assumed?

Minimum example: remove decoration and run or reason through the smallest testable fragment.

Parameters and constraints: what defaults, types, ranges, order, cost, rate, and side effects matter?

Failure and rollback: what does the error mean, when must work stop, and how can it recover?

Verification: does your output match the documented claim? If not, is the gap version, environment, understanding, or documentation?

Keep a technical fact card:

markdown

Goal and version:
Prerequisites:
Minimum input:
Expected output:
Actual output:
Failure condition/error:
Limit explicitly stated in the source:
Part I am still inferring:
Smallest next test:

This works for SDKs, APIs, migration guides, command-line help, and open-source READMEs. Understanding is not saving a link. It is verifying one small fact in the current version and environment.

6. Unknown Words, Word Families, and Translation Boundaries

Give an unfamiliar word a task role:

Word role | Response
Low-frequency modifier that does not affect gist | Pass it and continue in context
Recurring core word | Check sense, part of speech, collocation, word family, and source example
Technical or institutional term | Check formal definition, version, hierarchy, and counterexample
Word changing negation, condition, number, or responsibility | Verify its scope and action consequence immediately
Expression that only sounds natural in translation | Return to English structure and author stance before inferring meaning

Word families help guessing and coverage, but a derived form is not automatically usable. Translation can provide a background map; it cannot replace tone, logic, qualifiers, and responsibility in the source. After reading, close the translation and reconstruct in English or your strongest language, while pointing to the key source location.

7. Intensive, Extensive, and Narrow Reading

Intensive reading increases resolution: short, dense, reviewable, and focused on claims, evidence, terms, and syntax. Extensive reading builds stamina and continuity: longer, gist-first, and tolerant of words that do not affect the story or direction. Narrow reading stays with one topic or field across several sources so background and chunks recur.

Do not disguise leisure reading as intensive work, and do not turn every novel into homework. Read a long book during a walk, narrow-read technical documentation for work, and choose one short article for the evidence loop. Material should be challenging enough to teach and manageable enough to revisit; difficulty is not identity certification.

Books, abstracts, news, community discussions, product documents, and open-source READMEs can all serve. Describe whether a recommendation supports information location, argument, technical verification, stamina, or synthesis. Do not use sales, rankings, or "every native speaker should read this" in place of task fit. Record edition, access date, rights, and author or institution interest.

8. Multiple Sources and Cross-Cultural Logic

Sources on one topic may use different definitions, dates, evidence standards, and assumptions about responsibility. Compare them with a record like this:

markdown

Shared question:
Definition and date in source A:
Definition and date in source B:
Strongest evidence in each:
Omitted evidence or limits:
Author/institution interest:
Which differences are factual, and which are values:
What new evidence would change my judgment:

What people call "foreign logic" is often a difference in structure, background, genre, or responsibility context. Break it into claim, assumption, evidence, qualifier, exception, and requested action before using a national label. Understand how the other source builds its problem before deciding whether to agree.

9. Divide Work among AI, Search, and Readers

Tool/role | Useful work | What it cannot prove alone
Reader | Search, annotate, enlarge, and record source locations and versions | Mark count is not comprehension
Dictionary/search | Check definition, word family, collocation, version, and primary source | One definition may not fit the context
AI | Extract candidate terms, ask structural questions, compare your claim map, and create parallel tasks | It may invent summary, citation, background, or author intention
Teacher/peer | Ask why you read it that way and inspect the inference boundary | One explanation still needs independent reconstruction
Real task/reader | Verify explanation, execution, decision, or handover | One smooth event is not long-term transfer

Give AI your first pass and source locations first:

text

Here is my gist, evidence map, and one inference for paragraphs 3-5. Point to source locations I missed. Separate what the author states, what the source supports, and what cannot be inferred. Do not rewrite the summary first. End with one parallel-source question and one counterexample I must answer alone.

Do not upload customer, colleague, student, family, medical, contract, or unreleased project material to an unapproved tool. For paid, legal, safety, or version-sensitive claims, return to current official documentation or qualified professional advice.

10. Make Reading Produce an Output

Completion evidence does not always need to be a long summary. It can be:

a confirmation email that names version, evidence, and next step;

a minimum technical experiment with input, output, and failure recorded;

an explanation of gist, evidence, and limit to someone who has not read the source;

a one-page decision memo comparing sources and listing unknowns and exit conditions;

an answer to a parallel question on a new topic.

Feedback first asks whether the task was completed, the reader understood, and the evidence is traceable. Keep first pass, reconstruction, feedback, and delivery. Do not show only the AI-polished summary.

11. A Fourteen-Day Reading Experiment

Day | Action | Evidence
1 | Choose a main source and real task; complete a timed first pass | Gist, structure, details, unknowns, and conditions
2 | Build the six-layer barrier map | One to three task-critical barriers
3 | Mark structure on a second pass | Paragraph function, sentence core, and claim map
4 | Check critical terms, version, and source locations | Definition, source, word family, and limits
5 | Close tools and reconstruct in five sentences | Claim, evidence, inference, and counterexample
6 | Complete an explanation, test, or confirmation | Post-reading output and reader response
7 | Close old notes and read parallel material | Speed, gist, evidence, and barrier comparison
8 | Keep topic, change genre | Background and structure transfer
9 | Keep genre, change topic | Vocabulary and inference transfer
10 | Compare a second source or position | Definition, evidence, and interest differences
11 | Repair only the barrier that still recurs | Third reconstruction or fact card
12 | Let AI or a peer offer a counterexample | Acceptance, rejection, and source reason
13 | Deliver a report, test, or handover under time pressure | Real audience result
14 | Close prompts, complete a new task, and choose next cycle | Evidence to keep, downgrade, replace, or move on

Fourteen days is not a page-count contest. It asks whether, after material, topic, or audience changes, you can still find the line, check the basis, and complete a real action.

12. Evidence That Reading Is Becoming Ability

The first pass preserves the question and main line instead of being captured by one unknown word.

You can locate whether the barrier is language, structure, background, layout, or capacity.

You can state what the author explicitly says and what is only your inference.

After reading documentation, you can verify a minimum example in the current version or identify a missing prerequisite.

Faster reading does not consistently lose gist, evidence, or limits.

You can reconstruct in your own words after closing the source.

The reading action transfers across topic, genre, source, or device.

You can return understanding to a reader, peer, code, decision, or next task.

Real speed is not escaping the page faster. It is spending less time in the wrong place. You begin to know which word can wait, which qualifier cannot disappear, and which beautiful conclusion must return to its source. When text is more than exam material, it becomes a road into knowledge, work, and another person's experience.

Sources and Boundaries

Jeon & Yamashita (2014), L2 Reading Comprehension and Its Correlates: the meta-analysis synthesises relationships between passage-level L2 reading comprehension and ten component variables; vocabulary, grammar, and decoding results are correlational evidence, not a causal guarantee for one exercise.

Jeon (2022), L2 Reading Comprehension and Its Correlates: the update distinguishes language-knowledge variables from broader cognitive variables and notes that age, language distance, measurement, and proficiency affect interpretation.

Akkakoson (2013), The Relationship between Strategic Reading Instruction and L2 Reading Achievement: a 16-week comparison with Thai university science and technology students; the chapter preserves its sample, course, and pre/post-test boundaries.

Reading-source versions, permissions, author positions, web availability, and technical facts change. Important work should return to the current source, primary evidence, professional feedback, and real-task acceptance.

Related entry points: Vocabulary | Grammar | Listening | Speaking | Learning English with AI | Reading Evidence Card | Evidence Chain Template

Closing: Give Words Their Weight Again

Reading is not moving the eyes across line after line as quickly as possible. Behind every worthwhile text, someone chose what to claim, which evidence was enough, what remained uncertain, and what may have been omitted or misunderstood. Slow down long enough to ask what the author claims, where the reason comes from, and which facts can be checked. One day an English document, email, or book will no longer look like a wall of unknown words. You will see structure, position, and evidence, and enter a larger conversation with questions of your own.

Speaking: Make Meaning Arrive

I once imagined speaking as a live examination. The sentence had to be arranged before I opened my mouth. The pronunciation should resemble the recording. Pauses should disappear, and errors should remain unheard. The harder I tried to speak well, the higher the threshold became.

A real conversation is not a performance completed alone. Another person asks an unfamiliar question, misunderstands, adds information, changes direction, or enters with a different accent, pace, device, and history. Speaking ability therefore does not live only in pronunciation. It includes finding the main line, noticing that the other person has not followed, trying another wording, admitting what is not yet known, and continuing the shared task after repair.

This chapter does not promise accent removal or present American, British, or any other single voice as the destination of English. It offers a smaller path: choose a reference variety related to your audience, preserve unpolished recordings, ask real listeners to retell what reached them, repair only one to three high-impact problems, then test the result with unfamiliar questions, different listeners, and time pressure.

Chapter at a Glance

Define an explanation, interaction, repair, or collaboration task before choosing an exercise.

Preserve unscripted monologue, question-and-answer, and interaction-repair baselines instead of substituting a memorised script.

Use one reference variety for consistency while gradually learning to understand varied real-world Englishes.

Separate accentedness, intelligibility, and comprehensibility instead of calling every noticeable difference an error.

Prioritise pronunciation and rhythm problems that change words, time, numbers, responsibility, or information focus.

Use shadowing to observe and imitate; use retelling, follow-ups, and collaboration to generate meaning.

Treat AI and speech recognition as clues; listener retelling and next action are stronger evidence.

Track one real situation and a few high-impact problems for fourteen days.

1. Define the Speaking Task

"Improve speaking" is too large to train directly. Rewrite it as an action that will happen:

Task | Practice condition | Evidence of completion
Explain | 60-120 seconds, unscripted, describing an experience, view, or process | A listener can retell the gist and two key details
Answer | At least five turns, including one unfamiliar follow-up | The response does not miss the question entirely and advances the conversation once
Repair | Preserve a moment of unclear hearing, unclear scope, or failed expression | Repetition, confirmation, or rephrasing restores shared understanding
Collaborate | Meeting, interview, customer conversation, or joint decision | The other person knows the conclusion, disagreement, owner, and next step
Transfer | Change topic, listener, device, pace, or time limit | A related task remains possible without the old script

Before starting, write who is listening, why they are listening, and what they need to know or do afterwards. Speaking is not making all English impressive. It is completing this task inside this relationship under the current conditions.

Copy the Speaking Evidence Card to keep recordings, listener retellings, repair actions, and delayed retests together.

2. Preserve Three Unpolished Baselines

A person may speak smoothly in a monologue and lose direction during follow-ups. Another may pronounce clearly but fail to confirm what was actually asked. Preserve at least three samples:

Monologue baseline: speak for 90-120 seconds about a real experience or problem without a script.

Interaction baseline: complete five question-and-answer turns with one unknown question.

Repair baseline: record one request for repetition, scope confirmation, rephrasing, or summary of agreement.

Keep the raw audio. Do not remove pauses, reduce noise, or ask AI to rewrite before saving it. Record the device, network, notes, retake permission, and listener familiarity with the topic. Performances under different conditions are not directly comparable.

Ask the listener to answer from audio alone:

markdown

The main point I heard:
The two clearest details:
Where I had to guess or replay:
What I would ask or do next:

A transcript can reveal vocabulary and structure. It cannot replace stress, pause, stance, or interaction timing. Listen before reading.

3. Choose a Reference Variety without Creating a Hierarchy

English varies across regions, communities, professions, and individuals. American and British English are common reference points, not the whole language and not ranks of quality.

Choose a reference variety through four questions:

Real audience: which colleagues, customers, teachers, exams, or communities do you mainly encounter?

Stable material: can dictionary audio, courses, and feedback remain reasonably consistent over time?

Task cost: do spelling, vocabulary, or pronunciation differences actually affect the current delivery?

Identity: are you willing to use this voice over time, or are you trying to hide yourself inside imitation?

A reference variety reduces early decisions: follow one reliable audio source for a word and keep spelling consistent inside a formal document. It does not require excluding other varieties. Real collaborators may bring English shaped by India, Singapore, Nigeria, China, the United States, Britain, or many other language histories. Listening practice must gradually add different accents, speeds, and interaction styles.

Write two boundaries:

markdown

Current reference variety:
Why it fits this task:
Other varieties I need to understand gradually:
Differences I only need to recognise, not force myself to imitate:

Consistency serves learning. Tolerance of difference serves reality. "Choose one" must not become "only one is correct."

4. Separate Accentedness, Intelligibility, and Comprehensibility

Three ideas need separate names:

Idea | Meaning in this chapter | How to observe it
Accentedness | How different the speech sounds from a listener's familiar reference | It shows that speech sounds different, not that the task failed
Intelligibility | How much wording, meaning, and relationship the listener actually recovered | Ask for the gist, details, numbers, responsibility, and next step
Comprehensibility | How much effort the listener needed to understand | Did they replay, guess, pause, or confirm repeatedly?

An accent can be noticeable and easy to understand. Speech can also resemble a prestige model while unclear focus, numbers, or logic blocks the task. Listeners bring experience, familiarity, and bias, so one negative reaction must not be assigned entirely to the speaker.

Use more than one condition: at least two listeners, a different device, or a new topic. Preserve what each listener actually heard instead of only an impression of native-likeness.

5. Repair High-Impact Pronunciation Relationships First

IPA is a map, not the destination. It can locate tongue position, airflow, voicing, and mouth shape, but it cannot replace reliable audio, your recording, and a real listener.

Sounds and Word Meaning

Practise only contrasts that currently change a word or produce recurring misunderstanding. Whether /ɪ/ and /i:/, /r/ and /l/, or voiced and voiceless consonants matter depends on your words, audience, and error record. Do not distribute equal time across every sound.

Use five steps: distinguish two words by ear; observe articulation; say them slowly; return them to a short sentence; choose again inside an unfamiliar sentence. If the isolated word is clear but disappears inside speech, the problem has moved from one sound to rhythm or retrieval.

Endings, Stress, and Boundaries

In real tasks, endings and stress may carry time, number, word class, or information focus:

text

work / worked
fifteen / fifty
REcord / reCORD
We need the BLUE file. / We NEED the blue file.

Do not ask only whether every sound is accurate. Ask whether the listener heard the past, number, keyword, and contrast. A small difference in sound colour usually matters less than a missing critical ending or misplaced sentence focus.

Chunks, Pauses, and Stance

Divide a long sentence into breathable meaning units: context, claim, reason, condition, and next step. Pause between relationships instead of cutting a phrase at random.

text

Based on the current test, / I recommend a smaller release, / because rollback is still available.

Rhythm is not a performance of authenticity. It helps the listener predict structure. Make the main line clear before adding linking, reduction, and subtle intonation.

6. Shadowing Is Not the Destination: Move from Imitation to Generation

Shadowing can reveal sounds, rhythm, and pauses. When you stay behind the recording, however, the content, word order, and next line were all decided by someone else. It cannot by itself prove that you can generate meaning in a real conversation.

Move one piece of material through five levels:

Listen and mark: write the gist, stress, pauses, and unclear moments.

Read aloud: make the text clear without copying every detail.

Delayed shadow: remain slightly behind the audio and observe rhythm without racing it.

Close and retell: preserve meaning in your own word order.

Answer an unfamiliar follow-up: respond to a question the material did not supply.

If level four collapses, do not add endless shadowing repetitions. Shorten the material, reduce the information, and rebuild from three remembered keywords.

7. Build Flexible Scaffolds with Chunks

Speaking needs structures that can be retrieved quickly, but a complete memorised script locks fluency inside one condition. Use replaceable chunks:

text

The main issue is ...
What changed was ...
I am not certain about ..., but the current evidence suggests ...
Could we first clarify ...?
My recommendation is ..., because ...

Vary each chunk by topic, position, and audience. Then add one surprise: the listener disagrees, the data is incomplete, or only thirty seconds remain.

A chunk is scaffolding, not a mask. The goal is not to repeat one sentence everywhere. It is to build a main line and let the other person's response change what comes next.

8. Interaction Repair Is Ability, Not Remediation

Misunderstanding is ordinary in conversation. The danger is losing shared understanding and continuing because neither person wants to expose the break.

Practise five repair types:

Situation | Repair action | Example
Not heard | Ask for repetition or slower delivery | Could you say the last part again?
Scope unclear | Confirm the question | Are you asking about the cause or the next step?
Thinking needed | Request limited time | Let me think for a moment.
Expression failed | Rephrase | Let me put that another way.
Agreement unstable | Summarise and confirm | So we will test it today and decide tomorrow. Is that right?

Do not only memorise repair lines. Ask a partner to speed up, change the question, misunderstand a number, or challenge the evidence. Observe whether you notice the break and restore the task.

For global job search or remote work, continue to Job-search English and keep project explanation, unfamiliar follow-ups, admission of unknowns, and asynchronous summary inside one scenario.

9. Divide Work among Real Listeners, Teachers, and AI

Role | Useful work | What it cannot prove alone
Self | Preserve raw audio, mark pauses, compare versions | Familiarity with your own voice can fill information the listener missed
Real listener | Retell the gist, locate guessing, and continue the task | One listener may be shaped by familiarity and bias
Teacher/coach | Observe articulation, rhythm, teachable problems, and sequence | Feedback still has to return to your task and transfer sample
AI/speech recognition | Offer transcript candidates, generate follow-ups, locate possibly unclear segments | Results change with accent, microphone, noise, model, and network

When asking AI for feedback, submit the task and your first take before requesting analysis. Ask it to separate possible misrecognition, confident misrecognition, organisation, grammar, register, and style. Preserve the raw audio and tool version. Do not turn a recognition score into pronunciation truth.

For customer, colleague, student, family, medical, or unreleased project material, obtain recording and upload permission first. Otherwise use fictional details or local processing. The value of real interaction cannot depend on crossing privacy boundaries.

10. Put Practice Back into Life

I really did buy a microphone, and I have sung along repeatedly to songs I loved. Singing cannot replace questions, repair, and real collaboration, but it lets sound leave internal judgment and enter the body. Low-pressure practice has a place: read a passage you care about, leave a voice message, sing a song, or describe something that actually happened today.

Connect relaxed practice to a real task. Take one chunk from a lyric and use it in your own sentence tomorrow. Let a voice message lead to a follow-up. Let reading aloud lead to retelling after the page closes. Interest brings you back; evidence tells you whether you moved.

A twelve-minute loop:

Two-minute unscripted first take.

Three minutes to replay and mark one high-impact problem.

Three minutes of sound, chunk, or repair practice.

Two-minute retake.

Two minutes for an unfamiliar follow-up and the next variable.

11. A Fourteen-Day Speaking Experiment

Day | Action | Evidence
1 | Define one real situation; record a monologue and five-turn exchange | Raw audio, conditions, listener retelling
2 | Choose a reference variety and reliable audio | Choice reason and differences not requiring imitation
3 | Find one high-impact pronunciation or rhythm problem | Error segment and task impact
4 | Practise distinction, slow production, a short sentence, and an unfamiliar sentence | Recordings under four conditions
5 | Read, delay-shadow, and retell the same material from memory | Imitation-generation difference
6 | Build five replaceable chunks | Three topic variations
7 | Remove the old script and complete the first delayed retest | New-topic 90-120 second recording
8 | Ask a partner to create one hearing or scope break | Repair process and confirmation result
9 | Change listener or device | Listener retelling under changed conditions
10 | Listen to an unfamiliar English variety and retell | Gist, details, and uncertainty
11 | Repair only the problem that still recurs | Third version and rejected low-impact advice
12 | Let AI or a partner ask three unfamiliar follow-ups | Unscripted answers and transcript errors
13 | Explain a collaboration or decision under time pressure | Conclusion, owner, and next step
14 | Close prompts, complete a new situation, and choose the next cycle | Evidence for keep, adjust, or move on

Fourteen days is not a fluency deadline. It answers a smaller question: without the familiar script, after the listener changes or a follow-up arrives, is this expression still usable?

12. Evidence That Speaking Is Becoming Ability

Stronger evidence includes:

A listener can retell the gist and key details after one pass.

Numbers, time, responsibility, conditions, and next steps are misunderstood less often.

A pause or error does not end participation.

You can confirm a question, request repetition, rephrase, and summarise agreement.

Seven days later, a related task remains possible without the old script.

Topic, listener, device, or accent can change without destroying the task.

You can separate necessary repair, reference-variety difference, and identity preference.

You can explain why you accepted or rejected feedback from AI, a teacher, or a listener.

Fluency is not packing more words into each minute or editing out every pause. It is attention moving away from "Do I sound enough like somebody else?" and back toward "Are we still understanding the same thing?"

Sources and Boundaries

Derwing & Munro (2005), Second Language Accent and Pronunciation Teaching: the review separates accent from communication outcomes, foregrounds mutual intelligibility, and notes the social consequences of accent.

Levis (2005), Changing Contexts and Shifting Paradigms in Pronunciation Teaching: the article discusses a shift from accent reduction toward intelligibility, identity, World Englishes, and negotiation between speaker and listener.

Saito (2012), Effects of Instruction on L2 Pronunciation Development: a synthesis of fifteen quasi-experimental intervention studies; this chapter does not turn group averages into a personal outcome guarantee.

Pronunciation, vocabulary, register, and acceptability change across region, community, task, and listener. Important delivery should be checked against the current audience, reliable dictionary audio, professional feedback, and real-task retesting.

Related entry points: Listening | Grammar | Learning English with AI | Speaking Evidence Card | Evidence Chain Template

Closing: Let Meaning Arrive

Speaking is not removing an accent or reaching a life without hesitation. It is letting another person understand what you mean, why you mean it, and how they might respond, even when time is short and the sentence is imperfect.

You may pause, try another wording, or admit that a word has not arrived. Fluency is not permanent correctness. It is remaining in the conversation after an error, willing to repair and willing to hear where the other person did not understand.

When you say the first imperfect sentence and wait seriously for the answer, language stops being a performance completed alone. It becomes a relationship: meaning leaves you, gains an echo inside another person's understanding, and returns carrying a new question.

Writing: From Draft to Verifiable Revision

This guide began in 2017. I wanted to share how I learned English and wrote down experiences with vocabulary, listening, reading, and speaking. A friend later joked that I was "the Markdown engineer with many stars." Between relationships, startups, failure, and disruption, however, writing also stopped.

After returning, I began to understand writing differently. It is not decoration applied to thought. It turns what one person wants another to understand, verify, decide, or continue into a form that can work after the author leaves.

I once wanted to remove the writing chapter because I did not feel successful enough to write one. A piece about a failed startup then received specific, thoughtful responses. Writing, I realised, need not wait for triumph. It can preserve what a person knew, misjudged, and carried at the time, allowing failure to face fact and readers after emotion recedes.

This chapter does not train paragraphs that sound like a model. It offers a traceable path: define audience and task, preserve an unpolished first draft, revise facts, structure, sentences, register, and delivery separately, record reasons for changes, let a reader retell or act, then change topic and audience to test transfer.

Chapter at a Glance

Define audience, task, acceptance, and authorship responsibility before choosing form.

Preserve a timed unaided draft instead of allowing translation or AI to cover the starting point.

Separate facts, sources, inference, personal experience, and judgments waiting for evidence.

Give every paragraph a job before polishing sentences and style.

Use translation to compare meaning, never to decide tone, responsibility, and fact for the author.

Record accepted and rejected feedback with reasons, not only the final draft.

Use AI for diagnosis, reader simulation, and variation, not fabrication, authorship, or accountability.

Treat email, status, decision record, and cross-time-zone handover as complete writing tasks.

Track one real situation, one raw draft, and one parallel delivery for fourteen days.

1. Define the Writing Task

"Write a piece" may require very different structures:

Task | Condition | Evidence of completion
Explain | Audience lacks context; 300-600 words | Reader can retell the point, evidence, and next step
Request | Relationship, resource, and deadline are clear | Reader knows what to do, when, and how to refuse or confirm
Status update | No meeting supplement; asynchronous reader | Reader knows completed work, risk, block, owner, and next checkpoint
Decide | At least two options with cost and deadline | Decision-maker sees evidence, cost, unknowns, recommendation, and exit
Narrate | One concrete event without inventing another mind | Timeline is clear; fact, feeling, inference, and later interpretation differ
Reflect | Revisit experience while separating then and now | Text proposes a testable next step rather than turning outcome into fate
Handover | Next operator was not present | They can continue, inspect, and roll back using the document alone

Before drafting, write four sentences: who reads, what they need to understand or complete, what evidence supports it, and which fact, privacy, permission, and responsibility boundaries cannot be crossed.

Use the Writing Evidence Card to keep task, draft, sources, feedback, revision reasons, delivery, and delayed retest together.

2. Preserve an Unpolished Draft

Choose a real task and complete a first version in 15-25 minutes. You may write three to five keywords or a simple outline, but do not look up whole-sentence translations, ask AI to write, or delete failed paragraphs.

Record:

markdown

Real audience and relationship:
Task, genre, and completion standard:
Length and time limit:
Dictionary, translation, sources, and AI allowed:
Facts requiring verification:
Privacy, copyright, confidentiality, and authorship boundary:
Raw draft location:

The draft matters because it shows how you choose content, structure, and language before later support. When the first version comes directly from machine translation or a model, later comparison covers the ability that should have been observed.

Before revising, state the one sentence the reader should remember, the fact you trust least, and the gap most likely hidden by attractive prose.

3. Build a Fact and Responsibility Ledger

Writing can change decisions, relationships, and resources. Separate content by evidence type:

Content | Minimum record | Common risk
Verifiable fact | Primary source, version, date, and context | Staleness, quotation outside context, or distorted retelling
Number/comparison | Definition, sample, time range, and baseline | Missing denominator, selection, or false precision
Quotation | Original, speaker, location, and permission | Changed stance, wrong attribution, or rights breach
Personal experience | What was known then and learned later | Memory presented as a complete record or luck as a rule
Inference/advice | Reasoning chain, assumptions, risk, and counterexample | Judgment disguised as fact
Information about others | Minimum necessary scope and clear permission | Identity exposure or invented inner life

Keep a source ledger with claim, location, check date, confidence, publication permission, and evidence that would change it. Personal experience can be written without an external citation, but its evidence level still needs an honest name.

4. Give Every Paragraph a Job

Writer's block is often not missing vocabulary but an undecided relationship between information. Start with a small skeleton:

markdown

Problem facing the reader:
My direct answer:
Two or three supports:
One concrete example or minimum fact:
Limit, counterexample, or unknown:
Reader's next step:

Label each paragraph: context, problem, claim, reason, evidence, example, turn, limit, request, decision, or handover. Split a paragraph doing four jobs; merge or remove three paragraphs doing one.

Narrative also needs structure, but not a success template. State what happened, what was known, what you did, what followed, and how you interpret it now. STAR and similar frames should not manufacture victory. An unsuccessful result can remain a credible story.

5. Translation Is Not Authorship: Compare Meaning

Your strongest language can locate intention and complex concepts. Translation can expose differences. The problem begins when a translated version becomes a final text without author judgment.

What I mean | My English first draft | Decision after comparison
Fact, relationship, stance, and next step | Current unaided version | Meaning lost, strengthened, weakened, or invented

Check whether translation changes agent and responsibility, exaggerates certainty, alters negation or condition scope, turns politeness into ambiguity, or replaces a cultural/institutional concept with a false equivalent.

For translation tasks, preserve source version, purpose, audience, glossary, non-equivalent terms, reviewer, and final owner. Natural is not automatically faithful or appropriate to the current register.

6. Five Revision Passes, One Question Each

Do not revise fact, structure, grammar, and punctuation simultaneously. Work in risk order.

Pass One: Task and Fact

Does the text answer the task? Can numbers, dates, people, quotations, and sources be checked? Is a condition required for the reader's decision missing?

Pass Two: Structure and Evidence

Does each paragraph have one clear job? Does evidence support the claim? Does the example carry the conclusion? Does the limit arrive before the decision?

Pass Three: Sentence and Meaning

Are agent, action, time, condition, negation, reference, and certainty clear? Move a recurring meaning-changing structure into the Grammar Evidence Card for delayed testing.

Pass Four: Register and Voice

Is a change a correction, ambiguity repair, register choice, or style preference? Remove filler without erasing position. Politeness does not hide the request; professionalism does not lengthen the sentence.

Pass Five: Delivery and Boundary

Check title, subject, format, links, citations, attachments, privacy, copyright, permission, owner, deadline, and rollback. Can the reader continue when the author is offline?

For each pass, record only one to three changes that most affect the result. Keep before, after, and reason. Do not accept a change you cannot explain automatically.

7. Move Feedback into the Next Draft

Do not ask only "Is it good?" Give the reviewer a job:

markdown

Retell the main point, evidence, and next step first.
Mark where you had to guess, evidence is weak, or register mismatches the relationship.
Separate correction, ambiguity, register choice, and style preference.
Do not rewrite the whole text. Name the three issues that most affect the task.

Decide on each item: accept, partly accept, reject, or defer, with a reason. Readers reveal blind spots but also bring different knowledge, identity, and preference. Feedback is not an order; rejection cannot rely only on pride.

L2 writing research shows that written corrective feedback and peer feedback can improve particular outcomes under many conditions. Proficiency, genre, time, task, and uptake affect the result. Improving an old draft is easier than independent use in a new task, so feedback must lead to a parallel text.

8. AI Is an Editorial Assistant, Not a Hidden Author

AI can simulate readers, locate missing context, classify problems, check candidate citations, compare meaning between versions, generate counterexamples, and pose parallel tasks.

An auditable process:

Preserve your task card, source ledger, and unaided draft.

Ask for diagnosis before a full rewrite.

Require reason, confidence, and possible error for suggestions.

Rewrite item by item and record acceptance or rejection.

Check fact, quotation, link, privacy, and register.

Close AI and complete a parallel task on a new topic.

Disclose use as required by institution, school, client, or hiring process.

Models may label acceptable variation as error, invent sources, erase voice, or make a false experience convincing. Never let them fabricate projects, customers, responsibilities, data, or outcomes. Do not use them to complete exams, applications, or take-home work where external assistance is prohibited.

Average results from automated-writing-evaluation research support the possibility that tools aid feedback. They do not prove that a polished model sentence improved author ability. The test remains whether you can explain each change and complete a new task after the tool closes.

9. Asynchronous Writing Must Keep Work Moving

Remote work often has no immediate meeting to fill gaps. A useful update can follow:

markdown

One-sentence conclusion:
Completed work and evidence location:
Current risk/block:
Who must decide what, by when:
Next step and owner:
What happens if no response arrives:

Subject lines such as [Decision by 15:00 UTC], [Blocked], and [FYI] should route attention without inventing urgency. Test attachment, link, and permission before sending.

A handover includes current state, verified facts, unfinished work, failure/rollback, environment/version, owner, and next checkpoint. Writing reduces collaboration's dependence on the author being online.

10. Honest Titles, Citation, and Authorship

A title may carry tension but cannot promise what the text does not deliver. Citation lets the reader return to the original location; paraphrase cannot erase another person's contribution. In collaborative writing, agree who supplied material, drafted, verified, approved, and owns the final result.

A signature means: I will name whose words these are, what supports them, who may be affected, and what remains uncertain. AI, editors, and peers may participate, but the publisher cannot leave responsibility inside a tool window.

I want to remain an honest writer: allow an imperfect version and later correction, but do not mislead or let fluency hide missing evidence.

11. A Fourteen-Day Writing Experiment

Day | Action | Evidence
1 | Choose a real audience and task; complete a timed draft | Raw text, conditions, intention, and unknowns
2 | Build fact and responsibility ledger | Claims, sources, permission, and confidence
3 | Label paragraph jobs and document skeleton | Structure map and deletions
4 | Compare first-language intention, English draft, and translation | Meaning changes and decision reasons
5 | Revise task, fact, and evidence | Second version and source checks
6 | Revise sentence, register, and voice | Before/after plus classification
7 | Ask a real reader to retell | Main point, questions, and next step
8 | Record feedback acceptance and rejection | Uptake table
9 | Complete delivery and boundary check | Links, attachments, permissions, and owner
10 | Rewrite the same information for a new audience | Register and structure transfer
11 | Write the same genre on a new topic | Vocabulary and content transfer
12 | Let AI or a peer propose an omission/counterexample | Verification and rejection reason
13 | Complete an async update or handover under time pressure | Real-use result
14 | Close tools, complete a parallel task, and choose next cycle | Evidence to keep, adjust, or move on

Fourteen days is not a writing-fluency deadline. It asks whether, without the familiar draft and immediate polish, after audience or topic changes, you can still deliver a text you are willing to sign and another person can use.

12. Evidence That Writing Is Becoming Ability

You can leave your own timed draft instead of only a tool-produced artifact.

A reader can retell purpose, evidence, limits, and next step.

You separate fact, source, inference, personal experience, and advice.

Each paragraph has a job; removing an attractive sentence does not destroy the line.

You can explain what translation or AI changed in meaning.

You distinguish correction, ambiguity, register, and style and explain the decision.

Feedback enters a new text instead of only polishing the old one.

An asynchronous reader can continue, decide, or roll back without another meeting.

The method transfers across audience, topic, and genre.

You accept responsibility for title, citation, privacy, fact, and authorship.

Writing improvement sometimes means not more beautiful sentences but less guessing by the reader. You know when to provide a fact, admit an unknown, and remove a line serving only self-image. The text begins to work after the author leaves and preserve a self that can be checked after time passes.

Sources and Boundaries

Kang & Han (2015), The Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback in Improving L2 Written Accuracy: the meta-analysis synthesises 21 studies and reports that written corrective feedback may improve L2 grammatical accuracy, with proficiency, setting, and genre among the mediating variables.

Vuogan & Li (2022), Examining the Effectiveness of Peer Feedback in Second Language Writing: the meta-analysis aggregates 26 studies and reports an overall positive effect, while source comparisons and some moderator conclusions remain limited by the primary-study count.

Zhai & Ma (2022), The Effectiveness of Automated Writing Evaluation on Writing Quality: the meta-analysis covers 26 studies and 2,468 participants, reporting average effects and differences by education level, language background, and genre; it does not make every tool output reliable.

Writing task, genre, audience, institutional rules, copyright, and acceptable AI use change. Important text should return to current facts, primary sources, real readers, and a named accountable owner.

Related entry points: Grammar | Reading | Speaking | Learning English with AI | Job-search English | Writing Evidence Card | Artifacts

Closing: Write the Version You Are Willing to Sign

The world is noisy enough. Writing can preserve a quiet place where life remains visible and a judgment continues to face fact, readers, and time after its first emotion has passed.

A draft records what you could think then. Revision records whether you allowed new evidence and another person's understanding to change you. The writing need not become perfect at once, but every version prepared for delivery should answer more honestly: whose words are these, what supports them, who may be affected, and what remains uncertain?

If you do not know where to begin, write a real email, an explanation, or a 200-word note. Give it to one person and ask what they understood. Revise until you are willing to sign it, carry its consequences, and open it again in the future.

Learning English with AI: From Practice to Real Delivery

AI can shorten the time needed to find material, create exercises, and receive first-pass feedback. It cannot perform your retrieval, listening discrimination, articulatory movement, judgment, or real communication. This chapter asks one question: how can AI enter English practice without becoming a substitute for English ability?

The site-wide loop of problem, baseline, practice, delivery, verification, and review is in Learning Anything with AI. This page keeps only the English-specific work.

Quick Overview

state the real situation and acceptance criteria before deciding where AI enters;

keep an unaided baseline, feedback, and delayed retest for each skill;

use AI for questions, hints, and parallel exercises without outsourcing retrieval or expression;

write the result into the AI Learning Log and 90-Day Cycle Map.

Product features were last checked on 24 August 2026. Study, project, voice, and writing features vary by region, language, device, account, and plan; reopen the official pages and verify before use.

Define “Can Use English”

Do not start with hours or word counts. Write one real task first:

text

Scenario: I need to introduce an AI project in an English online meeting.
Audience: Three overseas colleagues who do not know the technical details.
Definition of done: Explain the problem, proposal, risks, and next action in three minutes; handle two follow-up questions; send a follow-up email under 150 words.
Deadline: 2026-09-30.
Evidence: Raw recording, transcript, question log, email draft, and revision.

A useful goal contains a situation, audience, action, acceptance criteria, deadline, and evidence location. AI can help you practise and check; it cannot define completion for you.

1. Save a Baseline Before AI Enters

Do not ask AI to translate, edit, or hint on the first attempt. Complete four 10–15 minute tasks on one topic:

Listening: hear a two-to-four-minute authentic clip and write the gist, three details, and one uncertainty;

Reading: read one page and write a five-sentence summary plus one counterexample;

Speaking: speak for two uninterrupted minutes and save the raw recording;

Writing: write a 120–180-word work email without a dictionary or AI rewrite.

Score task completion, comprehensibility, accuracy and range, organisation and fluency, and revision and transfer from 0 to 2. Store samples, reasons, and error evidence in the English Diagnostic. Without a baseline, you cannot tell whether AI improved ability or merely polished a product.

Four Skills and Their Evidence Cards

Skill | AI may assist with | Evidence kept after closing AI
Listening | Give one clue, mark timestamps, or create a parallel follow-up | First pass, six-layer error map, scaffold ladder, meaning reconstruction, and delayed transfer in the Listening Evidence Card
Reading | Compare paragraph marks, ask for source locations, and pose parallel-source questions | First pass, barrier map, claims/evidence, technical facts, and inference boundary in the Reading Evidence Card
Speaking | Mark unclear segments and simulate follow-up questions | Raw recording, listener retelling, and repair in the Speaking Evidence Card
Writing | Flag layered issues in facts, structure, language, and tone | Draft, four revision passes, and reader feedback in the Writing Evidence Card

Cards are not extra homework. They turn one session into a sample you can revisit. If only AI comments remain, without your first take and transfer task, you cannot tell whether ability changed.

Grammar is a structural layer shared by all four skills. AI may place an original beside parallel examples, ask about meaning differences, and generate variation, but feedback must distinguish error, ambiguity, register choice, and style preference and state confidence. Preserve your own decision in the Grammar Evidence Card. A smoother model sentence does not prove that the original was wrong.

2. Use One Task Card Every Time

markdown

# English Task Card

Date: YYYY-MM-DD
Real situation:
Action: understand / read / say / write / ask / revise
Acceptance criteria:
Material and source:
Unaided baseline location:
AI may: prompt / question / correct / generate parallel tasks
AI may not: answer for me / rewrite a whole section / invent a source
Output location:
Feedback evidence:
Recurring error:
Smallest next task:

At the end choose one or two errors that most affect communication and do a parallel task. Do not collect fifteen suggestions without using them again.

3. Vocabulary: From Familiarity to Retrieval in Real Tasks

Choose 5–8 high-value chunks from authentic material each week. Preserve a no-lookup first encounter, then save current sense, pronunciation, part of speech, collocations, the original sentence, your own sentence, a close alternative, and one retrieval attempt. Decide whether each unknown should be skipped, inferred, looked up, learned deliberately, or professionally verified.

AI can generate cloze, correction, and substitution tasks, but check meanings, collocations, and examples against a learner dictionary or real corpus. Schedule four contacts: understand and read aloud on day one, retrieve and make a sentence on day two, use it in speech or email within a week, and transfer it to a new situation after two weeks.

The acceptance test is not “how many I saved”. It is whether you can use the chunk correctly without a cue and be understood.

4. Listening: Split “I Didn’t Understand”

First write only the gist and certain details without subtitles. Then label the problem:

unknown vocabulary;

known words hidden by linking, reduction, or stress;

sentence structure not parsed;

insufficient background knowledge;

speed, accent, or temporary attention failure.

Ask AI for one small clue, then replay 10–20 seconds. Do not request a full translation immediately. Close the subtitles, paraphrase the clip, and record what remains uncertain.

Give each pass a different question: preserve the no-caption first pass, locate timestamp and barrier layer, open only necessary transcript support, close the text and reconstruct gist, relationship, and next step, then remove support on parallel material after three to seven days. Use the Listening Evidence Card for the complete record. AI can offer transcript candidates; it cannot overrule raw audio and a reliable source.

5. Speaking and Pronunciation: Optimise Communication

A 12-minute session:

explain a real problem for two minutes without a script;

ask AI to record only unclear points, broken logic, and places that need clarification;

choose one high-impact pronunciation or chunk issue and repeat it slowly five times;

answer an unprepared follow-up question;

save the raw and retest recordings.

Speech recognition is a clue, not proof of natural pronunciation. The stronger test is whether a trustworthy listener understands once, whether repetition is needed, and whether you can continue in a new question.

Choose a reference variety related to the real audience, then add other English varieties gradually. Do not let a model turn "sounds different" automatically into "wrong". Use the Speaking Evidence Card to preserve device, listener familiarity, recognition errors, listener retelling, and interaction repair, separating accentedness, actual misunderstanding, and comprehension effort.

6. Reading: Train the Evidence Chain

Before AI, mark claims, evidence, definitions, examples, and unknowns. Then ask AI to compare your marks and quote the original locations. Do not accept “the article basically says”.

After closing the material answer: What problem is the author solving? Which evidence supports each conclusion? What is a counterexample? What survives if the setting changes to your work? This is how reading transfers into judgment.

7. Writing: Keep the Author’s Hand

Write the first draft yourself. Ask AI for layered feedback on facts and sources, task completion, structure and logic, language errors, tone, and privacy risk. Fix only the three changes that matter most and explain each one in your own words.

Do not accept a whole rewritten paragraph by default. Keep the original, suggestions, final version, and a new similar email. If the final text is polished but you cannot explain the important edits, the ability is not stable yet.

Use the Writing Evidence Card to record the fact and responsibility ledger, translation meaning changes, reasons for accepting or rejecting feedback, tool version, required disclosure, and a parallel task after closing the tool. A model may assist editing; it cannot become a hidden author. Fluency does not replace sources, permission, authorship, or final accountability.

8. Choose Tools Without Confusing Functions

Task | Useful capability | Verify yourself
Guided learning | Study mode, layered questions, quizzes | Does it let you answer first? Are explanations sourced?
Long-running context | Project spaces and permitted files | Permissions, retention, memory scope, export
Learning from sources | File questions, NotebookLM | Original page, rights, privacy, material boundaries
Online research | Citation-enabled search | Open the primary page and check the claim
Writing feedback | Language models and writing tools | Keep the draft and understand each change
Speaking practice | Voice conversations | Recognition is not natural pronunciation; features change

This is not a ranking. Check upload permission, exportability, reviewability, and total cost first. Store goals, samples, errors, and next actions in Learning State or AI Learning Log. Platform memory is only a convenience layer.

9. Feedback and Retesting

text

Restate the task and acceptance criteria. Let me attempt it first.
Separate feedback into task completion, comprehensibility, accuracy, organisation/fluency, vocabulary/grammar, pronunciation, and transfer.
Choose only the one to three issues in each category that most affect the result, cite evidence, and mark confidence.
Give one minimal hint and one parallel task. Do not complete the final answer.

On day 30 and week 12, retest with the same topic, similar time, and the same restrictions. Compare raw samples, not only AI-edited products. Progress means less prompting, fewer repeated errors, faster real-task completion, and transfer to a new setting.

After each retest, write at least one result and the next variable into the 90-Day Cycle Map instead of leaving practice inside the chat window.

For the full change before and after AI and after transfer, use the Evidence Chain Template to keep the four time points together. The cycle map schedules the work; the evidence chain explains the result.

For interview preparation, AI may simulate a recruiter, technical peer, or customer from a public job description, ask unfamiliar follow-ups after your first version, and classify errors. It must not invent experience, write a signed application or take-home explanation for concealed use, or feed covert answers into a real interview without permission. Use Job-search English and the Job-search English Evidence Card for the complete workflow.

10. Seven Days, Thirty Days, Twelve Weeks

Seven days: one complete loop

save at least one baseline sample;

complete three sessions with the task card;

keep raw output, feedback, and one parallel task each time;

record one error that most affects communication.

Thirty days: an error library

complete at least four similar real tasks;

classify vocabulary, listening, syntax, organisation, pronunciation, and transfer errors;

compare first attempts and retests rather than treating rewriting as growth;

remove tool steps that do not improve the result.

Twelve weeks: a real English delivery

complete a meeting, presentation, email, document, or cross-cultural collaboration task;

keep recording, transcript, feedback, revision, and retest;

ask a real audience whether the message was understood and the next step was clear;

write the result back into the English Diagnostic.

Privacy, Copyright, and Official Sources

Do not upload customer, colleague, student, child, medical, identity, or unpublished contract data to an unapproved tool. Public comments and pages can still contain personal data; consider permission, minimum necessary scope, and retention. Use copyrighted material only within your rights and preserve source and licence records.

OpenAI: Study Mode; Projects in ChatGPT

Google: Learning tools in Gemini; Quizzes and flashcards; Gemini Live

Anthropic: What are projects?

Google: NotebookLM

Perplexity: Help Center

DeepL: DeepL Write

These pages document product functions, not rankings or outcome guarantees. Last checked: 24 August 2026; verify features, regions, and plans again before use.

Closing: After the Tool Leaves

AI can quickly produce fluent sentences, patient explanations, and apparently complete answers. English ability does not live in the chat window. It lives in what remains after the tool closes: whether you can still hear the important meaning, explain it in your own words, and continue thinking when another person asks a question.

Let AI expose a blind spot, generate practice, and offer feedback, then arrange for it to leave. Each departure is a small receding tide. The parts held up by the tool become visible, and so do the parts that belong to you. If the meaning disappears with the window, the practice is not complete.

The goal is not to make yourself more like a model. It is to form your own voice inside limited vocabulary, real hesitation, and judgments for which you remain responsible. When the tool leaves and you still know what you mean, AI has amplified your ability instead of occupying it.

8. Job-search English: Bring Ability into Interviews and Remote Work

A person opens an overseas remote-job page. Most of the technical requirements are familiar. The line that stops the hand above “Apply” is: Strong communication skills in English.

It specifies no vocabulary size, accent, or certificate. It may point to several different responsibilities: writing experience clearly, explaining motivation in a recruiter screen, presenting a project, understanding an unfamiliar follow-up, or recording progress, risk, and a next step without an immediate meeting.

The question becomes: “How good must my English be before I can interview?”

A more accurate answer is: there is no universal threshold detached from the role, interview stage, and team workflow. CEFR can provide coordinates and a certificate can provide one signal. Hiring still observes whether you can complete the language tasks the role requires under real constraints.

Short-term preparation is not a promise of rapid fluency. It narrows the field: deliver the professional ability you already possess in English, identify the few problems that block the exchange, and retest under unfamiliar follow-ups, time pressure, and asynchronous writing.

Chapter at a Glance

Extract role-specific language tasks before choosing a CEFR direction; do not replace job evidence with an average level.

Separate recruiter screening, project explanation, technical interview, behavioural questions, asynchronous writing, and remote collaboration.

Preserve an unaided, unscripted baseline before training high-frequency stories, chunks, clarification, and time management.

Judge communication through whether the other person can retell and continue the discussion, not through grammar or accent alone.

AI may simulate interviews, classify errors, and create parallel questions, but it must not invent experience, write undisclosed submissions, or answer covertly when prohibited.

Fourteen days can reveal the next variable; it cannot guarantee an offer or a permanent level.

1. “English Required” Is Not One Task

The same phrase can represent very different language responsibilities:

Situation | Actual task | Minimum completion evidence
Written application | Resume, form, short email, and factual time-zone or compensation confirmation | A recruiter can locate matching experience, constraints, and the next step
Recruiter screen | Explain motivation, availability, fit, and basic experience | Five to ten minutes of questions without a sentence-by-sentence script
Project explanation | State context, goal, responsibility, difficulty, decision, and result | The listener can retell the arc and name your contribution
Technical follow-up | Understand the question, expose assumptions, compare options, and admit unknowns | Think aloud and clarify rather than fill silence with guesses
Behavioural question | Use one event to explain conflict, failure, collaboration, feedback, and change | Fact, own action, impact, and reflection stay distinct
Asynchronous work | Write progress, blockers, decisions, ownership, and handover | A colleague can continue without another meeting
Repair in a meeting | Request repetition, confirm terminology, and summarise agreement | The misunderstanding is found, restated, and confirmed

Mark which tasks actually appear in the job description, interview process, and public team material. A heavily asynchronous role may depend more on writing and handover than on small talk. A customer role may depend more on listening, constraints, and repair than on a prepared introduction.

Do not turn the word “speaking” into months of accent imitation.

2. CEFR Is a Coordinate, Not a Hiring Cut-off

CEFR describes what people can do across situations and complexity. For many familiar-domain interviews, B1 direction may support connected accounts of experience and reasons. B2 direction is closer to explaining professional problems, joining discussion, and maintaining a position. Complex negotiation, leadership, or high-risk communication may demand more flexible range.

This is not a hiring score for at least four reasons:

Reading, listening, speaking, and writing may differ substantially in one person.

Familiar professional knowledge supplies support that an unfamiliar topic removes.

Performance also changes with task interpretation, pressure, cultural context, equipment, and the interviewer's speech.

A company evaluates the whole evidence of role fit, not one language level.

Instead of beginning with “Am I B2?”, complete a role baseline:

Explain one real project for two minutes.

Answer two follow-ups you did not see in advance.

Listen to a natural-speed role question and retell it.

Write a follow-up email or asynchronous project update in twenty minutes.

Record the result in the Job-search English Evidence Card. A level helps choose difficulty. A sample helps choose training.

3. Extract a Language Map from the Job Description

Do not stop after translating the description. Build three columns:

Role fact | Language action required | Evidence you already have
work across product and engineering | Explain cross-team disagreement, trade-offs, and handover | A recorded collaboration story or project review
write clear technical proposals | State context, options, risk, recommendation, and open questions | One-page English design note
communicate with customers | Hear needs, ask about constraints, and confirm a next step | Five-turn role dialogue plus listener retelling
operate in an async remote team | Write progress, blocker, decision, owner, and time-zone boundary | One asynchronous status update

For every language action, mark:

markdown

Can already complete independently:
Can complete with preparation:
Needs a prompt or translation:
Has no sample:
One piece of evidence worth building in two weeks:

The purpose is to locate places where professional ability already exists but English prevents the evidence from arriving.

4. Preserve One Complete Baseline

Do not turn the baseline into fifty common questions. Choose one real job description and complete, within forty-five minutes:

Two-minute introduction: only present role-relevant current work, evidence, and direction.

Five-minute project explanation: context, task, own action, trade-off, result, and unknown.

Three unfamiliar follow-ups: asked after listening by a peer, teacher, or AI.

One asynchronous update: 120–180 words on progress, risk, and next step.

One repair: deliberately include something unheard or not yet answerable and practise clarification or a delayed answer.

Record preparation time, script use, subtitles/dictionary/AI, whether questions were visible in advance, and evidence locations.

The baseline needs error types more than a total score:

Error type | What it looks like | Next practice
Content gap | The contribution and result are unclear even in the first language | Reconstruct project evidence before English phrasing
Retrieval gap | The content is known but chunks do not arrive under pressure | High-frequency chunks, timed recall, varied follow-ups
Listening gap | Keywords are heard but the relationship in the question is missed | Question retelling, stress boundaries, clarification
Organisation gap | Many details appear without a main line or conclusion | Conclusion first, timeline, and trade-off structure
Interaction gap | Difficulty produces silence or guessing | Repetition requests, assumption checks, thinking time
Accuracy gap | Repeated errors change important meaning | Repair only high-frequency meaning-changing errors

When content is the main gap, more speaking media will not repair it directly. Clarify the experience first.

5. Prepare Stories, Not Scripts

Interview preparation needs a story bank rather than memorised answers. Choose four to six real events covering:

A problem you actually solved.

A failure, wrong assumption, or rework.

A collaboration with disagreement.

A decision under incomplete information.

A change made after feedback.

Work you stopped, degraded, or handed over.

Keep only six lines for each:

markdown

Situation and time:
What had to be completed:
My specific responsibility:
Key action and trade-off:
Result, cost, and remaining unknown:
What I would change now:

STAR can organise an answer without turning complexity into a false victory. An unsuccessful outcome can still be a strong story when fact, responsibility, and learning are clear.

Change one condition per practice: wording, duration, listener, entry point, or follow-up. If only a fixed question activates a fixed script, preparation has not transferred.

6. Give the Conclusion before Opening the Detail

Remote interviews carry delay, accent variation, device limits, and time pressure. The more complex the answer, the more it needs a line the listener can hold.

Accent difference alone is not evidence of interview failure. Use the Speaking Evidence Card to preserve device, listener retelling, replay points, and interaction repair. When the listener recovers the answer, evidence, and next step, do not spend role-preparation time imitating one prestige accent.

A useful order is:

One-sentence answer: answer the question directly.

Two or three supports: context, action, or reason.

One concrete example: keep only details that support the judgment.

One boundary: result, unknown, or open confirmation.

Return the dialogue: ask whether deeper technical detail would help.

For example:

The main reason we changed the design was reliability. The old path depended on one service and failed badly under partial outages. I proposed a fallback, added failure tests, and documented when to degrade. It reduced incident recovery time in our tests, although we still needed production data. I can go deeper into the trade-off if useful.

Its value is not advanced vocabulary. The listener receives the answer, evidence, own action, boundary, and an invitation to continue.

7. Repair Is Interview Ability, Not a Penalty

When the question is unheard, needs thinking time, or has unclear scope, guessing is often riskier than clarification.

When the last part was unclear

text

Could you repeat the last part, especially the constraint you mentioned?

When the scope is unclear

text

Should I answer from the technical-design side, or are you more interested in how I coordinated the decision?

When thinking time is needed

text

Let me take a few seconds to structure that. I see two main trade-offs.

When the exact case is unknown

text

I have not handled that exact case. My current assumption would be ..., and I would verify it by ...

To confirm understanding

text

To make sure I understood: the priority is reducing latency without changing the external contract, correct?

Repair keeps the exchange honest. It also shows how someone exposes unknowns in remote collaboration instead of hiding risk behind a confident tone.

8. Remote Roles Also Test Writing

Remote collaboration extends beyond video calls. Hiring and daily work often require:

Confirming interview time, time zone, and equipment.

Adding omitted information after a meeting.

Writing status, blockers, and decisions.

Explaining scope, assumptions, tests, and unfinished work in a take-home task.

Handing work to a colleague in another time zone.

A reliable asynchronous update can use:

markdown

Context:
Completed:
Evidence:
Blocked / risk:
Decision needed:
Owner and next update:

Write the first version in twenty minutes without AI. Ask a reader only: what happened, what needs a decision, and who continues when? If another meeting is required just to understand the note, the writing has not completed the asynchronous task.

This writing should preserve your own draft, fact sources, AI-use boundary, and revision reasons. Use the Writing Evidence Card to check subject line, conclusion, evidence location, risk, owner, no-response handling, and rollback. A polished application or handover built on invented experience, concealed ghostwriting, or changes the author cannot explain is not accountable ability.

9. AI May Simulate; It Cannot Supply Integrity

AI is useful for:

Extracting language tasks and professional chunks from a job description.

Asking differently worded follow-ups after your first version.

Classifying transcript problems as content, organisation, retrieval, listening, or interaction.

Creating related but non-repeated parallel interviews.

Simulating recruiter, technical peer, product, or customer roles.

AI is not a place to:

Invent projects, responsibilities, data, customers, or results.

Write the final resume, application response, or take-home explanation and hide the assistance.

Feed answers through a second device or covert prompt during a live interview, especially without permission.

Upload confidential recruiting material, company code, customer information, or third-party private data.

Use one model score to declare someone suited or unsuited to a career.

After practice, close AI and repeat with a new question. Ability evidence comes from continuing, explaining, and repairing, not from encouragement supplied by the simulator.

10. A Fourteen-Day Role Sprint

Fourteen days cannot rebuild all English. It can move preparation from general study into role evidence:

Day | Central action | Evidence
1 | Select one real role and complete the baseline | Recording, async update, error map
2–3 | Build the language map and four to six stories | Language actions and story cards
4–5 | Practise project explanation and conclusion first | Two durations of the same answer
6 | Practise unfamiliar follow-ups and repair | Five-turn recording
7 | Retest without old answers | Parallel-question result
8–9 | Practise technical or role-specific questions | Assumption, trade-off, unknown, verification
10 | Write one async update and follow-up email | Reader retelling
11 | Complete a 25–40 minute simulation | Full recording and stage scores
12 | Repair only the three highest-impact problems | Revision and rejection reasons
13 | Change interviewer or question order | Transfer sample
14 | Close tools and complete the final simulation | Continue/adjust decision and next variable

When the real interview is closer, compress content rather than extending late-night practice. Protect sleep, equipment checks, role facts, and the language tasks most likely to appear.

11. Use Stage Gates to Decide “Enough for This Role”

Do not use a feeling of smoothness as the application gate:

Gate | Observable condition
Content | Explain at least three real projects or events without invented contribution
Task | Complete recruiter screen, project explanation, unfamiliar follow-up, and one async writing task
Understanding | Retell most questions and confirm actively when unclear
Expression | Main point arrives first; errors do not repeatedly change key meaning
Interaction | Request thinking time, admit unknowns, clarify, and summarise
Transfer | Stories and structures remain available after wording, listener, and order change
Boundary | Know what cannot be uploaded and which AI use must be disclosed or is prohibited

The gates do not need perfect scores. They support one of three decisions: apply and continue practising; repair one high-risk gap first; or recognise that the role's language and responsibility are currently beyond what can be carried.

Applying also produces feedback, but one rejection cannot be attributed entirely to English. Role fit, experience, hiring window, compensation, location, work authorisation, time zone, and the candidate pool all affect the result.

12. Close the Books after the Interview

After every real or simulated interview, record before memory reshapes it:

markdown

What I was actually asked:
Questions understood correctly:
Clarification that worked:
Story that did not answer the question:
Chunk or structure that transferred:
Difficulty that was not primarily an English problem:
One variable to change next:
Preparation I will stop doing:

When feedback exists, preserve the exact wording. Do not turn a polite rejection into a precise ability judgment. Without feedback, review only recording, notes, and observable results.

Sources and Boundaries

Council of Europe: CEFR 3.3 Global Scale. This chapter uses levels as language-task coordinates, not a universal hiring cut-off.

Interview process, AI use, recording, confidentiality, identity, region, and work-authorisation rules vary. Follow the current job notice, formal agreements, and applicable requirements.

Related entry points: CEFR Goals and Self-check | Speaking | Writing | Writing Evidence Card | Job-search English Evidence Card

Closing: Let Ability Reach the Real Conversation

An interview is stressful for reasons beyond language. It compresses years of work into minutes and asks you to locate fact, value, and direction inside unfamiliar questions. That pressure makes a performance without pauses, errors, or accent seem like protection from rejection.

A team usually needs something different: a person who can understand a problem, explain evidence, expose unknowns, repair misunderstanding, and hand work to someone else. English allows those abilities to be heard in another language. It cannot create experience that did not happen or remove every contingency from hiring.

You do not need to wait until you feel “finally good enough” before preserving the first sample. Choose one real role, explain the project, let an unfamiliar question interrupt the prepared order, and see which part still belongs to you.

May you enter the next interview with more than memorised answers. May you carry the courage to stop and think. Your sentences do not need to be ornate. They need to let another person see what you did, how you judge, and how you complete work with others. Then language is no longer an examination standing before opportunity. It becomes a bridge by which ability reaches a real relationship.

Part II: Return to Life

Learning more does not automatically make life easier.

You will still make bad decisions, overestimate a venture, mistake silence for agreement in a relationship, and demand proof from yourself while the body is asking to be heard. Ability widens the range of action, but it also widens the effects of a choice. Without boundaries and responsibility, moving faster may only delay the moment when a cost becomes visible.

After opening the world, we must return ourselves to life. This does not mean turning experience into fate or decorating failure as a turning point. It means asking again: what happened, what did I know at the time, who carried the effect, which responsibility is mine, and which parts still cannot be confirmed?

This part has no curve that rises without interruption. It is more like returning to a room you once left in a hurry, switching on the light, and seeing the unsettled accounts on the table, the people who waited near the door, and the self who kept wanting to escape somewhere farther away.

Questions for This Part

How can I tell a personal story without pouring later knowledge back into the past?

How can I own what I did wrong without defending violence, crossed boundaries, or another person's choices?

Under uncertainty, how can a decision keep a boundary, a review date, and a way back?

When work, relationships, or the body lose order, what should stop first, where is help needed, and what can still continue at a smaller scale?

These questions do not have one answer. People have different bodies, money, responsibilities, and safety conditions. This part offers a way to read the past, not a demand that every reader reach the same conclusion.

Reading Path

Path | Chapters | What to notice
Enter the scene | My Story | Facts, costs, absent voices, and unknowns inside one experience
Read the story again | Narrative and Evidence · Echoes | The version then, the explanation now, and an action that can be tested next
Catch yourself first | Recovery | Safety, basic care, support, and minimum order
Choose again | Decision-Making · Relationships | Reversibility, boundaries, impact, and conditions for repair
Face the venture | Entrepreneurship | Users, cash flow, technical debt, team responsibility, and stopping gates

Allow yourself to pause while reading personal material. If it returns you to persistent sleeplessness, panic, hopelessness, or thoughts of harm, leave the page and contact someone you trust and qualified local support. No review is worth injuring yourself again.

What to Carry Forward

At the end of this part, do not leave only “I have let go” or “I should try harder”. Leave one page you can revisit later:

Three confirmable facts and the parts still unknown;

One responsibility that calls for ownership, apology, stopping, or repair;

One boundary protecting the body, a relationship, or money;

One minimum action that does not depend on a dramatic reversal.

You can keep it in the Life Practice Toolkit. Store the record privately and remove unnecessary third-party identity, health, financial, and relationship details.

Enter the Work

We cannot return to the past and choose again for the person we were. We can choose how we understand that person today.

Do not rush to extract a lesson. Let the story land at its original weight and listen for its ambition, silence, pain, and the wish that has not entirely disappeared.

My Story: Failure, Recovery, and Starting Again

Content note: this chapter includes business failure, prolonged insomnia, severe stress, and past suicidal thoughts. It is a personal account, not medical, mental-health, legal, or financial advice. If you are in immediate danger, contact someone you trust and qualified local support first. If reading becomes distressing, pause and ask someone trustworthy to stay with you.

Narrative Boundary

This is a memory written from my position, not a shared version from everyone involved. Partners, colleagues, and friends are anonymised or described generally; details about the child and other third parties are kept only when needed to understand the event. Dates, amounts, and physical experiences come from my records and memory and may contain error. Emotional interpretation is not a factual judgment about another person. Photographs and stories involving others remain only with necessary permission and respect for deletion requests.

If you want to treat this memory as learning material, read Narrative and Evidence: Do Not Turn Experience into Fate first, then return to ask which parts are facts, which are my interpretations, and which conclusions must remain open.

What Failure Cost Me

Hi, I’m Li Pu. This is the story of one particularly absurd chapter of my life in the internet industry.

On April 1, 2017, I joined a tech company in Nanjing as a regular front-end developer. We were building software for lawyers and law firms. The first version had been outsourced. The code had no comments, no project management, and no real structure. To make things worse, there was no product manager. Most product ideas came directly from the boss’s intuition.

In my first month there, the timeline module I was responsible for was revised more than twenty times. That level of churn was exhausting.

Still, a month later, the first version finally went into testing and roughly matched what the boss wanted. After that, I led a front-end rewrite based on Vue. We spent more than half a year rebuilding it and eventually shipped. Sales started, and we thought the product would at least make some noise in the industry. It did not. For a long time, we could not close a single deal.

As the company struggled, salaries did not grow with time. A lot of people left. Watching old coworkers leave one after another, often with deep resentment toward the company, felt terrible.

From the beginning, I truly believed in the product. Even as the team turned over again and again, and even though my pay did not increase at all in those early years, I chose to stay.

Eventually, I became one of only two people who stayed throughout the whole journey. I went from an ordinary employee to department leader, then general manager, and step by step toward becoming a partner.

That was how the absurd story really began.

To devote myself fully to work, there was one part of life I cannot leave out: love.

Love

I was lucky enough to meet someone I truly loved at the right age. Her name was Ruohan (a pseudonym). In this guide, then called English-level-up-tips, I once used Gu Cheng’s words to describe how I felt when I first met her:

The grass is bearing its seeds.
The wind is shaking its leaves.
We stand together, saying nothing, and that is already beautiful.

On August 19, 2017, I went with her to Shanghai for something deeply significant. We took many photos on the Bund that day. Even now, whenever I see those photos, I still feel like crying. To this day, if they appear on my phone, I quickly scroll past them on purpose. I still do not have the courage to relive that pain.

That night was beautiful, but the air was heavy with pressure. Looking at the rows of bank buildings on the Bund and enjoying the night breeze, we both tried hard not to let the other person feel our emotions sinking, because we both knew that something was happening and there was nothing we could do about it.

At one point, while I was talking with great confidence about our bright future, she suddenly cried. Not loudly. Silently. I only realized it after she had been crying for a while. She seemed to understand that the future I was describing might not really have a place for her. She turned away from me, and in that moment I saw her vulnerability.

That was also the moment I realised I truly loved her, and began to understand that love is not designing happiness for another person. It is choosing to face uncertainty together.

If Love Has an Echo

Later, we got married and had a lovely son.

Later, in order to expand my business world, I also tried hot spring resorts and private club projects. I lost heavily there too, but that is another story.

Food Business

One of my relatives opened a Huainan beef soup shop in Nanjing and did very well. Later my cousin opened a second one, and business was extremely good. After studying the category a bit, I opened one myself, and it performed far better than I had expected.

Then I started handling the design, renovation, and branding choices myself, and gradually expanded the product range. I opened a second store, then a third.

To make the products look better on food delivery platforms, I taught myself photography and Photoshop and created a full set of product images by hand.

Those small food businesses were genuinely exhausting, but the cash flow was strong. Although those stores gradually shut down during the pandemic years, they made me a decent amount of money before that. That money later became part of the capital that allowed me to become a partner in the software company. During that period, I also bought my Dream Car.

Running the Company

Once the company’s income and expenses were roughly balanced, we moved into a bigger office. Standing in front of an unfinished display wall, I imagined a very good future.

To create a better working environment, I hired more young staff, improved employee benefits step by step, and organized dinners and hangouts every so often.

The photo above is a precious picture of me with our front-end leader, Nas.

But the good period did not last long. Starting in early 2022, software sales fell off a cliff, and we could not find a solution. I had never been truly satisfied with the product. It was huge, bloated, and full of bugs. Frankly speaking, it was a mess. Customers said there was a bug every three steps and called it garbage. If the price had not been so low, some of them might have sued us.

To solve some core problems, I brought in my high school deskmate, who was then doing container security at ByteDance. He had always been someone special in my mind. After he joined us, he discovered some extremely serious issues.

First, the project structure was outdated, and many parts had serious performance and security problems. Second, some of the “AI” features were not generated through any actual model training at all. They were basically powered by Elasticsearch search behavior. We had spent years talking about big data, but in reality a lot of it was just preset outputs wrapped around business requirements.

That meant what we had been treating as core assets were, in truth, mostly junk. Meanwhile, we had spent most of our time on multi-platform adaptation, UI polish, and stuffing the product with miscellaneous features.

We kept iterating on UI and experience details, but the real problem was that there was no usable dataset. The so-called big data extraction had no meaningful training samples behind it, which meant nothing real could be trained.

In other words, the team that had been “doing big data” for years had never even built the dataset properly.

When I realized how serious that was, I felt a chill down my back.

At that stage, we were trapped. Continuing to iterate on the old foundation meant staying in a total garbage pile of code that was almost impossible to move. Rebuilding it would require far more money than the company still had.

One night I stayed late in the office discussing this with the other two partners. Mr. Gong, our largest shareholder, was close to breaking and kept asking whether the project could still be done.

I understood his emotions. He had already put more than ten million RMB into the company, all of it his own money. Not a single cent came from outside investors. I had also put in several million myself. It is hard to describe how everyone felt at that point.

Later, he slammed his forty-page employee management handbook onto the meeting table like a madman. The sound was so loud it felt like the office might collapse. In truth, some things had already become impossible to continue. We were just still holding onto illusions.

As the company’s losses got worse, we could no longer pay salaries properly. We tried everything to find money, including borrowing. Under extreme pressure, Mr. Gong started tightening attendance rules, cutting benefits, pushing meaningless overtime, and even monitoring employees’ work. Weekly reports became daily reports, then hourly reports. The team was being disgusted by one new control tactic after another.

I knew the team breaking apart was only a matter of time. I strongly opposed these performative management methods, but one sentence shut me down:

“I put in the most money. I make the decisions.”

By September, the atmosphere was so bad that nobody wanted to come to work anymore. Then people resigned together, and that was the end of the game.

The company collapsed. Leave aside the money for a moment. I had given five or six years of my life to it. How could I forget all those days and nights spent rushing projects? On top of that, I had dragged my deskmate into this mess. If he had stayed at ByteDance, maybe he would have had a much better future.

I used to imagine all of us celebrating success together one day, drinking and laughing. Instead, everything went the other way.

After the company shut down, I did not even have the courage to apologize to him. I felt awful inside, and I had no way to explain it to anyone. When I think about all those teammates who fought alongside me, I remember the times we cheered over difficult breakthroughs, the nights we were so excited we could not sleep, the promises I made, and the grand words I spoke in meetings.

I still feel deeply guilty.

To them, I just want to say:

I’m so sorry.

Even though they may never see this.

When My Body Broke Down

Starting in June, because of severe conflicts with Mr. Gong over how the company should be managed, and because my own management decisions were being overridden harshly, my body began to react.

My stomach started feeling bad. Later I developed erosive gastritis that never really healed. Then came insomnia. Then the stomach problems got worse. Then I got COVID. After that, it felt like every possible illness was landing on me at once. My vision became blurry. I lost my appetite. Long-term insomnia plus wandering pain throughout my body made me feel like I was falling apart.

One night, I suddenly told Ruohan that I thought I might not make it. Then I started talking nonsense and even began trying to explain what should happen after I died. She cried loudly enough to wake our sleeping child. I still remember the two of them crying for a long time, impossible to calm down.

In the following months, I went from one hospital in Nanjing to another. Waiting in lines, doing scans, MRIs, blood tests. I felt like a shell of myself. My whole world was wrapped in a layer of black fog.

The tests found a few minor problems, but doctors kept telling me with certainty that I was basically fine. I could not believe them. I was convinced that something serious had not been found yet. So every day became the same cycle: register, wait, get checked, wait for results, ask another doctor, rule out one disease, then look for the next one. I kept searching websites for symptoms like mine, telling myself I was okay and then doubting myself again.

Years of programming had also left me with persistent lower-back problems. That experience reminded me that the body is not an unlimited asset. Recurring symptoms deserve professional assessment and earlier care in daily work.

When people get desperate, they try everything. During that period, I visited famous traditional Chinese doctors, and my family even took me to pray and ask folk spiritual healers for help.

I knew this was not a real solution, but I still could not sleep night after night. I had no energy left at all.

The losses from our group alone were more than 20 million RMB. Once the resort and club projects were included, the pressure was enormous. At the hardest point, I even considered selling Ruohan’s family home. I never borrowed a single cent from relatives. I simply could not bring myself to ask.

I know that once certain words are spoken, relationships can change. Before borrowing money, be honest about repayment ability, relationship cost, and an exit plan; do not transfer an impossible burden to someone else.

I even considered selling the car I had bought just over a year earlier, but my family stopped me. The house was already gone. If I sold the car too, it would directly affect daily life, especially with a child going to school, and it would not even recover that much money anyway.

After Going Back Home

At the end of March 2023, I transferred away my last small food business. By the end of June, I packed everything up and returned to my hometown.

Leaving a city I had lived in for more than ten years, with my three-year-old son beside me, was painful in a quiet way.

As my physical discomfort kept getting worse, I became quieter and quieter. First I stopped wanting to go outside. Then I stopped wanting to talk. Eventually I did not even want to eat.

If my mom had not messaged me every day telling me to come eat, I probably would have skipped meals entirely.

I was nearly thirty, yet I still needed my mother to remind me to eat. It embarrassed me, but it also forced me to admit that I needed help.

I hated that version of myself too. But I felt powerless, like I was trapped in the center of a whirlpool. No matter how hard I struggled, I could not climb out.

Doing nothing for a long time is also unbearable. One day I reassembled my desktop computer and started playing League of Legends. I played day and night, until even I felt bored by it. But since I could not sleep anyway, I just let myself keep spiraling.

A Life That Felt Hopeless

I lost control of my gaming. My days and nights flipped upside down, and I earned nothing. The contrast with my old modest but decent life was brutal.

When you are living off money from selling a house, sharing daily life with parents, and showing no sign of moving forward, disappointment naturally builds. She also carried great pressure and asked how long this life would continue.

I shouted back at her, “What do you want me to do?”

The truth is, I really was lost. I had no idea what to do.

The software company was gone, and with it, my life as a programmer seemed to end too. I silently left many chat groups, closed GitHub, muted some contacts, and stopped visiting websites I used to browse every single day.

During the startup years, I even fell out with my best friend, Lele, over money. So many years of friendship collapsed because of my stubbornness. We barely spoke after that. I lost a lot.

More than once, I asked myself:

Why did I fight so hard to keep this going?

Would things have ended differently if I had made other choices? If I had worked even harder at certain turning points, would it have helped? If I had started earlier or later, would it have gone differently? If only I had...

Looking back, building industry software really cannot be done through passion and a few seemingly clever ideas alone. Every founder believes he understands the user, believes his product solves a real pain point, and believes growth will eventually explode.

But success depends on many things outside your control: timing, conditions, luck.

For example, we spent huge effort building an “intelligent Q&A bot.” If we had done that after ChatGPT arrived, it would have been an entirely different story. But in real life, you do not get to wait for a world-changing product to arrive exactly when your own company needs it.

Reflection

If you ask me what it feels like to watch a company fail after building it with that much money and effort, I can only say this:

Falling hard while you are still young is not necessarily the worst thing. It may be only one episode in life.

That is the tough version of the answer. The honest version is simpler: it hurt deeply.

I still clearly remember my son’s birthday. Early that morning, Ruohan said, “Let’s have hotpot tonight.” I hesitated for a long time and finally said, “There’s no need. Let’s just buy a small cake and celebrate at home.”

That answer was obviously not what she expected. She went quiet and tried hard to hide her disappointment. At some point, even going out for a real meal had become something I treated as a luxury. And this was not just any day. It was supposed to be worth celebrating. I had never imagined I would reach that point.

I had never imagined I would end up in such a state. That kind of sadness is probably understood only by people who have truly fallen low.

That night we still went to Haidilao, but we barely ordered anything. When the staff sang the birthday song and got to the line about “saying goodbye to all your troubles,” I completely broke down inside.

If only it were that easy.

When family members carry pain because of your decisions, your own suffering does not cancel the guilt. A tiny, ordinary moment can shatter the armour you built for yourself, and sadness and frustration rush back at once.

2026-04-22 Update

A lot of people have asked how I am doing now. I’m still here, and I’m doing well.

One more thing: this article mainly records my conflict with my partner Mr. Gong (a pseudonym) during the company’s final period, so it can make him look like a single opposing figure. That is my perspective, not a complete judgment of him; he has many admirable qualities. Public writing should leave other people room not to be defined entirely by my version.

2026-06-16 Update

On June 16, 2026, as Chairman of China Ciyuan Cloud Computing Co., Ltd., I was invited by Alibaba in Hangzhou to visit and study at Alibaba Cloud's Hangzhou headquarters.

This visit made me more willing to believe that AI should not remain only as a concept or a tool held by a small group. I hope it can enter real industries, land, and ordinary lives only after permission, responsibility, and real-world verification are in place.

Going forward, I hope to keep exploring practical ways for AI to empower agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, fisheries, and other parts of the real economy. In particular, I plan to provide free AI training for rural cooperatives, so that more ordinary people can understand AI, use AI, improve production efficiency, and discover new ways to grow their businesses.

Seeking benefits for ordinary people and doing practical work should not be only a slogan. After going through the lowest points of my life, I increasingly believe that turning the ability to stand up again into something useful for others is one of the most grounded reasons to keep moving forward.

Closing: Starting Again Is Not a Triumph

I do not want to write 2026 as a victory over 2022. A visit, a title, and a direction begun again cannot repay the costs of the past or prove that the future has arrived. They show only that I can sit at the table again, face a problem, and let reality answer it.

Starting again is not becoming the person who believed he could solve everything. It is living with another kind of memory: companies can collapse, the body keeps accounts, choices can injure relationships, and a family's silence is not erased by later success. Knowing this, I still want to work, but no longer want to wager everyone's tomorrow on my own certainty.

There is no triumph or complete reconciliation at the end of this story. I am still learning how to carry responsibility, make repairs, and keep new work from repeating old harm. Perhaps beginning again means only seeing the cost earlier, asking for help sooner, and leaving a way back for myself and others when stopping becomes necessary.

Narrative and Evidence: Do Not Turn Experience into Fate

When we look back, it is difficult to see facts alone. We compress years into a sentence: I succeeded because I persisted; I failed because I was afraid; I met someone and my life changed forever. These sentences have force, but they also carry danger. They give disorder a shape while turning chance into necessity, hiding other people's work, and sending today's answer backwards into yesterday.

A good story does not have to lose its literary quality to deserve evidence. The more willing it is to admit time, perspective, and uncertainty, the more likely it is to reach another person. It stops being the author's stamp on life and becomes an invitation: see how events unfolded, which judgments worked under which conditions, which costs cannot be erased, and what we are willing to do more honestly next time.

Quick Overview

separate facts known at the time, explanations formed later, and what remains unknown;

use timelines and evidence to test causality instead of letting outcomes masquerade as fate;

accept responsibility while preserving other people's agency;

translate experience into conditional principles rather than universal success advice;

turn reflection into a testable next action with a one-page case review and seven-day practice.

1. One Event Has at Least Three Versions

The same event usually has three versions:

Version | Question it answers | Common risk
The version then | What did I see, know, and fear that day? | Limited information turns feeling into fact
The version in hindsight | How does today's self explain the choice? | The outcome creates an illusion of foresight
The public version | What did I keep or remove so others could understand? | Completeness exposes or exaggerates other people

Separate them before writing. Because you know the company eventually failed, do not make every decision in 2019 look “obviously wrong”. Because you later stood up again, do not arrange every action in the low point as a step toward success.

Write three lines first:

markdown

Facts I could confirm then:
Explanation I hold now:
What I still cannot confirm:

These lines do not weaken a story. They give it room to breathe.

2. A Timeline Is Safer Than a Beautiful Cause

People like causal chains: I changed jobs, so my health worsened; the product had no users, so the company failed; someone left, so I learned to grow. Causes sometimes exist, but sequence is not proof of cause, and simultaneous events do not automatically explain one another.

Draw a timeline without conclusions first:

What observable action happened on which date?

Which conditions already existed?

Who was affected, and who had decision authority?

Which evidence changed your judgment?

Which part still lacks enough information?

Then label each sentence:

Fact: a date, file, record, direct observation, or sample someone else can check;

Interpretation: your reading of those facts, open to revision;

Hypothesis: a judgment you will test in the next action.

“The product had no orders for two years” can be a fact. “We did not understand users” is a hindsight interpretation. “Ten willingness-to-pay interviews before adding features may provide more information next time” is a hypothesis. When all three sit in one paragraph, the reader cannot tell what you actually know.

3. Do Not Punish the Past with Counterfactuals

After failure, “what if” appears automatically: what if I had worked harder, started earlier, chosen another partner, or spent less? Counterfactuals can teach, but they can also become an endless self-trial.

Turn the question into three others:

What information was available then? Do not send later knowledge backwards;

Which decision could be checked earlier next time? Turn regret into a gate;

What is the smallest experiment now? Let action reduce uncertainty instead of imagination enlarging it.

A good review cannot promise that another road would have been better. It leaves an earlier checkpoint: before investing more, what evidence must I see, and where am I willing to stop if it does not arrive?

4. Explain the Context Without Convicting Other People

Personal stories contain people who are absent from the page: partners, parents, co-founders, colleagues, customers, and children. You know your own feelings, but you cannot possess everyone's complete inner life. Writing “she had already…” or “he was just…” makes a story neat while injuring reality.

Try these revisions:

“I treated her silence as agreement; now I know that was my interpretation.”

“He said this, and it produced this observable result; I cannot confirm his motive for him.”

“I accept the impact I caused, but I do not decide how the other person should feel or whether to forgive me.”

This is not an appeal to please everyone. Name responsibility and harm clearly. Just do not use your narrative to remove another person's agency. With identity, children, health, finances, or private conversations, apply data minimisation and permission boundaries first.

5. Turn Experience into Conditional Principles

Experience is easily misread as advice. One person surviving an investment does not make investing safe. One learner improving through a method does not make it universal. A company finding a direction later does not make every early choice correct.

Write principles with conditions:

Overgeneralisation | More useful wording
Persistence creates success | When demand is real, cost is bearable, and feedback continues, persistence may be worth extending
AI improves efficiency | For a bounded task with acceptance criteria, AI may reduce some search or rework time
Failure is the best teacher | Failure yields information only after facts, cost, and the next gate are recorded
Relationships must always be saved | Repair when safety, respect, and mutual willingness exist; leaving ongoing harm can also be responsible

Conditional principles are poor poster slogans but better guides for real decisions.

6. One-page Case Review

For a public profile, a project story, or your own experience, copy the AI Case Review Template, then add two gates:

markdown

## Narrative boundary
- Is this my observation, another person's words, or my interpretation?
- Who could be identified, and which details must be removed or generalised?
- Did I send today's outcome backwards into the past?

## Next test
- Under what conditions does this principle hold?
- What is the smallest next experiment?
- What evidence would make me stop, downgrade, or rewrite it?

Ask a reader who does not know the background to answer three things: what happened, which sentence sounds unproven, and what next action they could actually take. Their retelling exposes a narrative gap better than your own feeling about the draft.

7. Keep One Place Uncertain

Literature does not require every blank to be explained. A story made entirely of certain sentences often reveals not life but an edited advertisement.

Uncertainty can mean:

admitting that memory may be wrong;

naming a motive you cannot know;

preserving a problem that was unresolved then;

stating that an experience has not been independently verified;

ending with a next action rather than announcing a completed personality.

This is not performed modesty. The unknown is part of the facts. An honest author is not flawless on the page. An honest author tells the reader what can be trusted and where judgment must remain open.

8. Seven-day Narrative Review

Day 1: choose one experience and write ten observable facts without adjectives;

Day 2: label every sentence fact, interpretation, or hypothesis;

Day 3: draw the timeline and add what you did not know then;

Day 4: find one sentence that assigns another person's motive and rewrite it as your observation;

Day 5: turn one absolute principle into a conditional one;

Day 6: ask someone without the background to retell the point and record misunderstandings;

Day 7: use the Weekly Review Template to choose what to keep, delete, and test next.

After seven days, you do not need a more dramatic essay. You should know what you truly know, which costs you accept, which sentences need to be withdrawn, and how action will answer the question next time.

9. Stage Standard

A reliable narrative review usually lets a reader:

retell the event without guessing what belief they are being asked to accept;

distinguish fact, feeling, interpretation, and hypothesis;

see that privacy, permission, and other people's agency were not sacrificed for completeness;

understand the conditions and limits of the transferable principle;

identify one executable, stoppable, reviewable next step.

If these conditions are not met, do not rush to publish “my method”. Gather more samples, or label the piece clearly as a personal record.

For practice, treat My Story: Failure, Recovery, and Starting Again as a personal sample still open to revision, use Echoes: Do Not Romanticise Avoidance to inspect how an old explanation speaks through the present, then return to Writing: From Draft to Verifiable Revision and let a real reader's retelling change the narrative.

Closing: Let the Story Return to Life

We need stories to recognise ourselves across long days. But a story should not lock a life inside one conclusion. It may contain a turn without pretending the turn was written into the opening; it may carry responsibility without turning everyone else into a supporting character; it may offer direction while allowing new evidence to revise it.

The best result of looking back is not proving that you were right. It is gaining a gentler, more accurate ability: I know where I came from, and I know which parts still require learning. To turn the next action in a narrative into a comparable sample, continue to Evidence: How Change Becomes Visible and write baseline, delayed retention, and transfer back into life.

Echoes: Do Not Romanticise Avoidance

When I was young, I liked turning a life into one decisive sentence.

Good grades meant I was clever. Falling grades meant my teachers did not understand me. Skipping class was resistance to rigid rules. Enduring pain proved strength. Finding a job later seemed to confirm that every earlier act of defiance had been leading somewhere right.

Those sentences protect pride well at twenty. They are sharp and complete; they leave almost no opening. Walk a little farther, however, and other sounds return: the body that was ignored, the people who cleaned up after me, the luck left unnamed, and the consequences I could have carried sooner.

This chapter is neither a trial of my younger self nor an attempt to turn old wounds into inspiration. I want to reopen several memories and separate four things: what happened, how I explained it then, what I own now, and what I am willing to do differently next time.

Content note: this chapter refers to school violence, long-term insomnia, and past suicidal thoughts. These are personal experiences, not medical advice. Violence is not justified by a victim's character or behaviour. If you are facing persistent sleeplessness, hopelessness, thoughts of harm, or a threat to your safety, contact someone you trust and seek qualified local medical, mental-health, or emergency support first.

1. I Treated Intelligence as a Free Pass

In middle school, I ranked near the top of my year. I also developed a dangerous habit: if I could find an answer faster, I thought I had earned the right to mock someone else's mistake. I dismissed lessons, challenged teachers, and mistook refusal to cooperate for independence.

I was later subjected to violence at school. The school dealt with one teacher involved; another apologised after losing control. For a long time, whenever I told this story, I rushed to add, “Most of the problem was mine.” Blaming myself first seemed like proof that I was honest, fair, and somehow more mature than the injury.

Now I am willing to hold two truths together: violence is not education, and I should not have been hurt; arrogance and humiliation are not independence, and that part is mine to change. The first protects the facts. The second protects the possibility of growth. Neither cancels the other.

When responsibility and harm are mixed together, a story tends to move toward one of two extremes. I become the permanently innocent hero, or I demonstrate my capacity for reflection by finishing the defence of the person who crossed a boundary. The harder and more accurate account allows both judgments to stand: someone crossed a line, and I still needed to change how I treated people.

Afterward, I lost interest in mathematics and tore up my competition certificates. The paper made almost no sound. The consequences lasted much longer. I believed I was rejecting an evaluation system I disliked; I was also throwing away part of an ability that might have continued to grow.

2. The Body Keeps Unsettled Costs

In high school, I developed insomnia.

I could not sleep at night and had no energy in class. Because I could not learn during the day, I feared the next night and the next failure, which made sleep even harder. My homeroom teacher saw falling grades. The grade director saw lateness. My father saw a ranking. I saw a person who had used achievement to recognise himself losing the only proof he knew.

My seat was moved to the front row. Later, my bed was moved into a hospital. I spent two years receiving treatment for insomnia. At the worst point I had suicidal thoughts. On many nights I cried alone in a bathroom and wanted only to sleep.

Looking back, I no longer summarise this as “willpower defeated insomnia”. Recovery is rarely that tidy, and memory cannot establish medical causation. Professional assessment, time, changes in environment, family care, and the activities I found may all have played a part.

What I can confirm is that I began practising calligraphy with my right hand. I had written with my left hand before. Changing hands gave the long nights one small, slow activity that did not judge my whole life at once. A bad horizontal stroke could be written again. Ten minutes still left a sheet of paper behind.

Later I won calligraphy competitions, received high marks for Chinese essays, and gradually slept better. Calligraphy was not treatment, and the story does not prove that a hobby cures illness. It was a handrail in that season: when I could not solve an entire life, it gave me one bounded act to hold.

A small act in a low season does not have to reverse fate. Sometimes its work is simply to help a person finish today and leave a little usable strength for tomorrow.

3. I Mistook Avoidance for Freedom

At university, an English teacher asked me to spell words because I had forgotten my textbook. I got every word right and proudly continued with a short conversation in English. After that, she paid close attention to my attendance.

I interpreted the attention as persecution and called skipping class resistance. Eventually other teachers in the department began checking whether I was present. By the second semester of junior year, I had failed nineteen courses. The university planned to move me back a year, and graduation was close to impossible.

The same English teacher I believed was “against me” spoke with my homeroom teacher, department head, and academic office. She argued that I should remain in my year. The condition was clear: retake nineteen courses, or leave without a degree.

During senior year I carried a heavy bag between classrooms and the library. At the end, I faced twenty-six examinations. Each evening I hated her again in my head, as if resentment preserved the last respectable part of my defiance.

When I passed all nineteen retakes, I nearly cried. Only later did I understand what had changed me. It was not proof that I had always been gifted. Someone preserved one opportunity for me without taking the examinations in my place.

Help does not erase consequence. Strictness is not automatically malice. A person can be grateful for having been held up and still admit the burden he placed on others.

The sentence I now leave with those university years is this: do not romanticise avoidance. Escaping a class, a conversation, or a deadline briefly feels like taking back control. But when the cost is paid by your future self and the people around you, it is not freedom. The invoice has simply not arrived.

4. One Success Cannot Decide for Someone Else

After graduation, I spent four months and RMB 20,000 on web front-end training. Two weeks after it ended, I received an offer from Meituan and was among the first in the class to find work.

The old article interrupted itself here with a joke: “They even gave me an electric bike, a helmet, and a coat. Gotta go, another order just came in.” The joke preserves my voice at the time, but it also exposes something I learned later. A personal result can easily become an advertisement for a course, even when it may have emerged from existing ability, a hiring window, city-level opportunity, practice, and luck acting together.

I therefore cannot use my outcome to claim that bootcamps always work. Nor can I claim that abundant public material makes all paid learning worthless. What a course may genuinely provide is structure, practice, feedback, peers, and accountability, not secret knowledge.

Before paying, check at least five things:

What real work must be completed, beyond watching a number of videos?

Who gives specific feedback on your errors, and how often?

How are employment outcomes counted, and does the denominator include people who did not find work or changed fields?

Where are the refund, loan, instalment, default, and employment terms written?

If the ideal job does not appear, is the cost still within what you can carry?

A success story can show one possibility. It cannot provide a probability or carry another person's debt and time.

5. Five Minutes and a Device Are Not Magic

I also wrote about whether five minutes a day could teach English and whether a Kindle or iPad was worth buying. They seem like separate topics, but both contain the same wish: to find a tool that makes change easier without requiring us to face repetition, duration, and uncertainty.

Five minutes has real value. It can review chunks, shadow a recording, produce three sentences, or open the file you avoided yesterday. But five minutes is best at starting and maintaining contact. By itself, it rarely carries deep understanding, complete output, feedback, and revision.

A device is similar. Its value is not settled by brand, price, or the excitement of ownership. It is settled by whether it repeatedly reduces friction in a real task: whether the text is comfortable, material is searchable, annotation returns to writing, and you still choose to open it a week later.

A useful boundary looks like this:

Tool or promise | What it may help | What it cannot replace
Five minutes a day | Starting, review, continued contact | Deep practice, feedback, complete delivery
A course | Structure, material, feedback, peers | Interest, practice, judgment, employment outcomes
A device | Lowering friction in reading or making | Choosing content, returning, producing work
AI | Decomposition, explanation, practice, revision support | Source checks, privacy boundaries, final responsibility

A tool belongs between an action and a result. Once it becomes proof of identity, it easily becomes another form of delay. “I bought it”, “I enrolled”, and “I have done this for five days” are not yet the same as “I can do it”.

6. What I Actually Want to Keep

I once used these stories as evidence for talent, effort, and interest. Reading them now, I would rather keep four less attractive but more dependable conclusions.

Being Hurt Is Not Failure, and Reflection Is Not Self-conviction

Admitting what I did wrong does not require denying that someone else crossed a boundary. Responsibility is not a search for one person who deserves all the pain. It is a way to clarify the boundary and change the next action.

Resistance Is Not Freedom

Freedom includes consequence: knowing what you refuse and who will pay after the refusal. Resistance that enjoys the posture but does not carry the cost eventually becomes another form of passivity.

Persistence Does Not Prove Direction

Effort approaches a goal only when it enters feedback, boundaries, and review. Adding more without evidence can merely increase the sunk cost.

Receiving Help Is Not Weakness

A teacher preserving one opportunity, a parent reminding someone to eat, or a professional providing an assessment can all become conditions for standing again. Accepting help does not cancel agency. It gives agency somewhere to return.

7. Give an Old Story a New Reading

If you also carry a story you repeat, read Narrative and Evidence, then place the story into four columns. Do not search for the perfect line yet. Let facts and responsibility return to their own places.

Observable fact | My explanation then | Responsibility I own now | Next observable act
Dated, recorded, or checkable behaviour | How I understood myself and others | Apologise, stop, repair, ask for help, set a boundary | One conversation, retest, or stopping condition

Then ask four questions:

Have I poured later knowledge back into the past?

Have I defended a violation merely to prove that I can reflect?

Have I turned one fortunate result into a method for everyone?

Which act can this story change today, beyond changing how I feel?

If the memory returns you to persistent sleeplessness, panic, hopelessness, or danger, stop the exercise. Go first to Recovery: Catch Yourself Before You Push Forward, a trusted person, and qualified professional support. No review is worth injuring yourself again.

Closing: Let the Past Stop Speaking for Today

I once believed growth meant finding a cleverer explanation and arranging every failure as foreshadowing for the present. Now I am more willing to admit that some things were simply injuries, some were luck, and some costs do not disappear because I later stood again.

The past does not have to remain at the centre of the courtroom. We can return facts to facts, injury to care, error to responsibility, luck to chance, and the next step to today.

I do not need to prove that my younger self was always right. Nor do I need lifelong shame to prove that he was once wrong. I need only hear the echo when it returns and make one choice that is not entirely the same.

Perhaps that is the real purpose of looking back: not to rewrite the opening, but to stop an old story from writing the ending for us.

Recovery: Catch Yourself Before You Push Forward

Content note: this chapter mentions insomnia, prolonged stress, broken relationships, and past suicidal thoughts. It is not medical, mental-health, legal, or financial advice. If you are in immediate danger, contact someone you trust and qualified local support first.

I used to imagine “starting again” as something loud. After the company failed, I thought the next project, product, or income would restore meaning.

I learned that the first task in a low season is usually not acceleration. It is stopping the fall.

Recovery is not empty space edited out of a success story, and it is not a reward you earn after completing a goal. It is basic infrastructure: restoring rhythm to the body, keeping emotion from steering alone, returning relationships to honest boundaries, and shrinking work to a weight you can carry.

Quick Overview

confirm safety before discussing efficiency or the future;

choose safety, reduced-load, or rebuilding mode from safety, basic care, and functional capacity rather than shame;

treat the body as part of life, not as a tool for completing goals;

separate shame into facts, interpretations, and responsibility;

ask for specific help with clear support boundaries, and apologise without demanding forgiveness;

pass safety, basic-life, task, boundary, and review gates before increasing work again;

use seven days to restore minimum order, then use the 90-Day Action Plan to rebuild a longer rhythm.

1. Confirm Safety First

Long insomnia, hopelessness, pain, or debt can narrow judgment. The first task is not to prove strength, but to move irreversible risks out of reach.

Start with four small actions:

Tell someone trustworthy: “My state is not safe right now. I need help handling it.”

Pause high-risk decisions such as large borrowing, impulsive resignation, dangerous driving, total isolation, or plans to hurt yourself;

Give medication, weapons, or other objects that could cause harm to a trusted person for safekeeping;

Contact local emergency services, a hospital, a crisis service, or another qualified professional.

If you already have a specific plan to harm yourself or someone else, do not stay alone and do not rely on the next chat to solve it. Contact a person nearby and local emergency support now.

Asking for help is not losing control. It is moving control into a more reliable support network when you need it most.

2. Choose Today's Recovery Mode First

Two errors recur during recovery: if you can still answer a message, you assume you should resume the whole workload; if you do little today, you assume you are going backwards. A more reliable choice is to match the day to what you can safely carry instead of letting shame set the load.

Mode | Signals that fit | Today's task
Safety | A plan for harm, inability to maintain basic safety, severe disorder, or an escalating real-world threat | Do not stay alone; contact nearby support and local emergency or professional services; move irreversible risks out of reach
Reduced load | No immediate danger, but sleep, food, pain, panic, debt, or caring duties materially impair function | Protect basic life, pause high-risk decisions, keep only necessary communication and one minimum action
Rebuilding | Basic safety is relatively stable; simple care and short tasks are possible; support and review remain in place | Test a brief reversible task, record the next-day cost, and do not restore the full load at once

These are not diagnoses or ranks. Someone may be in rebuilding mode in the morning and return to safety mode after a new risk appears at night. Movement between modes is not failure. It means new facts have entered the plan.

Answer four questions only:

Can I maintain basic safety for myself and other people today?

Can I manage food, necessary medication or care, sleep preparation, and critical communication?

Will a 10–20-minute task restore order, or extend the depletion?

If the situation worsens, whom will I contact, what will I stop, and where will I seek support?

If the first answer is uncertain, stop evaluating productivity and use safety mode. If persistent symptoms or functional changes make the mode hard to judge, involve a qualified local medical or mental-health professional rather than asking a book to decide.

3. Restore the Body Without Punishment

The body often speaks before language does: appetite disappears, sleep breaks apart, vision changes, the heart races, and pain moves around. Do not dismiss these signals as “just overthinking”, and do not diagnose yourself from similar symptoms online.

A steadier order is:

medical care: let qualified professionals assess persistent or recurring symptoms;

sleep: begin with a stable wake time; do not grade your character by one bad night;

food: start with simple food you can tolerate; regularity matters more than perfection;

movement: take a short walk and keep the amount below the level that makes tomorrow worse;

records: note time, symptoms, triggers, and what you tried before an appointment.

Restoring the body does not mean designing a stricter discipline system. You do not need to charge interest on exhaustion.

4. Turn Shame Back into Facts

After failure, we compress many facts into one verdict: I am useless, I ruined everything, I do not deserve another beginning. It sounds honest, but it gives you nothing workable.

Write three columns:

Fact | My interpretation | Responsibility I accept
The project did not gain recurring orders | I treated feature count as user value | Test willingness to pay and delivery cost earlier
I slept badly for several weeks | I feared that stopping meant losing everything | Seek professional assessment and tell my family the truth
A relationship ended | I interpreted loss as proof I would never be loved | Respect the boundary and study my own patterns

Facts create boundaries. Interpretations reveal bias. Responsibility makes the next step specific. You need all three.

5. Relationships Need Apology and Boundaries

People in a low season often feel guilt and loneliness at the same time. You may want to pull everyone back, explain every decision, and make them understand your pain. They still have the right not to accept the explanation or to step away.

A responsible apology includes at least four things:

Say what happened without hiding behind “if you felt hurt”;

acknowledge the impact you caused without blaming everything on circumstances;

say how you will correct the pattern, rather than only describing your pain;

do not make the other person’s forgiveness a condition of your recovery.

An apology is not a long letter that forces a reply. A short, specific message that allows distance is often more respectful.

You also need boundaries: no humiliation, no endless midnight arguments, and no responsibility for every cost simply because you made mistakes. Recovery is not handing yourself back to the loudest judge.

6. Return Work to a Carryable Scale

For many people, work is both income and dignity. During recovery, it should not become another instrument of punishment.

Shrink the task to one saved result:

organise one page instead of “replanning my career”;

fix one test instead of “rewriting the entire system”;

write three sentences instead of “producing my defining work”;

answer one important email instead of “solving every relationship”;

walk for ten minutes instead of “returning to my old self immediately”.

Leave evidence: a file, recording, commit, feedback note, or next step. Evidence is not performance for other people. It lets you see what you have done when your mood sinks again.

7. Returning to Work Is a Load Test, Not a Switch

When some strength returns, it is tempting to prove that you are “better”. You do too much for one day, lose function again the next, and interpret the cycle as weak will. Returning to work is closer to load-testing a bridge under repair: let a small, reversible weight pass first, then inspect what the structure carried.

Check at least five gates before increasing work:

Gate | Observable fact | If it is not met
Safety | No escalating immediate danger; you know whom to contact and where to go if things worsen | Remain in safety mode and add no commitments
Basic life | Food, sleep preparation, necessary care, and critical bills do not repeatedly collapse after a work trial | Reduce the task and repair the floor first
Task | You can complete a defined slice inside a time limit and stop when the limit ends | Split it again; do not extend it until completion
Boundary | Relevant people know current hours, unavailable duties, and the emergency contact route | Communicate first; do not maintain work through disappearance
Review | There is a date, a record, and someone who can help notice deterioration or pause the load | Do not increase the load

Change one variable in each load test: move from 15 to 30 minutes, or from private practice to one real conversation. Do not increase duration, complexity, responsibility, and public exposure together. Record what was completed that day, what it cost the next day, and whether extra recovery became necessary.

Use three levels:

Keep warm: preserve contact, file state, and the next step without requiring output;

Load test: finish one short, low-risk task that another person can review;

Limited return: after several load tests, add one fixed work block while keeping an upper limit and a route back down.

“I did it today” proves that today's task was completed. It does not prove the old intensity is sustainable. These gates also do not replace requirements from clinicians, employers, schools, insurers, or local law. Use the applicable professional and institutional process for sick leave, injury, employment arrangements, or legal duties.

WHO's mental-health-at-work fact sheet includes reasonable accommodations and phased return-to-work programmes among its support approaches, with clinical care and work-directed support able to continue together. This chapter reduces that direction to a personal record and conversation gates. It does not imply one schedule, stage, or return date fits everyone, and it does not replace local clinical judgment, employment rules, or employer duties.

8. Ask for Specific Help Without Giving Away Your Life

“I am suffering” is true, but it may not tell another person how to come closer. Turn the request into an action:

“Please eat with me tonight. You do not need to give advice.”

“Please come with me to the appointment and help me record the instructions.”

“Please review this contract. I need professional advice.”

“Please remind me twice this week to go outside.”

“I cannot take this project right now. Please help me state the delivery boundary clearly.”

Specific requests give people a way to help and let you choose the form of support. Family, friends, and professionals have different roles; none fully replaces the others.

Support also needs a bounded agreement:

May do: accompany an appointment, hold emergency contacts, process one bill together, send one necessary notice, or check safety at agreed times;

Does not replace: do not impersonate the person in decisions, disclose health or relationship information without need, turn presence into surveillance, or use “for your own good” to take every account and financial choice;

Escalation conditions: if contact is lost, a specific danger plan appears, a real-world threat grows, or a professional advises escalation, contact the agreed person or local emergency support;

Return of control: as risk falls, return accounts, documents, schedules, and decisions step by step, reviewing which support is still needed.

Privacy does not mean keeping every fact secret during danger, nor telling everything to everyone. Share the minimum information needed for a particular safety task with people able to perform that task. A supporter may also state a limit and help connect another resource; “I cannot manage this alone” is not abandonment.

9. Seven Days of Minimum Order

This is not a challenge or a perfect streak. Do one main thing each day and keep everything else at a minimum.

Day | Main task | Evidence
1 | Write safety contacts, symptoms, and high-risk decisions to pause | One-page safety list
2 | Eat one regular meal and confirm professional support | Appointment record
3 | Walk for 10–20 minutes and observe your body | Time and notes
4 | Turn one debt into facts, impact, and responsibility | Apology draft
5 | Complete one 15-minute slice in the current mode, or preserve only the return point | File, commit, or next-step cue
6 | Agree with one trusted person on what support they can offer, cannot offer, and when to escalate | One support boundary
7 | Review what to keep, stop, request, and whether to load-test next week | Next mode and review date

If a day is impossible, make the task smaller. Do not repay missed work by staying up late. Recovery is about boundaries, not another source of failure.

Copy the Recovery Reset in the Life Practice Toolkit to keep the current mode, safety items, support boundaries, smallest task, and return-to-work gates on one private page. Use the Weekly Review to decide what needs changing. When ordinary days become steadier, use the Daily System to design full, compressed, and recovery versions of the day.

10. When Willpower Is Not Enough

If insomnia, low mood, panic, pain, appetite changes, inability to work, or thoughts of harm keep returning, seek medical or mental-health assessment early. For debt, contracts, labour disputes, or company responsibility, consult qualified legal, financial, or industry professionals.

Do not label yourself from one online test, and do not dismiss persistent suffering because one appointment found no major problem. Professional support helps separate issues, reduce risk, and plan the next step. It does not decide whether you are allowed to hurt.

11. Signs of a Recovery Phase

Recovery does not mean “I am completely well”. More useful signs are:

I can name the most important thing today;

I can contact someone instead of disappearing completely;

I notice physical and emotional alarms and take an appropriate action;

I choose a mode from safety and capacity instead of increasing load from shame;

I can complete one small task and still allow myself to stop;

I can state what a supporter may do, may not do, and when escalation is needed;

I return to work through short load tests and review instead of restoring the old intensity at once;

I can separate facts, interpretations, and responsibility;

I can plan the next week without using the plan to punish myself.

These changes are quiet, but they mean the steering wheel is returning to your hands. When minimum order is stable, enter the 90-Day Action Plan and put the recovered energy into one real ability and one deliverable.

Sources and Boundaries

WHO: Suicide fact sheet: used to check the public-health direction of limiting access to means and supporting early identification, assessment, management, and follow-up; this chapter provides no risk diagnosis, local hotline number, or individual treatment plan.

WHO: Mental health at work and Guidelines on mental health at work: used to check reasonable accommodation, phased return, continuing clinical care, and workplace support; specific arrangements remain decisions for the person, professionals, employer, and applicable institutions.

“Safety / reduced load / rebuilding” is this guide's language for choosing a daily life load. It is not a WHO or clinical rating scale.

Closing: Catch Yourself, Then Move

I no longer see a low season as a page that must be deleted quickly. It records what I believed, what I ignored, and who sat beside me when I had no strength.

A person begins again not because they become indestructible, but because they learn to acknowledge their weight and let others carry part of it when necessary.

Catch yourself first. Then take the next step.

Decision-Making: Choosing Under Uncertainty

Life rarely asks us to decide when the information is complete. More often a bill is due, an opportunity lasts three days, the body sends an unclear signal, a relationship needs an answer, and only part of the facts is in your hands.

I once mistook the courage to bet everything for bravery, and past investment for a reason to continue. I learned that a mature choice does not remove uncertainty. It names the cost you are willing to carry and leaves room for the next correction.

A choice is not a one-time proof of who you are. It is closer to a temporary contract: make a decision under certain facts and assumptions, then agree on when to return and check it.

When a decision grows out of a complicated experience, use Narrative and Evidence: Do Not Turn Experience into Fate to separate timeline, facts, and hindsight before returning here to map options and costs.

Quick Overview

separate facts, interpretations, and wishes;

distinguish missing information from a conflict of values instead of asking more analysis to erase a trade-off;

judge reversibility before deciding how quickly and how much evidence you need;

use a small experiment instead of waiting to understand everything;

put money, health, relationships, and responsibility on the same cost sheet, naming who decides and who carries the result;

define pause, stop, and rollback signals before commitment makes the thresholds move;

leave a decision record so your future self can review it instead of judging the past only by its result.

Let Confidence Set the Action Size

Do not treat “I feel confident” as one number. Separate at least three things: how reliable the facts are, whether the key assumption has been tested, and how easy the choice is to reverse. Different combinations deserve different action sizes.

Fact confidence | Assumption confidence | Reversibility | More suitable next step
High | Low | High | Run a small experiment and buy information quickly
High | Low | Low | Add cooling-off time, seek relevant professional advice, and avoid expanding the commitment
Low | High | High | Add sources or samples instead of treating intuition as fact
Low | Low | Low | Pause high-risk action and protect safety, cash, and relationship boundaries

This is not a calculator or a decision score. It is a reminder: the more expensive and irreversible the unknown, the smaller the action should be and the thicker the evidence.

1. Write Facts Before the Story

Under pressure, we blend fact and interpretation:

“This project will succeed because we have already invested so much.”

“We have invested so much” is a fact. “It will succeed” is an inference. The unanswered question is what evidence would support or overturn it.

Write three columns:

Fact | My interpretation | Still unknown
Time, money, and people already invested | Continuing can recover the loss | Will users keep paying?
Risks a doctor has ruled out so far | I should immediately return to my old workload | Why do symptoms persist, and what is the next assessment?
A boundary another person stated clearly | One more explanation can change the outcome | Whether they will want to talk again

Writing down the unknowns does not make a choice easy. It stops imagination from quietly posing as evidence.

2. Ask First: Missing Information or Conflicting Values?

Some choices are difficult because the facts are incomplete. Others are difficult because two important things cannot both be preserved. The first needs investigation and experiment. The second needs an acknowledged trade-off. Treating a value conflict as an information gap can produce endless research while avoiding the question of what you are prepared to give up.

Kind of difficulty | Typical question | More suitable action
Factual uncertainty | Contract term, current price, or what a doctor has ruled out | Verify through the original document or a relevant professional
Outcome uncertainty | Whether users will renew or a new job will fit | Run a bounded test, recording the prediction and review date
Value conflict | Income or presence, speed or privacy, growth or health | Rank priorities and name what each option will cost
Identity defence | “Stopping would prove I am not someone who can persist” | Remove the character verdict and re-examine the real task

Ask two questions:

Would one reliable fact arriving tomorrow change my choice? If so, obtain that information first.

If every fact were clear, would the decision still hurt? If so, the work is probably value ordering rather than more research.

A value is not a sentence designed for public display. It must enter the cost. If family matters, which hours can the project no longer claim without limit? If privacy matters, which effective growth tactic remains unacceptable? If health matters, which bodily signal will reduce the load?

No ranking removes every loss. Maturity is not finding a cost-free correct answer. It is refusing to let the cost hide until after the decision.

3. Judge Reversibility First

Not every choice deserves the same amount of discussion. Ask: If the result is bad, can I reverse it at a reasonable cost?

Highly reversible: try another textbook, test a tool for two weeks, schedule an interview;

Partly reversible: accept a job, sign a short contract, move to another city;

Hard to reverse: take on major debt, sell an important asset, publish a damaging accusation, or make a long-term arrangement that harms health.

Move reversible choices into experiments sooner. Add cooling-off time, a second opinion, written boundaries, and an exit plan to irreversible choices. Decisiveness is not making everything immediately. It is knowing what should not be decided on impulse.

4. Replace the Gamble with a Small Experiment

“Should I do it?” is rarely the only option. Ask instead: Can I spend a small amount of time and resources to buy the next important piece of information?

For example:

do not spend six months building a full product; make a slice three target users can try in one week;

do not resign just to prove commitment; finish one real side-project delivery and observe whether you want to continue;

do not buy ten courses; complete one task and identify whether the missing piece is knowledge, feedback, or time;

do not ask AI to generate a complete plan; ask it to list assumptions, then design a test that could disprove the plan.

A small experiment is not timid. It turns expensive unknowns into affordable unknowns.

5. One-Page Decision Brief

For an important choice, write one page. You do not need to analyse every possibility:

markdown

# Decision Brief — YYYY-MM-DD

Problem to solve:
Decision deadline:

Known facts and sources:
Key assumptions:
Still unknown:
Problem type:
- missing information / outcome uncertainty
- value conflict / identity defence
Non-negotiable values and boundaries:

Option A:
Option B:
Do nothing for now:

Benefits, costs, and worst case:
What is reversible:
Smallest experiment:
Pause / stop / rollback condition:
What evidence would overturn this choice:
Final decision owner:
Who carries the result; have they been informed:
Whose advice is relevant:

Current decision:
Review date:
Evidence to preserve:

You can also copy the Decision Brief in the Life Practice Toolkit and keep facts, costs, stop conditions, and review date in a private record.

“Do nothing for now” must be a real option. It is not avoidance. It acknowledges that some information is not yet worth its price.

6. Four Cost Sheets

A choice that counts only benefits usually transfers the cost to your future self or the people beside you. Check at least four categories.

Money

Count maintenance, rework, learning time, opportunity cost, and the worst-case exit cost in addition to purchase or development cost. When cash is tight, protect essential living and family responsibilities before expanding risk.

Health

Late nights, chronic pain, persistent anxiety, and no recovery time belong on the plan. A plan that works only while the body deteriorates is a design failure, not intensity.

Relationships

Who will carry extra uncertainty because of my decision? Have I stated the boundary, timeline, and worst case clearly? “Everyone supports me” is not a substitute for informed agreement.

Responsibility

If the result is bad, who can pause, notify, repair, and carry the consequence? AI can list options, but it cannot sign, apologise, or make a promise for you.

7. Separate Decision Authority, Impact, and Execution

One person may propose a decision, another approve it, and a third carry it out while many others bear the consequences. Writing only “we decided” can hide power and responsibility inside a vague subject.

Role | Question that must be answered
Proposer | Which facts have I supplied, and which costs have I left out?
Decision owner | Do I have authority to decide, or is someone else's explicit consent required?
Affected person | Who loses time, money, safety, privacy, or room to choose?
Implementer | Who performs the work, and do they have resources and a route to refuse unreasonable demands?
Reviewer | Who will inspect the evidence on what date, with authority to pause or escalate?

More opinions do not distribute responsibility evenly. After asking ten people, the person who signs still explains what was accepted and why. A team vote cannot replace customer authorisation, consent from the person whose data is used, labour boundaries, or someone's authority over their own body and relationship.

An affected person does not automatically have veto power over every choice, but the impact must enter the decision. Shared money, shared care, publication of another person's private life, and changes to basic safety cannot disappear behind “this is my life”. At the same time, being a relative, manager, or funder does not grant ownership of another adult's whole life.

Where power is unequal, return to Relationships: Becoming an Adult in Connection and ask whether refusal is safe and consent is specific and withdrawable. Participation becomes more meaningful when a person can say no without immediately losing basic security.

8. Do Not Judge a Decision Only by Its Result

A decision that succeeds may still contain luck. A decision that fails does not mean every fact supporting it was worthless.

Review four points in time:

What did I know then?

What did I not know then?

Which assumption did the facts support or overturn?

At what earlier point could I have obtained the information?

This turns failure into method and prevents success from being misread as a universal formula.

9. Write Stop Conditions as Observable Signals

“We will stop if it goes badly” is not a stop condition. After commitment begins, bad news is easily renamed a temporary fluctuation, deadlines move, and the original test is replaced by a metric that is easier to pass.

Write four kinds of gate before acting:

Gate | Observable signal | Corresponding action
Evidence | The review date arrives without the agreed number of real trials, payments, or independent samples | Stop expanding and revisit the problem and assumption
Cost | The time budget is exceeded for two weeks, cash falls below the safety floor, or rework consumes the main output | Reduce, pause, or narrow the scope
Safety | Persistent sleeplessness, pain, threats, data exposure, or inability to refuse safely | Pause the high-risk action and seek relevant support
Responsibility | No one owns failure response, refunds, explanation, care, or exit handover | Do not enter the next stage

Do not merge four different actions:

Pause: stop temporarily while repairing safety, information, or resources;

Stop: end the path instead of using new investment to defend an old commitment;

Roll back: return to the last state that worked and could be responsibly maintained;

Review: use the same evidence on the agreed date to continue, revise, or close.

A gate may change when new facts arrive, but the change needs a date, evidence, and owner. Do not wait until a threshold is crossed and then rename it “part of the process”.

10. AI Can Participate, But It Is Not an Oracle

Give AI a defined role:

organiser: structure facts, options, and questions;

opponent: find counterexamples, omissions, and worst cases;

simulator: act as a customer, colleague, reader, or reviewer;

recorder: preserve assumptions, decisions, evidence, and review dates.

Do not ask AI to answer “Should I resign?”, “Is this project worth the investment?”, or “Should this relationship continue?” The facts, responsibility, and value order belong to you. A tool can help make the question clearer.

Try this prompt:

Here are my facts, constraints, and three options. Do not decide for me. Separate facts, inferences, and values. For each option, list likely benefits, costs, unknowns, and a test I can run within two weeks. Mark conclusions that require a professional or an original source.

Then ask three reverse questions: which assumptions produced the ranking, what evidence would change it, and which affected people or irreversible consequences were absent from the input. The more certain the model sounds, the more important it is to return missing conditions to the table.

11. Seven Days to Clarify a Decision

When one decision keeps occupying your attention, use a seven-day process:

Day 1: write facts and the deadline, without a conclusion;

Day 2: separate missing information, outcome uncertainty, value conflict, and identity defence;

Day 3: list at least three options, including doing nothing, and mark the non-negotiable boundaries;

Day 4: name the decision owner, affected people, implementer, and reviewer; ask one relevant person to check omissions;

Day 5: mark reversibility and design a smallest experiment with time and cost limits;

Day 6: ask AI to oppose the plan and find missing facts, affected people, and disconfirming evidence;

Day 7: decide and record the review date plus observable pause, stop, and rollback conditions.

You may still choose to wait after seven days, but waiting must have a next piece of information and a date. It cannot be indefinite delay.

12. Signs of a Good Decision Process

A good decision does not guarantee a good result. It should have these properties:

facts and assumptions are recorded separately;

information gaps and value conflicts are not treated as the same problem;

decision authority, affected people, implementers, and reviewers are named separately;

affected people know the boundaries and costs, and matters requiring consent have meaningful consent;

reversible and irreversible parts are treated differently;

a small experiment buys information before a gamble hides the unknown;

observable signals trigger pause, stop, rollback, and help rather than a temporary mood;

the evidence that would overturn the current choice is written down;

new evidence can change the plan without defending the image that you were never wrong.

Maturity in choosing is not always choosing correctly. It is seeing earlier what cost you are paying for what result.

Closing: Leave a Way Back

I still make bad decisions and still overestimate my clarity under pressure. Now I am more willing to write the decision down, give it a boundary, an experiment, and a review date.

Life is not an exam that allows one choice only. What matters is retaining the ability to observe, apologise, revise, and return after each choice.

Relationships: Becoming an Adult in Connection

It is easy to believe you are mature when you are alone. Relationships are the real test: someone misunderstands you, someone disappoints you, someone needs you, and you are tired, afraid, or ready to escape.

I once thought loving someone meant designing a better future for her. I learned that a relationship is not a stage for one person to display ability. It is two concrete people repeatedly asking, within limited time, money, energy, and emotion: What are we living through? What can we carry together? Which boundaries cannot be crossed?

Becoming an adult in a relationship does not mean staying calm forever or never making mistakes. It means learning to name feelings, separate responsibility, make smaller promises, and treat the other person’s freedom as part of reality.

Quick Overview

presence matters more than immediate advice;

a boundary describes what you can and cannot do, not how to punish someone;

in conflict, handle safety and facts before positions and winning;

apology faces impact, repair leaves observable change, and reconciliation is not an acceptance criterion;

the less equal the power, the more deliberately a relationship must protect refusal, withdrawn consent, and exit without retaliation;

leaving can be responsible;

do not use AI to manipulate emotion, inspect private data, or speak commitments you do not own.

1. Presence: Let the Other Person Be Heard

Many arguments are not caused by a lack of answers. They begin because one person has not been heard. We rush to explain, comfort, analyse, and solve, skipping the facts of what the other person is living through.

Try three steps:

Reflect the fact: “I hear that you were criticised in front of everyone today.”

Name the feeling: “That left you hurt and alone.”

Ask what is needed: “Do you want me to listen, or think through options with you?”

This is not a therapy script. It gives the conversation an opening that cannot be stolen. The other person may not need agreement or an immediate solution. They may need to know their experience was not brushed aside.

Presence also includes naming your capacity:

“I am tired, but I can listen carefully for ten minutes. If we are not finished, let’s continue tomorrow.”

Limited presence is more reliable than a distracted promise to be available all day.

2. Boundaries: Return Responsibility to Each Person

Without boundaries, a relationship can look close while everyone guesses, tests, and stores resentment. A boundary is not “you must”. It is “when this happens, this is how I will protect myself and state the consequence”.

Compare:

Control: “You are not allowed to contact that person again.”

Boundary: “If the conversation includes insults, I will end the call and schedule another time after we are calm.”

Make boundaries concrete: what behaviour, what you can do, and when to reconnect. They do not require the other person’s full agreement, but they do require your willingness to follow through.

Common boundaries include:

time: I can discuss this for 20 minutes tonight;

information: this includes a third party’s privacy, so I will not forward screenshots;

money: this is what I can lend and when it can be repaid;

work: these are the situations in which you may contact me after hours;

body: every intimate act requires clear consent in the moment.

Boundaries do not push people away. They make closeness less dependent on guessing.

3. Conflict: Safety Before Viewpoint

Different opinions do not equal a failed relationship. Threats, violence, persistent humiliation, stalking, financial control, and other behaviour that removes the ability to speak safely require priority.

If those risks are present, leave, contact someone trustworthy and professional support, and do not treat communication technique as the only solution. When safety is not secured, learning non-violent language is not the first task.

In a relatively safe conflict, use this structure:

text

When I observe [specific fact], I experience [specific impact].
I need [a describable need].
I am asking that we try [one concrete request] at [time/place].
If that is not possible, I will [a boundary I can enforce].

For example:

When project changes are not recorded before delivery, I redo work repeatedly. I need to know which decisions are final. I am asking that every change leave a date and owner in the shared document; if it is not confirmed tonight, I will pause the release.

This structure does not guarantee agreement. It stops personality judgment from replacing factual communication.

4. Apology: Pain Is Not an Exemption

A real apology does not begin with “I am suffering too”. Your pain can be seen, but it does not erase the impact on someone else.

A responsible apology:

says what you did;

acknowledges the impact;

does not use circumstances, pressure, or good intentions as a discount;

names one observable correction;

accepts that the other person may not reply, forgive, or stay.

“I am sorry, please stop being angry” often asks the other person to care for your emotion. A more honest version is:

“I made a decision for you without confirming it, and you carried extra pressure because of me. I caused that impact. I will ask for your consent first and return this arrangement to your control this week. You do not need to reply now.”

After an apology, the work begins. A long beautiful message matters less than a few weeks of consistent change without applause.

5. Repair: Do Not Restore the Old Arrangement

An apology answers whether you will acknowledge the impact. Repair asks whether life will now be different. When the same harm keeps returning and each incident ends with a more moving explanation, language becomes a way to postpone change.

Repair usually requires at least four movements:

Stop the harm first: remove public material, stop insults, pause decisions made without consent, or contain a growing financial risk;

Let the impact be named: hear what the other person lost without rushing to prove your intention;

Return what can be returned: time, money, choice, credit, privacy, labour, or a long-overdue explanation;

Change behaviour over time: agree on who will do what, when to review it, and what happens if the pattern returns.

What can look like repair | Evidence repair actually needs
A long apology letter | The harmful behaviour stops and the boundary remains respected
An explanation of why it happened | Impact is acknowledged without returning responsibility to the injured person
The other person says “forget it” | They may withhold comfort or forgiveness without being punished
One gift or romantic gesture | Responsibility, information, and choice change consistently in shared life

Repair does not require reconciliation. Someone may recognise your change and still keep their distance. A relationship may end while restitution, explanation, and responsibility remain worth completing. Do not hide “you must come back” inside an apology or compensation.

The hardest repair is often quiet. It contains no declaration: one less humiliation in the next conflict, one more confirmation before the next expense, and one less use of another person's privacy to give weight to your public story.

6. Shared Life in Intimate Relationships

Intimacy is not a continuous performance of romance. It is joint management of money, housework, sleep, work, children, parents, space, and an uncertain future.

Consider a 30-minute weekly life meeting with four questions:

What made us feel supported this week?

Which concrete task is creating pressure?

Who owns what next week, and by when?

Which problem will not be solved tonight but needs a review date?

The purpose is not to turn love into project management. It is to keep invisible labour and emotion from being carried silently by one person. Romance needs room; reliability needs a calendar.

7. Family, Friendship, and Work Boundaries

Different relationships carry different promises:

family may offer long-term support without owning all your choices;

friends may accompany and remind you without being forced to provide therapy, loans, or rescue;

colleagues need clear collaboration, not every private detail;

managers owe teams responsibility without cancelling labour boundaries through “we are family”.

The more important the relationship, the more you need to translate “I want you to understand” into a concrete request. Unspoken expectations often return as blame.

8. Power Differences: Make Refusal a Real Option

Human dignity can be equal while practical power is not. A manager influences performance reviews, parents control a minor's living conditions, caregivers control information and movement, the person who provides most of the income can affect housing and daily spending, and an account administrator controls access to data. The more easily one person can impose consequences, the less that person can treat “they agreed too” as complete evidence.

Meaningful consent needs at least four conditions:

specific: agreement to one act does not authorise every later use;

informed: material costs, publication scope, and alternatives are not hidden;

current: past consent does not extend indefinitely into today;

withdrawable: refusal, pause, or revision does not immediately bring humiliation, retaliation, or a threat to basic life.

Silence is not automatic consent, and dependence is not a blank authorisation. If saying no risks a job, home, care, educational opportunity, or relational safety, the relationship needs a clearer exit route, not more elegant persuasion.

Protection can match the context: allow private refusal; keep shared money, accounts, and important documents inspectable; add cooling-off time to consequential decisions; involve a third person not controlled by one side; explain how photos, stories, and data can be withdrawn; state that refusal will not change evaluation, care, or basic respect. Adults should not make children carry messages in family conflict or use a child's inability to refuse safely as permission to publish private material.

Power itself is not the same as harm. Harm becomes easier when power goes unexamined and good intentions are treated as permission.

9. Relationship Ethics in the AI Era

When AI can imitate tone, draft an apology, and analyse a chat, we need to know what not to give it:

do not upload private chats, photos, recordings, or identity information without consent;

do not let AI fake your feelings, commitments, or apology;

do not mass-generate messages designed to manipulate, pressure, or lure someone;

do not treat an AI inference about a person as a diagnosis, fact, or moral verdict;

before publishing another person’s story, reconfirm permission, necessity, and the ability to delete it.

AI can organise a confused feeling into a draft or simulate questions the other person may ask. The actual conversation, consent, and responsibility remain human work.

10. Leaving: Not Every Relationship Must Be Saved

Growth stories often make persistence noble and leaving a failure. If a relationship leaves someone in long-term fear, shame, danger, or loss of self, leaving may be the most honest choice for both people.

Before leaving, distinguish:

am I avoiding a repairable conflict, or responding to ongoing harm?

have I clearly expressed the boundary and need?

who carries the cost of staying, and is anyone in danger?

When there is violence, threat, or stalking, make a safety plan and seek professional help. Do not arrange a final negotiation alone.

Leaving also needs boundaries: state necessary facts, arrange possessions, finances, and care, reduce repeated explanations, and do not create new harm to prove the old decision was right.

11. Seven Days of Relationship Practice

Day 1: name one relationship to improve without judging the other person’s character;

Day 2: record the facts, feelings, and needs in one conversation;

Day 3: make one small, concrete request;

Day 4: write your boundary for a recurring problem;

Day 5: have a 20-minute conversation without looking at a phone;

Day 6: draft an apology for past harm, then name one repair you will complete without requiring forgiveness;

Day 7: check whether refusal is genuinely safe, then decide whether to move closer, keep distance, seek help, or begin leaving.

Do not turn this into a task that forces someone else to change. You directly control your expression, boundaries, actions, and requests for help.

Copy the notes from days 2–7 into the Relationship Conversation Card in the Life Practice Toolkit. If the other person does not participate, you can still record your own boundary, responsibility, repair action, and next review date.

12. Signs of a Healthy Relationship

A healthy relationship can contain conflict and still allow people to:

disagree without first proving they deserve love;

say no without fear of punishment or retaliation;

retain informed choice, pause, and withdrawn consent when power and resources are unequal;

see each other’s effort and limits;

stop the behaviour, return responsibility, and repair after harm while accepting that repair need not produce reconciliation;

seek outside support instead of trapping two people on an island;

let a relationship change without interpreting departure as proof of anyone’s worthlessness.

If a relationship keeps you in fear or control, seek help before trying to become “better at communication”.

Closing: Let Love Have Boundaries

I still make mistakes in relationships. I still mistake silence for understanding and persistence for responsibility. Now I try to slow down: hear the facts, state the boundary, own the impact, and then decide whether to keep moving closer.

Love is not designing another person’s life, and it is not sacrificing yourself until you cannot breathe. It is a continuing respect: I will be present, and I accept that you have your own road; I will repair, and I accept that you may choose to leave.

Entrepreneurship: From Ambition to Purpose

First written in June 2026 and revised on 2026-08-31 for evidence levels, privacy, and affiliation disclosure. This personal review offers no success formula, investment advice, or route for others to copy.

When I was younger, entrepreneurship meant opportunity, ambition, and a chance to take my life off its old track. Today it feels more like a delayed mirror. Courage and greed appear in the same reflection; ability and immaturity grow larger together.

People first found me through this English-learning repository. Others later read about the software company that failed, the health problems that followed, my return home, and the effort to begin again. Connected together, those events ask one question:

How many times must a person break before understanding where their abilities should be used?

Separate Memory, Review, and Plans

This chapter contains personal memory, explanations made in hindsight, and plans for the future. They have different evidence standards:

Level | How it is written | How a reader should use it
What happened | Dates, roles, products, accounts, or public records | Treat it as my record and return to primary evidence when needed
Hindsight explanation | Why I think a decision worked or failed | Treat it as a hypothesis, not proof of causation
Reusable gate | What I will ask, test, or stop next time | Use it to design your own checks, not to copy my route
Unverified plan | An industry, service, or public-interest direction I want to explore | Keep it labelled as a direction until users, costs, and time answer

Loss figures are estimates from personal records and require financial evidence for formal conclusions. For current affiliations and commercial relationships, use the latest Author Projects and Real-world Practice disclosure.

2016: Putting Work into the Market

I went to Beijing on 7 March 2015 to find an internship. A series of encouraging interviews gave me a young person's illusion that I might force a place for myself in the world.

The university required me to return for my graduation defence. I did not receive my certificate on schedule because of unfinished internship requirements, so I went home. The period did not feel impressive: I learned to cook and developed joint pain. In retrospect, major turns often grow through the gap created by having nowhere obvious to go; their beginnings are rarely well lit.

In 2016 I built a film website, bt0.com. It was small, but it had real users and real feedback. That was enough to teach an important lesson: code has to leave the editor, and a product has to leave the maker's imagination and meet another person's choice.

I took web-design projects and formed early companies with a former classmate. I moved quickly and easily mistook speed for direction. In an old post I had written that I wanted to work steadily, avoid rushing, and boast less. It took years to understand my own sentence.

2017: Joining a Company and Betting on It

On 1 April 2017, I joined a Nanjing technology company as a front-end developer to work on software for lawyers and law firms.

The first version had been outsourced. The code lacked comments, project management was confused, and product direction often changed by impulse. In my first month, one timeline module went through more than twenty versions. I did not yet know the terms organisational capability or requirements governance. I knew only that repeated demolition can turn enthusiasm into numbness.

I later led a front-end rewrite in Vue. After more than half a year, the new release reached the market, and for a long time produced no orders. Compensation stagnated and colleagues left. I continued because I believed in the product, moving from employee to team lead, general manager, and partner.

There is much I still value: I worked seriously on a product, led people seriously, and sincerely believed the work could succeed. But I also confused persistence with correctness, investment with a moat, and effort with a claim on the market.

Entrepreneurship permits sincerity and hard work. It never promises compensation for either.

Restaurants, Hotels, and Cash Flow

Outside software, I took part in a resort hotel and a club and lost heavily. Small restaurants taught me more directly.

A relative ran a successful beef-soup shop. I studied it, opened one of my own, then designed, renovated, photographed products, and expanded to more locations. Restaurant work was exhausting but honest. Customers, table turnover, serving time, consistency, reviews, rent, labour, and cash flow answered every day. The numbers could not hide behind a narrative.

The software company taught me that dreams are expensive. Restaurants taught me that cash flow is real.

The shops helped fund my later software investment, but eventually closed during the pandemic period. They offered no verdict that physical business was superior to the internet. Every business returns to exchange: will people pay, can the cost structure survive, and can the organisation remain alive when conditions change?

2022: Seeing the Foundation of Product and Responsibility

The software company moved into a larger office and invested in hiring, welfare, and environment. At the beginning of 2022, sales fell sharply. The product had accumulated features and defects, and customer feedback was poor.

An experienced engineer joined and helped expose deeper problems: old project structure, performance and security risk, and AI/data claims without the training data and foundations we had imagined. Much of what looked like core capability was search and preset output.

We had invested in interfaces, platforms, and feature volume without securing the core data and engineering foundation. Continuing to add features felt like painting a dangerous building; rebuilding required money the company could not afford.

One evening, the partners talked late into the night. A major shareholder who had invested heavily was close to emotional collapse and demanded to know whether the project could continue. I understood the despair. The money was personal savings, not abstract investment capital. I had also invested millions.

The company struggled to pay salaries and borrowed money. Management became more controlling: attendance enforcement, reduced benefits, meaningless overtime, constant reports, and monitoring. By September the team no longer wanted to come to work, and the company ended.

According to the records I had at the time, our combined losses exceeded twenty million yuan before other ventures. This estimate requires financial evidence for any formal conclusion. Harder than the number was guilt towards colleagues, family, and people who had trusted my judgment. Beyond the balance sheet came the discovery that something once held with certainty had been wrong at the foundation.

2023: Survive Before Restarting

At the end of March 2023 I transferred the final restaurant. In June I left Nanjing with family and returned home.

My health and routine had deteriorated: stomach problems, insomnia, poor appetite, blurred vision, and pain. Medical examinations did not reveal the catastrophic illness I feared, yet every day felt dangerous. I escaped into games, reversed day and night, stopped earning, left online groups, and disconnected from GitHub and people I had known.

Lack of money was hard. The absence of visible hope was harder. I repeatedly asked whether stopping earlier or recognising the foundations more clearly would have changed the outcome.

Recovery came through slowly regaining control: eating, sleeping, going outside, learning again, facing the past, admitting mistakes, and sorting the wreckage. No inspiring sentence could perform those acts for me.

Founders often romanticise “starting again”. It may begin with admitting that a founder is an ordinary person who can fail, needs rest, and must first support health and daily life. Another company can wait.

2026: AI and the Physical Economy

By June 2026, I had returned to technology, products, and industry as a company leader. Product details, company visits, relationships, dates, and non-sponsorship disclosures are now centralised on Author Projects and Real-world Practice so that a personal review does not double as product promotion.

An industry visit reinforced a direction: AI has to leave abstraction and the hands of a small group, enter real processes such as agriculture, and become usable by ordinary people before its value can be tested.

That statement is still a direction, not evidence of impact. After the software failure, I ask harder questions: who needs this, can it enter a real workflow, can people keep using it, and can delivery, compliance, cost, and service close the loop? Without answers, a beautiful technology story can become another unstable building.

Five Reality Gates for the Next Venture

Each gate should leave evidence another person can inspect. A founder's confidence is only a starting point:

Problem gate: who meets the problem, in which repeated situation, and what interviews, orders, or usage records exist?

Value gate: what time, risk, or cost changes, and how will the user accept the result?

Delivery gate: who implements, supports, trains, and handles incidents, and can someone else take over?

Survival gate: are revenue, fixed cost, variable cost, worst case, and stop/exit conditions in the ledger?

Relationship gate: what cost do team, family, customers, and third parties bear, and are permission, privacy, and promises clear?

Use the Life Practice Toolkit for choices and boundaries, and the AI Project Scorecard for pilot quality. Tools can expose questions; they cannot carry entrepreneurial responsibility.

Lessons That Remained

Features do not make a product

Features acquire the weight of a product only when people repeatedly use them to solve a problem more quickly, reliably, or affordably.

Technical debt becomes business debt

Confused code, old architecture, missing data, and security risk eventually consume delivery, slow iteration, raise maintenance cost, and damage sales, support, and morale.

Cash flow is more honest than valuation

A small business that survives can carry more weight than a grand internet narrative. Cash flow makes a business answer to reality.

Founders should distrust heroic stories

“One more push will work”, “we invested too much to be wrong”, and “everyone following me will have a future” can become harm when facts no longer support them.

The willingness to learn after failure is an asset

I once closed the connection to GitHub and technology. The pain remains. I returned because it needed to become judgment; otherwise failure would remain only failure.

Entrepreneurship Cannot Depend on Self-immolation

I once thought a founder should burn time, health, relationships, and savings, and that success would justify it. I eventually abandoned that belief.

Good entrepreneurship should make a founder clearer, a team more orderly, users better served, and family more secure. Risk still needs limits; persistence still needs an exit; belief in the future must keep looking at the present.

Before continuing, I now want plain answers:

Who needs this and why now?

Where does revenue come from and where are the costs?

What guarantees delivery?

How is risk contained?

If it fails, how can people exit responsibly?

If it succeeds, can ordinary people benefit?

This review neither displays youthful success nor prosecutes later disappointment. It records an attempt to rebuild judgment after reality broke it and use what remains for work that helps others.

Related Reading

Archive from a Decade Ago

Last Year and Now

My Story

Author Projects and Real-world Practice

Life Practice Toolkit

AI Project Scorecard

GitHub profile

Closing: Let Ambition Pass Through Reality

I do not want to lose ambition. Without it, I would not have entered unfamiliar industries or returned to technology after failure. But ambition left untested can recruit everything nearby: a team's time, a family's sense of safety, a customer's trust, and the rest a body was meant to receive.

If there is another venture, I want it to pass through plain realities: the problem exists, users choose the work, the ledger closes, promises can be delivered, and someone knows how to stop when it fails. It may grow more slowly and remain smaller, while leaving the people inside it more ordered instead of merely making the founder's story more dramatic.

I no longer need a company to prove that I stood up after a low season. Work worth doing should remain useful after I leave the stage. Even if it never becomes a grand enterprise, it should not require the people who love me to keep paying for my certainty.

Part III: Amplify Ability

A tool never amplifies efficiency alone. It amplifies the clarity or confusion of the goal, the reliability or carelessness of judgment, the order a team already possesses, and the problems it has kept avoiding.

AI has made answers cheap and drafts, code, and plans unusually fast to produce. The speed is exciting. It also creates a persuasive illusion: enough output must mean understanding; a running page must mean a viable product; a confident model sentence must mean the fact has been checked.

This part is not about becoming a more fluent operator of prompts. It takes on the harder work: retaining ownership of the question, protecting attention, moving an answer into an artifact, making the artifact face evidence, and taking responsibility for permission, cost, failure, and other people's interests when the tool enters a real project.

The best place for a tool is not the driver's seat. It is after you have named the purpose, boundaries, and acceptance standard, helping you travel farther without taking the direction away.

Questions for This Part

What must I write independently before opening AI?

Which inputs deserve attention, and which entrances should close?

How does an answer become work that can be signed, delivered, accepted, and rolled back?

How can baseline, immediate performance, delayed retention, and transfer form a trustworthy evidence chain?

When a tool enters customer, team, and commercial systems, who carries permission, cost, safety, and the final result?

The stronger the tool, the clearer the stopping condition must be. Acceleration that cannot be explained, tested, or rolled back may only deliver an error to more people sooner.

Reading Path

Path | Chapters | What to leave behind
Define collaboration | Learning Anything with AI | Problem, baseline, sources, privacy, and human judgment boundaries
Protect judgment | Attention | One closed entrance and one window for independent thought
Make an artifact | Artifacts | Audience, completion standard, versions, acceptance owner, and rollback
Verify change | Evidence | Baseline, immediate performance, delayed retention, and transfer
Enter the project | AI Development and Resource-layer Business · Author Projects and Practice | Tests, cost ledger, permissions, incident plan, and affiliation disclosure

Do not put one tool into every task because it leads a ranking. Choose the problem first, the evidence second, and the tool last. Product names will change. This order should survive them.

What to Carry Forward

At the end of this part, complete one real delivery instead of saving another impressive conversation:

An AI Task Brief with the problem, sources, and data boundaries;

An artifact a real audience can accept;

An independent retest after AI is closed;

One explicit decision to keep, adjust, stop, or roll back.

If an important decision can be found only in chat history, the project does not yet belong to you. Write it back into code, documentation, ledgers, and records another person can take over.

Enter the Work

Do not begin with “Which model is best?” Close the conversation window and write the problem you actually need to solve today, followed by what would count as complete.

Only then can speed arrive without carrying direction away with it.

Learning Anything with AI: From Real Problems to Verifiable Delivery

My name is Han Xiankai, also known online as Li Pu. Many readers first met me through English learning, then through stories about software, restaurants, a failed company, disrupted health, and a return to technology and AI. I now treat AI as learning infrastructure, not a button that thinks on my behalf.

The method comes from an uncomfortable fact: an answer can be complete while a product has no users; code can run while its data and security have no foundation; a person can sound clever in a chat and still be unable to perform alone after the chat closes. A real learning result survives without AI: you can explain, judge, perform, transfer, and leave evidence another person can inspect.

Quick Overview

define the real outcome before deciding where AI enters;

compare an unaided baseline, an assisted version, and a delayed independent retest;

put sources, permissions, privacy, cost, and ownership into the task boundary;

save state at the end so the next session does not depend on chat memory.

Where the Method Comes From

The following are personal records, not research findings or a universal promise. Read each case in four steps: what happened, which judgment failed, what principle followed, and what you can practise today.

If you are analysing a public profile, an AI project experience, or your own failure record, copy the AI Case Review Template first. Separate source, facts, judgment, outcome, and transferable principle. The template cannot prove an outcome for you, but it can stop a narrative from quietly becoming a conclusion.

2015–2016: From a Dead End to Real Users

After setbacks around an internship and graduation, I returned home. In 2016 I started bt0.com, a small movie website, and later accepted web-design work. It was not a grand product, but it had real users, feedback, and traces of use.

The easy mistake was to treat “I can build it” as “people need it”. What changed my judgment was not another technology lesson. It was seeing people use, review, and leave because of a detail.

Principle: learning starts with a real problem; work exposes gaps better than collected answers.

Try today: choose a problem someone near you actually has. Without AI, write one page naming the audience, action, completion standard, and three things you do not know.

2017–2022: From Front-end Refactoring to Organisational Constraints

In 2017 I joined a software company serving lawyers and law firms. I moved from front-end developer to team leader, general manager, and partner. The early product came from outsourcing and changing requirements; I later led a Vue rewrite, but the released product went a long time without a sale.

The lesson was that effort, refactoring, and feature count cannot replace problem discovery, user validation, and team coordination. One person learning to code does not mean an organisation has learned to deliver.

Principle: write learning as a real task, not “understand a topic”; every step needs an audience and acceptance standard.

Try today: replace “learn product management” with “write a one-page brief for a real user in 45 minutes and let that user reject one assumption”.

2022: Mistaking Search and Presets for AI

Sales fell sharply in 2022. When my high-school desk mate joined, we discovered an old project structure, performance and security problems, and “big data” and “AI” features without a real dataset or training foundation. Some features were essentially search and preset results.

We had spent too much effort on UI, multi-platform support, and feature accumulation before confirming that the core capability and data existed. The company eventually closed. Better demonstrations could not erase the loss or the responsibility.

Principle: a demo is not a capability, a model answer is not a fact, and generation speed is not delivery quality. Important claims must return to sources, tests, users, and an accountable person.

Try today: ask AI to explain a familiar topic. Then, without the chat, write its sources, a counterexample, an unknown, and one test that could disprove it. What you cannot write is a learning gap.

2023: Recovering the Ability to Act

After the company failed, I closed GitHub, left many groups, played games, and lost the boundaries of daily life. Returning home, the first step was not founding another company. It was eating, sleeping, going outside, facing the past, and reducing tasks to a scale I could complete.

Principle: a learning system must include energy, health, and ordinary responsibilities. Consistency beats short bursts, and a difficult season should not be judged by a dramatic reversal.

Try today: reserve 5–15 minutes for one saved action: organise a page, run a test, listen to a clip, or write three sentences. Record what happened instead of hiding in a plan.

2026: Returning to AI and Physical Industries

In 2026, as chairman of China Token Cloud Computing Co., Ltd., I returned to technology, enterprise services, and physical-industry practice. I am exploring AI for agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, fisheries, and other real settings, and plan to offer basic training for rural cooperatives. This is a direction and a personal plan, not proof of revenue, customer count, or impact.

Principle: AI must eventually enter a real workflow and accept constraints around cost, permissions, privacy, user feedback, failure, and rollback.

Try today: for one organisational problem, write where data enters, who can see it, what passes acceptance, how work stops when it fails, and which human responsibility you will own.

The Seven-step Loop

Define a real outcome: situation, audience, action, deadline, and acceptance criteria.

Save an unaided baseline: attempt the task first and expose gaps and blind spots.

Prepare trustworthy material: prefer official documents, books, papers, data, code, and real cases.

Design guided practice: ask AI to question, explain, compare, hint, and create parallel tasks without doing the critical step.

Produce actively: close the material and explain, code, write, calculate, demonstrate, or decide.

Use plural feedback: sources, tests, experts, users, and security review join AI in judging the result.

Update state: save work, errors, cost, open questions, and the smallest next task.

Without step one, AI turns a wish into an answer. Without step two, you cannot see growth. Without steps six and seven, errors return in the next conversation.

One-page Task Brief

Copy the complete AI Task Brief into a private project directory. The block below keeps only the minimum fields. Redact sensitive material; never send passwords, identity documents, customer records, or third-party private data to a general model.

markdown

# AI Task Brief

Real situation:
User/audience:
Decision or action to complete:
Deadline:

Known facts and sources:
Files allowed:
Data sensitivity: public / internal / confidential / restricted
Material deliberately withheld:

Final deliverable:
Format and length:
Acceptance criteria:
Items a person must confirm:

AI may:
AI may not:
Human reviewer:
Rollback or stop condition:

“Good experience”, “advanced architecture”, and “learn AI” are not acceptance criteria. Use observable actions, such as “a user can import a file in ten minutes and receive an explainable error report”.

A Minimal Session Protocol

Before starting, ask AI only to restate the boundary:

text

Restate in no more than eight bullets: goal, audience, inputs, acceptance criteria, constraints, unknowns, and what you cannot verify.
List the sources you intend to use. Mark source-free facts as unverified.
Do not produce the final deliverable. Identify the three risks most likely to cause rework.

During the work, advance one inspectable slice:

text

Break the task into the smallest verifiable slices. Advance one slice at a time and state input, assumption, change, check, and next step.
If a prerequisite conflicts, pause and ask. Do not silently replace the requirement. Keep failed approaches and reasons.

At the end, create a state update instead of a polished essay:

text

Based only on what happened in this session, output:
1. completed work and evidence location;
2. judgments confirmed by a source, test, or person;
3. recurring errors, risks, and open questions;
4. the smallest next task, acceptance criteria, and required material.
Do not claim to remember another session or turn inference into fact.

Different Outputs Need Different Evidence

Output | Minimum evidence | Stronger evidence
Explanation | Primary source, key terms, uncertainty | Closed-book restatement, counterexample, transfer task
Code | Run result, basic tests | Boundary tests, static checks, security review, real samples
Research | Primary link for material facts | Cross-source verification, definitions, dates, counterexamples
Prose | Audience, purpose, facts, structure | Real-reader feedback, revision record, version comparison
Decision | Options, assumptions, cost, risks | Small experiment, decision log, after-action review
Teaching | Goal and practice result | Independent transfer, delayed retest, changing errors

For high-risk content, “not yet confirmed” is more professional than a fluent guess.

Three Comparisons: Prove What AI Changed

Use the AI Learning Log to keep three samples of the same task:

Unaided baseline: complete it independently and record time, quality, bottlenecks, and confidence;

Assisted version: let AI do only the agreed work and record prompts, sources, accepted/rejected suggestions, and rework;

Delayed independent version: after 3–7 days, close the chat and answer key, then repeat under a related condition.

Comparison result | Cautious interpretation
Assisted and independent versions both improve | AI may have supplied useful scaffolding that remained yours
Assisted improves while independent regresses | The product improved, but a critical step may have been outsourced
Time falls while rework and errors rise | You gained speed and accumulated “speed debt”
Confidence rises while accuracy is flat or lower | Calibrate confidence before granting the tool more access

Record task completion, quality, independent performance, rework, cost, and transfer. One comparison cannot prove causation, but it is more inspectable than “AI feels useful”.

Common Failures and Handover

Failure point | Signal | Immediate action
Fabricated fact | No source, version, or data location can be found | Stop sharing; return to a primary source and mark it unverified
Requirement drift | The answer grows complete but stops answering the original task | Paste the brief again and ask for conflicts and unknowns
Privacy leak | Input contains customer, identity, health, or key material | Stop upload; redact or use an approved environment
False completion | Code runs without boundary tests, or prose reads well without citations | Run the smallest acceptance test; fluency is not completion
Session dependency | You cannot explain the next step outside the chat | Save it in the AI Learning Log and Learning State

At handover, save the current goal, completed work and evidence location, unconfirmed facts, errors and risks, cost, smallest next task, and stop/rollback condition. A chat window is a temporary workspace, not the project’s only archive.

From Learning to Delivery

When a task becomes code or a team project, add three gates:

Explainable: the owner can explain important decisions without the chat;

Testable: real inputs, edge cases, permissions, and failure paths are checked;

Reversible: someone knows who pauses, who is notified, and how to recover from risk or outage.

Use a portable directory:

text

00-brief/       task brief and acceptance criteria
01-baseline/    unaided sample and initial tests
02-sources/     primary material, licences, source index
03-working/     drafts, experiments, prompts
04-output/      deliverable, recording, build artefact
05-feedback/    user feedback and error categories
06-decisions/   decision log and open questions
07-operations/  permissions, monitoring, deployment, rollback
learning-state.md

Data, Privacy, and Copyright

Level | Examples | Default handling
Public | Published documents, public code, public data | Check source and licence before use
Internal | Unpublished plans, processes, non-sensitive logs | Approved tools only; limit members and retention
Confidential | Customer records, contracts, commercial strategy, unpublished vulnerabilities | No upload without approval; prefer local work or redaction
Restricted | Keys, identity/health data, children's data, third-party private material | Keep out of general models; follow policy and law

Deleting a file does not delete history, shared links, exports, caches, or backups. Public articles can contain personal data too; confirm permission, minimum necessary scope, and retention before processing them.

Seven Days, Thirty Days, Twelve Weeks

Seven days: one reproducible micro-delivery

write the brief and acceptance criteria;

save an unaided baseline;

complete a one-to-three-hour deliverable with the loop;

save sources, prompts, tests, feedback, and state;

record where AI helped, misled, and what remains without it.

Thirty days: one repeatable workflow

complete four loops for a recurring task;

compare time, quality, rework, cost, and independent performance;

remove steps that do not improve the result;

conduct a failure retrospective, not only a success demo.

Twelve weeks: delivery to a real user or organisation

obtain real-audience feedback every two to four weeks;

complete fact, test, security, privacy, copyright, cost, and handover review;

export the material and state, then write a retrospective and next-cycle decision;

if evidence is weak, narrow the problem, change the audience, or stop instead of adding prompts.

Put the three comparisons and cycle result into the 90-Day Cycle Map, changing one variable in the next cycle.

Sources and Verification

Personal experience: mainly My Story, Entrepreneurship, and Author Projects and Practice. These are personal records, not universal rules.

Product information: official help pages listed in Learning English with AI; features, regions, and plans change.

Project status: China Token Cloud, token.love, public articles, and physical-industry plans carry affiliations or unverified scope; none is an independent review or proof of revenue.

Last checked: 24 August 2026. Recheck official product pages, external links, and project status before updating or using this guidance.

Closing: Keep the Ability with the Person

AI readily creates more than wrong answers. It creates a premature sense of completion. The explanation is fluent, the code runs, the plan is arranged, and we begin to believe the problem has been understood. Answers can arrive much faster than judgment forms.

Learning worth continuing should leave something the conversation cannot carry away: a more accurate question, a traceable source, a failed test, a judgment changed by evidence, an artifact another person can use, and a person who still knows what to do after the tool closes.

Learning is not asking AI to arrive on your behalf. It is using the tool to reach what you could not yet see, then checking the ground yourself. Close the window, explain the work to a real person, complete the next step, and carry the result. If the ability follows you out of the conversation, it has begun to remain.

Attention: Return Your Attention to Yourself

AI is making answers cheaper while attention becomes more expensive. In seconds we can receive a summary, plan, code, or opinion, and in the same seconds notifications, short videos, and endless links can carry us away.

I no longer want to call this simply a lack of willpower. Attention is shaped by its environment: too many entrances, too much switching, and tasks without boundaries make sustained clarity difficult for anyone. The skill is not turning yourself into a machine that never drifts. It is deciding what deserves to enter, stay, and be completed by you.

Quick Overview

separate attention into capture, choice, and completion;

set boundaries around input instead of letting saved links become an anxiety warehouse;

write your own judgment before using AI, then retest after closing the chat;

reduce switching through environment design rather than daily battles with willpower;

audit where attention went each week and turn “I was busy” into adjustable facts.

1. Attention Is Not a Lamp That Stays On

When we say “I need to focus”, we often mix three different actions:

Capture: what enters my sight, ears, or task list;

Choice: whether I judge it worth handling now;

Completion: whether I can finish a deliverable slice without constant switching.

Many tools only capture: they push, recommend, and remind. Many plans only choose: they list everything you “should” do. Completion is scarce because it needs uninterrupted time, clear boundaries, and permission not to answer every other stimulus.

Do not begin by asking whether you can focus for eight hours. Ask: Can I protect 25 minutes for one important slice without opening unrelated entrances?

2. Three Gates for Input

Information is not free simply because it costs no money. Every link carries reading cost, emotional cost, judgment cost, and the later cost of organising it.

Put three gates in front of input:

Relevance: does it serve the real problem I am working on?

Credibility: do I know where it came from and can I return to the original source?

Actionability: what concrete action will I take after reading it?

If a piece fails all three gates, do not save it yet. A smaller collection is not a refusal to learn; it leaves attention for material that matters.

Use three zones:

Zone | Purpose | Limit
Inbox | Hold links, ideas, and sources not yet judged | Empty weekly; never grow without limit
Workbench | Material required for the current task | One main question at a time
Archive | Verified material that may be reused | Record source, date, and purpose

Without zones, everything pretends to require attention now.

3. Leave Your Version Before Using AI

AI is useful for expanding options, explaining difficulty, and finding blind spots. It can also show you a fluent answer too early. Once the answer appears, it can cover the original confusion and make it hard to tell what you actually learned.

Before each AI session, write three lines:

What do I currently understand?

What am I most uncertain about?

What result would prove that I learned it?

Let AI handle process work: questions, examples, parallel tasks, contradictions, and simulated audiences. Do not hand over every important choice at once.

After using AI, run a screen-off test. Close the conversation and explain, code, write, or decide without prompts. If you cannot continue without the original chat, you have a temporary scaffold, not yet an independent ability.

4. Let the Environment Protect Focus

Focus does not happen only inside the mind. Reduce unnecessary choices in the environment:

handle messages and news in fixed windows;

keep only current-task files and windows on the workbench;

define a start condition and an end condition for each task;

use a 25–45 minute time box, then decide whether to continue;

put the phone somewhere that requires standing up to retrieve it;

prepare an offline or fallback version for deep work.

The purpose is not ritual. It is reducing the cost of deciding what to do again after every switch.

If work requires constant response, do not pretend you have uninterrupted focus. Cut tasks into smaller savable units and leave state at every handoff. Reality deserves more respect than an ideal schedule.

5. Attention in Relationships

Attention is not only a productivity issue. It is also a relationship issue. When someone keeps looking at a screen while you speak, what you feel is not “they are efficient”. It is “I am not really here with them”.

In an important conversation, say what you can offer:

“I want to hear you fully. Let’s put our phones aside.”

“I can talk for 20 minutes, and I will be present for those 20 minutes.”

“Let me listen first, then decide whether advice is useful.”

“I cannot handle this today. I will reply at a specific time.”

Boundaries make attention trustworthy. They protect you and save others from guessing whether you are present.

6. A Weekly Attention Audit

Do not end a review with “I was busy”. Write down where time and attention went:

Area | Facts this week | Result | Adjustment next week
Input | Main topics in reading, meetings, video, and chat | What changed my judgment? | Keep/delete what?
Switching | What interrupted me most? | What needed rework? | Which entrance closes?
Output | Work or decisions preserved | Who used or reviewed them? | Next smallest delivery
Relationships | Conversations where I was present | Which boundaries need explaining? | Schedule one full conversation
Body | Sleep, movement, and energy | When was I clearest? | Adjust work and rest

An audit is not a score. It shows how the system shapes behaviour. A pattern repeated for three weeks matters more than one emotional day.

Copy this table into the Attention Audit in the Life Practice Toolkit, then put next week’s single experiment into the 90-Day Cycle Map.

7. Seven Days to Reset Attention

If information feels like it is flooding you, run a small seven-day experiment:

Day 1: list subscriptions and notifications; keep only entrances that serve the current goal;

Day 2: protect 25 minutes without switching for one important task;

Day 3: sort the inbox into delete, workbench, and archive;

Day 4: write your three lines before AI, then run a screen-off retest;

Day 5: finish one real delivery under 45 minutes;

Day 6: have a 20-minute screen-free conversation with someone important;

Day 7: audit attention and choose one experiment for next week.

You do not need to disconnect completely. Notice which entrances move you toward your goal and which ones pull you away automatically when you are tired.

8. Signs of Growing Attention

Better attention does not mean you never drift. More reliable signs are:

I can name the most important question instead of only saying “I am busy”;

I can decline input unrelated to the current goal;

I preserve my own judgment before and after using AI;

I can cut work into a result that can be saved and handed over;

I can say when I am present and when I need to leave a conversation;

I adjust the environment from weekly facts instead of only blaming myself.

These skills return boundaries to learning, work, and life. A boundary does not shut the world out. It gives what matters a chance to be heard.

Closing: Give Attention to What Deserves It

We cannot control every message, change, or expectation. We can slowly reclaim some attention and give it to a real book, a person who needs us present, a piece of work worth finishing, and the self we keep postponing.

AI can speed up many steps. It cannot decide what deserves to be seen, heard, done, or loved for a long time.

Choose first, then focus. Be present first, then move.

Artifacts: Turn Learning into Something Made

“I have learned it” is a comfortable feeling, and an easy one to misread. As long as you keep reading, saving, and listening, familiarity keeps appearing. The harder test is whether you can close the material and make something another person can see, use, question, and improve.

I understood this after the software company failed. We had features, demos, and meetings, but not enough reliable evidence of user value, data foundations, or delivery. When I returned to AI and technical learning, I added one gate: every learning cycle must leave an artifact that can be inspected.

An artifact does not have to be a product. It can be an email, recording, report, process map, small tool, presentation, or sourced essay. What they share is that they place understanding in front of reality and allow another person to use, question, or improve it.

Quick Overview

distinguish knowing, doing, and delivering;

use a small artifact to expose problems before a grand project;

give every artifact an audience, situation, acceptance criteria, and version;

let AI speed up decomposition, feedback, and testing while preserving your first draft and key judgments;

publish, retest, and review so artifacts become trustworthy evidence over time.

1. Three Meanings of “Know”

Learning contains at least three states:

Know: you can read a definition, hear an explanation, or recognise an answer;

Do: you can complete a task independently under similar conditions;

Deliver: you can complete, explain, revise, and hand over work under real constraints.

Moving from knowing to doing needs retrieval and repetition. Moving from doing to delivering needs an audience, time, quality criteria, and responsibility. Many courses reach only the first state; professional ability begins testing reality in the third.

Ask:

If I cannot open search or chat now, what can I make? Who will see it? What counts as complete?

2. Choose the Artifact Size

Start with a size that fits your actual time:

Size | Time | Example | Main test
Micro | 10–30 minutes | Three English sentences, one test, one process sketch | Do I understand the smallest concept?
Small | 1–3 hours | Work email, short report, runnable script | Can I complete and explain it independently?
Project | 1–2 weeks | Tool prototype, presentation, content series | Will a real audience use or review it?
Portfolio | 4–12 weeks | Sourced report, course, pilot, portfolio | Can I deliver and transfer it reliably?

A small artifact is not a lower standard. It buys feedback early. A problem visible in two hours is cheaper than a wrong direction discovered after two months.

3. One-Page Artifact Brief

Write one page before you begin:

markdown

# Artifact Brief — YYYY-MM-DD

Artifact name:
Real situation:
Audience/user:
One problem to solve:

Inputs and sources:
My current baseline:
Key assumptions:

Smallest deliverable:
Format and constraints:
Acceptance criteria:
What this will not include:

First-version deadline:
Who will give feedback:
Evidence to preserve:
How to shrink, pause, or roll back:
Next review date:

“What this will not include” matters as much as “acceptance criteria”. It resists feature creep and makes feedback concrete.

4. Four Passes Through an Artifact

Pass One: Independent Version

Complete it without an answer key or AI writing it for you. It may be slow and rough, but preserve the original. Without a first version, you cannot compare growth.

Pass Two: Structure Version

Check whether the audience knows the problem and next step, whether information is ordered by importance, whether facts and guesses are separate, and whether failure paths are explained. Fix structure before sentences and colour.

Pass Three: Feedback Version

Give it to a real person, a small group of users, or an AI playing a defined reviewer role. Ask: What helped? What caused confusion? Which change matters most first?

Pass Four: Delivery Version

Revise from feedback and record the version, limits, sources, and known issues. Let another person begin without your oral explanation, even if they can complete only one small action.

5. AI’s Place in the Artifact

AI can be four kinds of assistant:

decomposer: break a goal into steps and acceptance conditions;

practice partner: generate parallel tasks in different contexts;

reviewer: question audience, facts, structure, quality, and risk;

tester: create edge inputs, counterexamples, and failure paths.

Keep these parts human: define the problem, choose the audience, write the first version, verify facts, decide what to remove, and sign the result.

A useful sequence:

Write the brief and first version yourself;

ask AI to identify only the three issues most affecting the result;

revise yourself and preserve the difference;

ask AI for a parallel situation or counterexample;

close AI and complete a retest independently;

write sources, feedback, cost, and open questions back into the record.

If AI delivers the final artifact immediately, you may get a beautiful file while losing the most important training.

6. Quality Gates

Different artifacts need different standards, but check five gates:

clear: the audience knows the problem and next action;

accurate: facts, citations, code, and numbers return to a source or test;

usable: the main action works under real constraints, not only in a demo;

maintainable: version, dependencies, limits, and owner are visible;

responsible: sensitive data, privacy, copyright, and consequences of error are considered.

Speed, word count, and feature count are proxy measures. A smaller artifact that is explainable, reviewable, and revisable usually has more long-term value than a grand deliverable nobody can hand over.

7. Publishing Is Information, Not Performance

Publishing does not mean giving your privacy to everyone. Choose an audience by risk:

private record: preserve process and errors for yourself;

small pilot: give it to three to five relevant people and record whether they can complete the task;

public version: remove unnecessary personal data and state sources, limits, and version;

formal delivery: state permission, responsibility, support, cost, and exit terms.

Before publishing, ask: Do I have permission? Did I redact third-party information? Am I packaging an unverified personal story as proof of results? Honest limits do not reduce an artifact’s value. They make feedback more trustworthy.

8. Seven-Day Artifact Start

Day 1: choose a real problem from something you are learning;

Day 2: write the artifact brief and unaided baseline;

Day 3: finish the first version of a micro or small artifact;

Day 4: ask AI or a partner for the three highest-value issues;

Day 5: revise yourself and add sources, limits, and failure paths;

Day 6: give it to one real audience member to use or read;

Day 7: record feedback, decide the next version’s scope, and preserve the evidence.

If all you can finish in seven days is one page, a recording, or a runnable small script, you have still completed a learning-to-delivery loop.

9. A 12-Week Artifact Ladder

Weeks 1–2: complete four micro artifacts and confirm the topic and situation;

Weeks 3–5: complete two small artifacts and begin gathering real feedback;

Weeks 6–8: expand one small artifact into a usable prototype and record cost and failure;

Weeks 9–12: make one public or formal delivery and retest with blind review, user feedback, or a parallel task.

Preserve the original, revised, and reviewed versions at each level. The number of artifacts is not the point. The signal is whether you can explain how you moved from a problem to a result.

10. Signs of a Real Artifact

You do not need to wait for perfection. A useful stage result usually has:

a defined audience and situation;

an observable acceptance criterion;

an unaided original version;

feedback from a person, test, or source;

a version, limit, and next step;

an explanation of key decisions without the chat history.

When another person can see, use, and question the work, learning has left the mind and entered the world.

Ask Again After Delivery

Delivery proves immediate performance under one set of conditions. It does not prove retention or transfer. After finishing an artifact, open Evidence: How Change Becomes Visible and schedule one retest with recent prompts removed plus one transfer task with a new topic, audience, or constraint. Keep the original, delivered, and retested versions so you can see the work leave a demo and enter real use.

Closing: Let the Artifact Remember

Knowledge fades, emotions change, and chats disappear. An artifact is another kind of memory. It reminds you which problem you faced, what you chose, where you failed, and how you turned the failure into a next step.

I no longer see finishing an artifact as proving that I am impressive. It is more like leaving a light for my future self. When I doubt whether I can begin again, something real can answer: I have done this once.

Evidence: How Change Becomes Visible

People easily mistake familiarity for ability, a completed streak for progress, and one smooth conversation for having learned. The difficult work is not collecting more numbers. It is knowing which traces can answer the question in front of you. When you need to record one task end to end, use the Evidence Chain Template.

I write about evidence not to turn life into a cold dashboard. Evidence gives us less room for self-deception and less reason for unsupported self-blame. It shows where something has changed, where a result is only temporary fluency, where a method needs to change, and where further investment should stop.

What This Chapter Covers

Evidence returns to a concrete task, condition, and time instead of a context-free score;

baseline, immediate performance, delayed retention, and transfer form one chain;

AI-assisted and independent performance stay separate, including who owns judgment at handover;

failure, rework, and conditions where a method does not apply are evidence too;

life changes cannot all be measured, but they can be recorded with honest observation and boundaries;

one main question is enough for a seven-day review; more records should not replace action.

1. Evidence Is Not a Report Card

A report card answers “how many points under one set of rules?” Evidence answers “under what conditions, what did I complete, can another person inspect it, and can I do it again?” The two sometimes overlap, but they are never identical.

Saving ten articles does not prove that you can explain one concept. Writing code with AI does not prove that you can maintain it without the chat history. Waking early for seven days does not automatically prove that your life has more order. These are clues. They need to return to a task.

A useful piece of evidence can answer four questions:

Question | What to state | What happens without it
Can it be traced? | Where are the sample, source, version, and date? | The result survives only in memory
Does it have conditions? | What topic, audience, time, tool, and limits applied? | Different conditions look like one level
Can it be compared? | Did both attempts keep a similar task? | Change cannot be explained or checked
Can it transfer? | Can the action survive a new topic, person, or setting? | Fluency stays trapped in the practice item

Evidence is not for ranking people. It makes the next choice less blind.

2. Keep Four Time Points

For one task, preserve four states when possible. They do not need to be long. They do need to say who provided what help and when.

Time point | Purpose | Example
Baseline | See what you can do before concentrated practice or tool support | Explain a familiar work process without notes
Immediate performance | Observe the task just after practice or feedback | Record again after seeing a demonstration
Delayed retention | Return later without the most recent prompt | Repeat a similar task with new material after seven days
Transfer sample | Change topic, audience, medium, or constraint | Turn an internal explanation into a short client update

If you keep only immediate performance, you will overestimate yourself most easily. If you keep only the final artifact, you forget how you moved from not knowing to knowing. The four time points together form a more explainable trajectory.

3. Do Not Confuse Three Results

Learning often produces three different results: you can do it, you can still do it later, and you can use it somewhere else. They are related, but need different checks.

Performance: Can you complete the task today? Inspect errors, time, and outside help;

Retention: Can you complete it after an interval? Remove the recent hints and keep similar difficulty;

Transfer: Can you complete the action when its surface changes? Change topic, person, order, or pressure.

For example, writing an English email with AI may show reasonable immediate performance. Writing a similar email the next day without the original shows retention. Clarifying a real customer’s question in unfamiliar wording begins to show transfer. Do not use the first result to stamp the other two.

4. When AI Enters, Record the Human Gate

AI changes speed and changes the nature of the task. Record more than the model name. Record which judgments a person still owns:

Condition | What the person must do | Evidence focus
Unaided version | Complete a first version without looking at AI | Baseline, errors, and where you got stuck
Assisted version | Let AI question, explain, compare, or give feedback | Prompts, sources, edits, reasons, and rework
Handover version | Explain, maintain, or continue the work after closing the chat | Key decisions, permissions, tests, and owner

If AI produces the final answer directly, add a retest after removing the tool. A correct answer you cannot explain is not yet an ability you own. An automation nobody can hand over is not yet a system you can safely run.

That is why this guide repeatedly asks you to preserve the AI Task Brief, Artifact Brief and Delivery Card, and Learning State. They are not paperwork. They keep the human gate and responsibility boundary visible.

5. Write Failure and Rework into the Evidence

Showing only smooth versions makes a method look simpler than life. A failure provides at least three kinds of information: which condition did not hold, which hypothesis was disproved, and which risk to reduce next time.

Do not write only “I did not do well.” Write:

markdown

Task and conditions:
I originally assumed:
What actually happened:
The earliest error:
What the rework cost:
The one variable I will change next:
What result would make me stop investing:

The number of reworks is not an ability score. One timely rework may protect a user or a relationship; repairing an unworthy task again and again may be a way to avoid a more important decision. Evidence matters because it lets cost participate in the next choice.

6. Do Not Turn Life into a Dashboard

Some changes suit counting: deliveries completed, delayed-retest accuracy, or whether a test passes. Other changes should not be compressed into one score: asking for help earlier, causing less harm in a relationship, or finally stopping when exhaustion arrives.

For those changes, record observations closer to fact:

In what situation did I notice overload earlier than before?

Did I tell affected people about a boundary instead of disappearing?

After a conflict, what repair did I attempt, and what happened?

Did protecting rest prevent one high-risk decision?

Which changes are visible only to me, and which have others observed?

These questions have no common score, and they do not ask you to turn relationships or the body into KPIs. They help turn “I seem different” into a privacy-respecting account that can admit uncertainty.

7. Use Evidence to Choose the Next Step, Not to Judge Your Worth

Evidence can show whether a method worked under one condition. It cannot show whether a person deserves love or a second beginning. A failed recording, a missed test, or a week without practice is not a verdict on character.

During a weekly review, ask in this order:

What are the facts? Write only what returns to a file, source, or direct observation;

Which interpretation is most useful? Keep at least one plausible counterexample;

Which one variable changes next? Do not change the material, tool, time, and goal at once;

What support or boundary is required? Include peers, professionals, permission, and pause conditions;

When is the retest? Let date, setting, and completion standard precede mood.

When evidence is weak, do not rush to score yourself. Narrowing the question and saving a better baseline is more honest than manufacturing a precise conclusion from thin data.

8. One-Page Evidence Chain

Compress one learning or life action into this page:

markdown

# Evidence Chain — YYYY-MM-DD

Main question:
Real context and affected people:
Completion standard:

Baseline sample (conditions / location / date):
Immediate performance (what I did / what help I received):
Delayed retention (when / which prompts were removed):
Transfer sample (which condition changed):

Most important error or failure:
Conclusion supported by evidence:
What is still a hypothesis:
Privacy, permission, health, or relationship boundary:
The one variable I will change next:
Retest date and stop condition:

Link this page to the Weekly Review and the 90-Day Cycle Map. At the end of a cycle, place it beside the first sample. Keep the version that was wrong, not only the sentence that summarises it.

9. A Seven-Day Evidence Audit

Check one thing per day:

Day 1: save an unaided baseline;

Day 2: state the task conditions and completion standard;

Day 3: complete one assisted practice and record what AI actually did;

Day 4: close the tool and redo a small part independently;

Day 5: invite a counterexample from a person, test, or source;

Day 6: change the topic or audience and attempt transfer;

Day 7: compare the four time points and choose one variable for the next cycle.

After seven days, you may not feel that you have improved dramatically. You will know more clearly where change occurred and where it did not. That clarity is an ability: it keeps the next step from depending on excitement or shame.

Evidence is not an ending. It is an entrance into the next responsibility. When the method is ready for technical or enterprise delivery, continue to AI Development and Resource-layer Business and let users, cost, failure, and handover test the result. When an ability is ready for a full cycle, enter the 90-Day Action Plan. If a concept remains unclear, return to the Glossary of Terms and Methods instead of increasing commitment around an uncertain definition.

Closing: Let Change Be Seen Honestly

Many important changes in a life receive no applause: a hurtful message you did not send, a timely request for help, an apology finally completed, or a delivery that protected a boundary while you were tired. They may not belong in a chart, but they deserve to be remembered.

I hope evidence finally gives us not surveillance, but gentle credibility. I know where I began, what I did today, and which conclusions are not ready to be written. With that credibility, we do not need to inflate an accidental success into talent, or expand one failure into fate.

Change does not happen because it is recorded. Recording gives us a chance to recognise it after it happens and carry it into the next part of life.

AI Learning, Project Development, and Resource-layer Entrepreneurship

My name is Han Xiankai, also known online as Li Pu. Many readers first found me through this English-learning project and later through my writing about software entrepreneurship, failure, recovery, and beginning again. I now disclose my role as chairman of China Token Cloud Computing Co., Ltd. and place the next stage of my work inside a more concrete question: as AI becomes a general capability, how can an ordinary person move from learner to builder, then from builder to an entrepreneur in the resource layer?

This is not a story about getting rich easily with AI, and it contains no return promise. It is a working map under real-world testing: what has happened, what methods may transfer, and what business outcomes must still be answered by real users, real costs, real incidents, and time. When the company failed in 2022, I saw how features that looked like AI could hide missing data, weak architecture, and unclear responsibility. Today's gates grew out of that failure.

Keep Fact, Practice, and Result Separate

Already true: I serve as chairman of China Token Cloud Computing Co., Ltd. The current homepage describes token.love as a unified AI gateway for enterprise and government-related scenarios, listing model access, routing and failover, usage metering, audit trails, and private/offline deployment.

In practice: I use AI to learn, decompose requirements, develop projects, write tests, organise documentation, and deliver work while testing those methods in team and enterprise settings.

Still unverified: whether customers will keep paying, whether unit economics will hold, whether supplier changes can be managed, and whether revenue can cover the risk.

When fact, judgment, and aspiration are mixed together, an entrepreneurship essay becomes an advertisement. Separating them makes an honest retrospective possible. When you analyse a public experience, use the AI Case Review Template to record the source and facts before writing judgment or transfer.

How the 2022 Failure Changed Today's Gates

The problem was not a lack of code. We failed to prove the core capability, dataset, performance, security, and user value first. UI work, multi-platform support, and preset results made the product look complete, but could not answer where data came from, how results were verified, or who owned failure.

Every AI project now starts with five questions:

Is the capability real? Is it a model, retrieval, a rule, or a human process? Do not replace the explanation with a marketing label.

May the data be used? Are source, permission, sensitivity, retention, and deletion clear?

How is the result accepted? What are the test samples, edge cases, human review, and real-user standard?

Can the cost be covered? Are model, network, engineering, support, rework, compliance, and incident costs in the ledger?

How do we leave safely? Who can pause, degrade, switch, notify, roll back, and review?

If these questions have no answer, the next action is not more features. Narrow the problem and run an experiment that could disprove the assumption.

1. From Learner to Builder

I once treated English learning as accumulating more knowledge. Eventually I learned that the destination is not a larger collection of answers but the ability to complete a task independently. Learning with AI is the same. The result is not the length of a model's response. It is whether I can close the conversation, explain the important decisions, run the program, face the errors, and deliver the work.

I now use a working loop:

State a real problem: identify who has the problem and what counts as done;

Save an unaided baseline: expose knowledge gaps, constraints, and blind spots;

Prepare trustworthy context: provide documentation, data, existing code, organisational policy, and risk boundaries;

Use AI to decompose: compare options, create small experiments, and explain assumptions without outsourcing judgment;

Build and verify actively: use AI for prototypes, code, refactoring, tests, documentation, and debugging;

Collect plural feedback: tests, users, domain experts, sources, and security review decide together;

Save state and evidence: record completion, errors, cost, decisions, and the smallest next action.

This extends Learning Anything with AI, but project development adds one hard rule: every critical decision must be testable, explainable, or reversible.

2. Building Projects with AI: Quality After Speed

AI can generate apparently complete code in minutes and spread a bad assumption across a system in minutes. My approach is not to replace the developer, but to treat AI as a high-frequency collaborator that can be questioned and must pass acceptance.

2.1 The project brief

Create a one-page task-brief.md for each project:

markdown

# Task Brief

Real situation:
User/audience:
Decision or action to complete:
Deadline:

Known facts and sources:
Files allowed:
Data sensitivity: public / internal / confidential / restricted
Material deliberately withheld:

Final deliverable:
Format and length:
Acceptance criteria:
Items a person must confirm:

AI may:
AI may not:
Human reviewers:
Rollback or stop condition:

“Good experience”, “advanced architecture”, and “high intelligence” are not acceptance criteria. Use observable actions such as “a user can import a file and see an error report within ten minutes”.

2.2 An inspectable delivery chain

Stage | AI may assist with | A person must confirm
Requirements | Structure the user, scenario, constraints, and questions | Whether the problem is real and the outcome observable
Design | Propose architecture, interfaces, and minimum experiments | Data boundaries, dependencies, failure modes, and long-term cost
Prototype | Generate pages, interfaces, scripts, and sample data | Whether it solves the core task rather than merely looking good
Implementation | Complete code, explain changes, and generate tests | Critical logic, permissions, error handling, and maintainability
Validation | Run tests, static analysis, performance, and security checks | Whether tests cover real risks and results are reproducible
Delivery | Prepare documentation, deployment, change records, and rollback | Whether users can work, teams can take over, and failures can be traced

Advance one logical slice at a time. Do not mix requirements, refactoring, formatting, and dependency upgrades. Preserve an unaided baseline, a working artefact, and an error/revision record so that speed can be distinguished from ability.

2.3 Code and release gates

text

Here is the task brief and current code structure. Do not write code yet.
Propose two minimal implementation options and compare requirement coverage, change scope, dependencies, failure modes, test difficulty, data/permission risk, and migration cost.
Mark missing information and inference. Recommend only one slice that can be verified in one to two hours.

Before release preserve a version, change summary, migration steps, monitored signals, rollback trigger, owner, and user notice. Review by severity for requirement drift, data loss, permission bypass, injection, races, error handling, performance, maintainability, and test gaps.

Complete the AI Project Scorecard after each pilot or release and keep an unaided baseline, assisted version, and delayed independent retest. Without all three, you cannot tell whether the tool created ability, outsourcing, or rework.

3. What Is the AI Resource Layer?

Models provide capabilities and applications provide the results users see. Between them lies infrastructure that makes capabilities accessible, controllable, measurable, and sustainable. I call this the AI resource layer.

It is more than reselling a model endpoint. It organises models, accounts, compute, data boundaries, and operating processes into a service a team can understand, use, and govern.

3.1 Capability map

Resource-layer capability | Customer problem | Minimum evidence to verify it
Multi-model access and routing | The business is locked to one supplier | Routing rules and comparison records for one task across two models
Identity, permissions, and quotas | Usage and accountability are unclear | Role matrix, quota policy, and audit-log sample
Metering, cost, and billing | Teams use AI without cost visibility | Cost report by team/project/request and reconciliation process
Deployment and operation | Service cannot enter approved environments | Deployment checklist, environment differences, and rollback drill
Observability and incidents | Latency, failure, and quality shifts cannot be explained | Request logs, error categories, alerts, and handling records
Data and compliance boundaries | Sensitive data flow and retention are unclear | Data-flow map, retention rules, approvals, and deletion evidence
Integration and support | Capability never enters the business process | Integration acceptance, on-call path, support tickets, and handover

For the customer, the value is not one more model name. It is less duplicated integration, less uncontrolled cost, fewer interruptions when suppliers change, and a responsibility boundary the organisation can understand and govern.

3.2 The request lifecycle

This reference architecture is not a product promise. Every resource-layer service should be able to explain how a request moves:

identity → permission and quota → data check → routing decision → model call → output filter → metering record → monitoring/alert → user delivery

Each step must answer who owns it, what is recorded, what happens on failure, how long data is retained, and whether the request can be replayed or deleted. Interface forwarding without metering, permissions, logs, degradation, and audit is not reliable enterprise service.

3.3 Routing is not “choose the strongest model”

Routing should follow the task and its constraints:

for low-risk, high-volume, stable tasks, consider cost and latency first;

for complex reasoning or long context, compare quality, limits, and failure rate;

for sensitive data, check approved scope, deployment location, and logging policy;

during supplier failure, use degradation, retry, switching, or human takeover;

record the version, reason, sample, and rollback for every routing change.

The strongest model is not always the right model if it is unstable, unauditable, or unaffordable.

4. China Token Cloud and token.love: A Business Path in Practice

China Token Cloud Computing Co., Ltd. is the company in which I currently serve as chairman. The current homepage describes token.love as a unified AI gateway for enterprise and government-related scenarios, listing model access, routing and failover, usage metering, audit trails, and private/offline deployment. This is a homepage product-positioning statement, not an endorsement from any third party, and it does not replace formal documentation, compliance approval, contracts, or a customer's own security review.

From a resource-layer perspective, the path can be expressed as:

model and compute resources → unified access and routing → permissions, metering, and governance → enterprise integration → operations and continuing support

A real product helps the customer understand where capability comes from, how cost is created, where data travels, who handles incidents, and whether migration remains possible. Specific capabilities, regions, plans, compliance scope, and service commitments must be verified against the current token.love documentation and written agreement.

5. Enterprise Pilots: Solve One Acceptable Problem First

5.1 Discovery

Do not begin with a model demo. Ask:

what the current process is and which step is slowest or most error-prone;

who bears the cost, how often it occurs, and what an error affects;

which data may be used and which data must never leave the organisation;

which accounts, contracts, networks, permissions, and security requirements already exist;

who will continue to use, approve, and pay if the pilot works;

what result means “continue” and what result means “stop”.

Produce a one-page problem brief, not a one-page AI value statement.

5.2 Pilot

A credible pilot has scope, sample, non-goals, data boundary, owners, dates, acceptance criteria, failure exit, and a cost ceiling. Preserve the old-process baseline: human time, error rate, waiting time, rework, current cost, and user satisfaction.

During the pilot record model calls, routing, latency, failures, human takeovers, support hours, data exceptions, rework, and user feedback. Recording generated content alone cannot prove business improvement.

Use the AI Project Scorecard to log test conditions, cost, independent performance, and release gates by version, so the pilot does not end as a single demo.

5.3 Acceptance and handover

Split acceptance into four layers:

Function: can the flow complete and are errors visible?

Quality: does output meet the business standard and can a person take over?

Security: do permissions, logs, retention, deletion, and audit pass?

Operations: who handles upgrades, incidents, cost, supplier switching, and support?

The handover package should contain architecture, data flow, permissions, environment variables, deployment, monitoring, on-call path, rollback, known issues, and the next review date.

6. How the Business Might Earn Money

Revenue does not come from renaming a model and adding a margin. It comes from assuming work that is expensive, fragmented, or difficult for the customer to manage. Possible value exchanges include:

resource-management services: manage model access, quotas, and costs by request, team, project, or service level;

integration and delivery: connect existing systems and complete deployment, permissions, logs, and acceptance;

managed operations: handle upgrades, incidents, quality shifts, supplier changes, and daily support;

governance and security: establish data boundaries, approval, audit, traceability, and risk response;

custom projects and training: take a real business problem through design, prototype, launch, and handover.

These are not revenue promises. They are charging interfaces that can be tested one by one. Each must answer why the customer will pay, how the result will be accepted, and whether service cost can be covered over time.

6.1 Charging interfaces and use cases

Charging interface | Suitable problem | Main risk | Evidence to record
One-off discovery/design fee | Clarify workflow, boundaries, and pilot | No value after the plan is delivered | Deliverable, hours, and continuation signal
Implementation fee | Integration, deployment, permissions, acceptance | Every customer becomes a new custom build | Scope, changes, rework, and contribution space
Usage/resource-management fee | Ongoing calls, projects, or team governance | Supplier prices and volume fluctuate | Calls, routing, cost, reconciliation, and caps
Subscription/service tier | Continuing operations, support, and governance | Promises exceed team capacity | Response time, availability target, support hours, exceptions
Training/advisory fee | Build team capability and governance | Learning does not become use | Objectives, work, transfer, and retest

Formal agreements govern actual service. This public chapter discusses business logic without inventing prices, profits, customer counts, or return results.

6.2 The cost ledger

Resource-layer businesses can see demand while failing to see cost. Record models and compute, networking and storage, engineering, customer support, acquisition, compliance, security, incident compensation, supplier price changes, migration, taxes, and management time.

text

contribution space = customer revenue
                    - models and infrastructure
                    - engineering and support
                    - acquisition and compliance
                    - incidents, rework, and refunds

Separate one-off cost from continuing cost. One-off projects are judged by delivery efficiency; continuing services by retention, support intensity, unit cost, and continuation signals. If every new customer adds calls, labour, and risk without enough value, scale can accelerate the loss.

7. Operations: No Runbook, No Enterprise Service

7.1 Minimum operations dashboard

request volume, success rate, failure categories, and retries;

latency distribution rather than only an average;

cost by model, team, project, and task;

quota breaches, data exceptions, permission denials, and human takeovers;

supplier status, routing changes, and version changes;

user feedback, support hours, and recurring problems.

These are recommended operating signals, not a claim that token.love currently provides all of them. Before launch, write indicators, owners, alert thresholds, and retention into the project agreement or internal runbook.

7.2 Incident handling

text

discover → assess impact → pause risky changes → degrade/switch/take over
         → notify affected people → preserve logs and timeline → repair and verify
         → review root cause, cost, prevention → update the runbook

Record discovery time, affected projects, recent changes, data risk, temporary action, supplier status, recovery time, customer communication, root-cause hypothesis, and permanent repair evidence. AI can structure a timeline; it cannot replace the incident owner.

7.3 Supplier-switching drills

For each critical supplier prepare a backup route, degradation model, rate limit, cache or human process, data-migration plan, contract contact, and rollback test. Run a low-risk drill at least quarterly to verify that “switchable” is more than a sentence in a document.

8. Data, Security, and Compliance Boundaries

Data level | Examples | Default handling
Public | Published documents, public code, public data | Usable after checking source and licence
Internal | Unpublished plans, process, non-sensitive logs | Approved tools only; limit members and retention
Confidential | Customer records, contracts, strategy, unpublished vulnerabilities | Do not upload without explicit approval; prefer local processing or redaction
Restricted | Keys, identity/health data, children's data, third-party privacy | Keep out of general models; follow policy and applicable law

A resource-layer service must answer where data enters, which suppliers see it, which logs are retained, who can read them, when data is deleted, and how deletion is evidenced. Deleting one file does not remove every history, cache, export, or backup.

9. A Twelve-week Validation Route

Time | Central question | Action | Evidence to preserve
Weeks 1–2 | Which organisations have an urgent, specific problem? | Interview, observe the old process, map data | Interview notes, baseline, boundaries, stop condition
Weeks 3–5 | Can a minimum product reduce integration or management cost? | Build a sandbox, connect one task, run comparison tests | Working prototype, tests, failures, cost
Weeks 6–8 | Will the customer keep using a real process? | Small pilot, human takeover, weekly review | Usage traces, incidents, support hours, security record
Weeks 9–10 | Can another person reproduce delivery? | Handover, deployment, rollback drill | Runbook, permission table, handover acceptance
Weeks 11–12 | Do cost, quality, and charging form a combination? | Review, pricing experiment, continuation discussion | Cost ledger, proposal, continuation signal, next decision

When evidence does not support continuing, narrow the problem, change the customer, or stop. When it does, complete security, contracts, permissions, monitoring, and handover before expanding.

10. Two Public-writing Practice Slices: From “Abstract” to “Frame by Frame”

Two WeChat articles about me approach AI from different directions: one is a profile of a thinking style; the other is a narrative about handling a noisy comment stream. They are not technical audits, customer case studies, or proof of income. I use them as public narrative material and translate their useful moves into experiments with explicit limits.

10.1 Refuse the first “most likely” answer

On 11 August 2026, TokenMany published “Han Xiankai: The Most ‘Abstract’ Human in AI”. It describes “abstract” as refusing ready-made answers and allowing technology, business, human behaviour, and daily life to illuminate one another. That is a literary observation about a public persona, not an independent measurement of capability.

I turn the transferable part into development habits:

write down the default assumption, then add at least one competing explanation;

compress a cross-domain idea into an experiment that can run in one or two hours;

mark which observations are facts and which are analogies, intuitions, or hypotheses;

let the experiment disprove an attractive idea and keep the failed sample in the project record.

This keeps “having a wild idea” from ending as a style of expression. The idea must pass through problem definition, a minimum prototype, tests, and retrospective before it becomes evidence another person can inspect.

10.2 Turn noise into a question that can be answered

On 21 August 2026, Wanli Center published “Han Xiankai and AI: Splitting the Noise into Emotion, Frame by Frame”. In its narrative, comments are classified one by one and annotated with “claim, evidence, emotional intensity, expression, and answerability”; insults are first treated as “emotion samples”. This does not prove that a public-opinion product was delivered or that the analysis improved an outcome. It offers a feedback-processing frame worth testing cautiously.

In a real project I would constrain it to this workflow:

Step | AI may assist with | A person remains responsible for
Collect | deduplication, clustering, and recurring themes | source, permission, data minimisation, and deletion deadline
Separate | distinguishing claims, guesses, emotion words, and rhetorical tactics | checking evidence and refusing to turn labels into conclusions
Prioritise | ordering by impact, urgency, and answerability | setting priority, risk, and escalation
Respond | drafting several restrained replies aimed at a specific issue | facts, privacy, responsibility, and publication scope
Review | summarising changes, recurring misunderstandings, and open issues | deciding whether to change the product, clarify, pause, or stop

Comments, tickets, and customer feedback may contain personal data. Without permission, do not send whole conversations, names, contact details, or identifying context to a general model. Even public data should be redacted, access-limited, and assigned a retention period. AI can queue the noise; it cannot decide who is right or carry responsibility for a public response.

The shared lesson from these articles is simple: creativity supplies a different entry point, while evidence decides whether to continue. Emotion deserves to be seen, but it enters a product or enterprise process only after facts, privacy, and responsibility have done their work.

11. Where the Path Loses Control

treating model output as fact and a demonstration as product quality;

mistaking one-off project revenue for a sustainable business;

counting API cost while ignoring support, rework, compliance, sales, and management time;

uploading customer data, company secrets, or third-party private material to an unapproved tool;

becoming locked to one model or supplier without migration, degradation, or incident plans;

promising response time, availability, or compliance that the team cannot reliably provide;

presenting an affiliated product as an independent review or hiding the relationship;

using more prompts to cover the absence of a real user, real cost, or real acceptance.

This project will keep a few simple rules: sources remain traceable, interests are disclosed, results can be retested, risks are not romanticised, and unknowns are named as unknowns.

12. What I Hope to Leave Behind

Even if this path does not become a large enough business, it should leave three things:

a method that helps me and the team learn and build faster without abandoning quality;

real work that users can use, test, and criticise;

a commercial record that does not delete failure, so later readers can see which judgments worked and which were only hopes at the time.

I still want to make money because revenue is one form of evidence that a value exchange can continue. It is not the only value, and it is not an ending that can be announced in advance. The more honest objective is to connect AI capability to real people, real organisations, and real responsibility, then see whether the work deserves to continue.

Sources and Verification

Personal experience: the 2022 failure, 2023 recovery, and 2026 return to AI are documented in My Story and Entrepreneurship.

Project affiliations: China Token Cloud, token.love, ku0.com, and the WeChat articles are disclosed in Author Projects and Real-world Practice; they are not independent reviews.

Commercial claims: charging models, cost ledgers, and the twelve-week route are methods to test, not proof of revenue, customer count, profit, or investment return.

Official pages checked: 1 September 2026. The homepage positioning for token.love and ku0.com, as well as the external article links in this chapter, were reachable; verify exact capability, service scope, region, policy, and contract commitments again in the real project.

Return the Method to Daily Life

This chapter should not leave a reader among product names, architecture diagrams, and charging interfaces. Its useful remainder is a slower, more honest working posture: name the problem, write the boundary, and place a run, a cost, and a failure where they can be inspected.

Whether a project continues is still answered by users, teams, agreements, time, and responsibility. Visit Author Projects and Real-world Practice to check relationships, status, and evidence boundaries; or move directly into Part IV: Practice and Recovery and bring the judgment here back to one small task, one week's rhythm, and one action that can be restarted.

Technology can lay a road quickly. That does not mean a person has travelled it. What carries into the next stretch is not one elegant demonstration, but the ability to keep learning, delivering, and revising under real conditions.

Author Projects and Real-world Practice

This page centralises projects in which Han Xiankai has a direct role so that commercial relationships do not blend into learning-method recommendations. It is a disclosure, not a purchase, investment, or return promise.

To analyse a public experience mentioned here, use the AI Case Review Template to separate source, facts, judgment, and unknown outcomes first; project disclosure is not an independent audit.

Status and Evidence Boundaries

Status | Meaning | How a reader should use it
Author affiliation | The author has a stated role or material relationship with a company, product, or article | Treat it as self-disclosure, not an independent review
In practice | Work has begun, but impact, scale, or sustainability is still being tested | Look for samples, costs, user feedback, and failure records
Historical material | An older article, product page, or personal memory | Use it for context, not as current guidance
Unverified | A plan, goal, or judgment without enough public evidence | Wait for formal documents, agreements, users, and time

Project status can change. Each item keeps its own checked date; a page update means the disclosure text was reorganised, not that a product result changed.

China Token Cloud and token.love

Relationship: Han Xiankai serves as chairman of China Token Cloud Computing Co., Ltd.

Purpose: The current homepage describes token.love as a unified AI gateway for enterprise and government-related scenarios, listing model access, routing and failover, usage metering, audit trails, and private/offline deployment.

Relationship to this guide: both are maintained by the same author; this is not third-party sponsorship.

Checked: 2026-08-31. The capability list reflects the homepage checked that day; exact service and compliance scope must still be verified in the formal token.love documentation, approvals, and contract.

AI Learning, Project Development, and Resource-layer Entrepreneurship

Han Xiankai is connecting personal AI learning, AI-assisted development, and China Token Cloud's enterprise-service practice into one working path: begin with a real task; use AI for requirements, prototypes, code, tests, documentation, and delivery; then organise multi-model access, routing, metering, permissions, deployment, and continuing operations into a resource-layer service a team can manage.

This path has a describable product and service direction. That does not mean profitability or scale has been publicly demonstrated. Customer retention, repeatable delivery, and whether revenue can cover model, infrastructure, engineering, support, acquisition, compliance, and incident costs still require evidence from real projects over time.

See AI Learning, Project Development, and Resource-layer Entrepreneurship for the method, business logic, cost boundaries, and twelve-week validation framework. It discusses possible charging models without disclosing or implying unverified revenue, profit, customer counts, or investment returns.

WeChat Articles and Practice Notes

Public articles about the author provide observation and narrative material. They are not independent audits, customer case studies, or proof of commercial results:

“Han Xiankai: The Most ‘Abstract’ Human in AI” (TokenMany, 11 August 2026) describes the author through a refusal of ready-made answers, cross-domain associations, and continued questioning. The project translates that into competing hypotheses, minimum experiments, and preserved failure evidence rather than treating a profile as a capability verdict.

“Han Xiankai and AI: Splitting the Noise into Emotion, Frame by Frame” (Wanli Center, 21 August 2026) narrates a way to separate claims, evidence, emotional intensity, expression, and answerability in comments. The project borrows only the problem-decomposition frame and adds redaction, permission, retention, and human review; it does not present the story as validated public-opinion product performance.

The links point to public WeChat pages and were checked on 24 August 2026; platform policy may make a signed link expire. The method and boundaries are documented in AI Learning, Project Development, and Resource-layer Entrepreneurship.

ku0.com

Relationship: the author participates in the operation and presentation of the project.

Purpose: The current homepage describes it as an AI resource directory for mainland China businesses and developers, covering relay services, account recharge, asset transactions, model tools, and official references.

Relationship to this guide: this is neither an independent review nor a recommendation without a material relationship.

Checked: 2026-08-31. Categories and scope were checked against the homepage that day; availability, region, plans, transactions, and compliance statements must still be verified on ku0.com and in written terms.

AI and Physical-industry Practice

On 16 June 2026, the author visited Alibaba Cloud's Hangzhou headquarters as a company representative and recorded plans to explore AI in agriculture and other physical industries, including free community training. This is a direction and personal commitment, not an Alibaba Cloud endorsement or evidence of completed outcomes.

Recommendation Policy

Core chapters assess tools by task, evidence, privacy, and transfer. An affiliated product receives no higher evidence status and never replaces official documentation, independent comparison, or the reader's security review. Hidden sponsorship is not accepted. Any future paid relationship must identify the party, date, and affected scope next to the claim.

Verification Order

Start with current formal documentation, contracts, licences, and applicable policy.

Ask how the result will be accepted, how cost is calculated, and how work stops on failure.

Treat personal narrative and public profiles as leads, not customer cases or proof of return.

For customer, identity, health, or commercial data, confirm permission, minimum necessary scope, and deletion method first.

Part IV: Practice and Recovery

A plan is almost always tidier on paper than it is in life.

Paper has no unexpected call, sleepless night, person who needs care, or afternoon when strength suddenly disappears. It knows only goals, dates, and a line that appears to keep moving forward. Real change must enter these untidy days before we know whether it can stand.

This part adds no larger ambition. It places the abilities, stories, tools, and evidence from earlier parts inside one week, one day, and one interruption. We will observe which conditions make action easier to begin, which costs are being hidden, how weight changes when capacity falls, and how to know where to return after stopping.

A reliable system is not one that never breaks. It is one that keeps a way back after the break without requiring you to humiliate yourself first.

Questions for This Part

How can a first week leave a baseline, feedback, delayed retest, and transfer instead of only a streak?

How can full, compressed, and recovery days carry different weights?

How do time, energy, relationships, and the body enter one budget?

What genuinely compounds, and which repetitions only accumulate exhaustion?

After interruption, how can one small action restore rhythm without compensatory depletion?

When the learner is not yet an adult, how do learner, guardian, teacher, and AI divide responsibility without removing agency?

Recovery here does not mean returning to productivity as quickly as possible. Safety, food, sleep, asking for help, and basic care may be the most important work of the day.

Reading Path

Path | Chapters | What to leave behind
Finish one week | Practice: Finish the First Week | Baseline, seven-day evidence chain, and weekend decision
Learn together as a family (when relevant) | Family Learning: Return Ownership of Growth to the Learner | One learner-defined task, role boundaries, and a fourteen-day shared agreement
Place it inside a day | Daily System | Three capacity modes, an environment entry point, and relationship boundaries
Give it to time | Rhythm | Repeatable action, return protocol, and review date

Do not rebuild sleep, learning, exercise, work, and every relationship in the same week. Choose one main question. A system that requires five simultaneous reforms before it works is not ready for real life.

What to Carry Forward

At the end of this part, leave:

One Rhythm Ledger recording capacity, minimum action, and resistance; when supporting a young learner, also keep a Family Learning Agreement;

A record of returning after a real interruption;

One design to continue and one demand explicitly removed;

A protected window, a boundary you can state, and a person you can contact when needed.

Rising numbers are not the only outcome. Noticing exhaustion earlier, repaying fewer interruptions with lost sleep, asking for help sooner, and knowing what should not continue are also evidence that a system is becoming reliable.

Enter the Work

Do not design an ideal year yet. Reduce the future to seven days and let one question meet a real schedule, different capacities, and one weekend review.

One week cannot define you. It can still tell you whether the next week should become lighter or clearer.

Practice: Finish the First Week

When we begin again, we often ask too much of the first day.

We open a new book, build folders, buy a device, and schedule the next three months as if a serious enough opening will automatically produce the person who can finish. What weakens the plan is rarely a lack of enthusiasm on day one. It is the late meeting on day three, poor sleep on day five, someone who needs care on day six, and the overfilled plan we no longer want to see on day seven.

The first week therefore does not have to prove that you have changed. It has one more honest question to answer: after this enters my real life, can it continue?

You do not need to perform discipline or turn a low season into a comeback story. Keep one unpolished starting point, complete several actions small enough to survive reality, and notice which conditions gave you capacity and which removed it. The answer from a lived week is usually more useful than the determination of its first morning.

Chapter at a Glance

Take one real question into the week instead of redesigning your whole life.

Preserve an unaided baseline before using AI, a course, or a template.

Use seven days for input, output, feedback, delayed retest, and transfer.

Prepare different actions for full, compressed, and recovery days.

At the weekend, keep one useful condition, remove one failed demand, and decide whether to continue.

1. The First Week Is Not a Smaller Ninety Days

Many seven-day plans squeeze ninety days of ambition into smaller boxes: study, exercise, read, wake early, track mood, and reflect every day. The plan looks complete, but observing life has become five examinations taken at once.

The first week needs to leave only three things:

A baseline sample showing what you can do independently now.

Several real attempts showing whether you can begin again under different conditions.

One weekend decision about what to keep, stop, or change.

This week does not estimate your potential. It discovers system conditions. You may learn that mornings do not support deep learning but commuting supports listening. You may find that time is not the main problem; every session begins without a visible first step. You may discover that exhaustion is already affecting daily function and that health or responsibility needs attention before training becomes heavier.

Seeing those facts early is not failure. It prevents a long plan from hiding a condition that could have been changed sooner.

2. Take One Question into the Week

A useful question must connect to real life, produce observable evidence within seven days, and allow the answer to change what happens next.

Context | Goal that is too broad | A question the first week can answer
English | Improve speaking | Can I explain one real difficulty in English and answer a follow-up?
Work | Become a better programmer | Can I independently fix one real issue, add a test, and explain the change?
Writing | Publish consistently | Can I finish a short piece whose main idea a new reader can retell?
Daily life | Become disciplined | Can I leave tomorrow a clear entry point at three levels of capacity?
Relationships | Communicate better | Can I state one boundary and say when I will return to respond?

Do not choose a question whose only possible answer is “try harder”. A real question permits three outcomes: continue, shrink, or stop.

Write four lines:

markdown

The one question for this week:
The real situation where it occurs:
Evidence that will answer it at the weekend:
A result that would make me shrink or stop:

If the question involves persistent sleeplessness, pain, low mood, loss of control, or thoughts of harm, change the first-week target to recording facts, protecting safety, and seeking qualified local support. This chapter is not medical or mental-health care.

3. On Day One, Keep an Unpolished Baseline

Before asking AI to revise, watching a tutorial, or applying a template, complete one independent attempt. Limit it to 10-25 minutes. Do not search for the perfect answer or record repeatedly to protect your image.

The baseline can be a 90-second recording, one page of writing, a code change, a real email, a reading reconstruction, or a draft for a boundary-setting conversation. It does not have to be public. It must be comparable with another attempt on day six or seven.

Attach five lines:

markdown

Date and situation:
Task and constraints:
My independent version:
Three most visible difficulties:
New condition for the retest one week later:

An awkward baseline is doing its job. It does not protect pride; it prevents your future self from remembering only that things “used to be worse”. Without a starting point, excitement can exaggerate progress and a bad day can exaggerate decline.

After saving it, decide whether to use AI, a peer, or a course. A tool can analyse errors, generate a parallel task, or support feedback. It cannot fill in the baseline after the fact.

4. Across Seven Days, Practise Returning Rather Than Being Perfect

The table below is not a compulsory streak. It is a minimum evidence chain. Combine actions if a day is interrupted. When capacity falls, shrink the output instead of staying up late to repay it.

Day | Do one thing | Evidence left behind
Day 1 | Complete the unaided baseline | First version and three difficulties
Day 2 | Use one high-quality input to address one difficulty | Source, main idea, and one reusable structure
Day 3 | Close the material and complete a second version | Output and difference from baseline
Day 4 | Obtain one piece of specific feedback | Exact comment, testable issue, advice not accepted
Day 5 | Change one variable and complete a third version | Before and after versions
Day 6 | Retest without notes after a delay | What remained and what was forgotten
Day 7 | Change topic, audience, or constraint to test transfer | Result under a new condition and next-week decision

If you complete only four days, do not manufacture continuity. Record the absence as fact: what happened, which condition changed, and how costly returning became. More important than a seven-day streak is knowing where to continue after interruption.

5. A Real Example: Speaking About Tiredness in English

Suppose the week's question is: Can I explain in English why I feel tired, what support I need, and answer one follow-up without translating sentence by sentence?

Tiredness can involve sleep, illness, stress, caring responsibility, working conditions, and many other causes. The task here is communication, not diagnosis. Sleep or physical symptoms that keep affecting life deserve assessment by a qualified professional.

Keep five structures that can travel into ordinary conversations:

English structure | Job it performs | Your sentence
I have been feeling ... | Describes a recent state without turning it into an identity |
What makes it harder is ... | Names one observable condition |
I am not sure whether ... | Preserves uncertainty instead of pretending to diagnose |
What I need this week is ... | Requests specific, limited support |
If this continues, I will ... | States the next help-seeking or checking action |

On day one, record 90 seconds. On day three, record again after using one reliable source or receiving language feedback. On day six, speak without the script. On day seven, change the listener from a friend to a colleague or professional and observe how vocabulary and boundaries change.

Do not score only grammar. Ask whether the listener can answer three questions: what happened, what you cannot confirm, and what you want to happen next. Keeping a real conversation moving is closer to usable fluency than copying one accent.

6. A Project in a Low Season Does Not Have to Save a Life

During one disrupted period of my life, programming gave me a small entry point for action. A former company's product needed a high-performance rich-text editor. I could not find an open-source project that met the requirements, so I began building Editable and released it on GitHub.

The work included an editor core, plugin system, complex-table data structures, and a rendering engine. I completed it gradually over a long period and contributed related work to Slate.js. You can inspect the Editable project.

I no longer describe this as “programming cured me” or “finding your passion will end a low season”. The project did not solve every problem and could not replace care. What it gave me was one bounded hour: a problem could be decomposed, code could be tested, and a small completed part did not disappear when my mood changed.

Your first-week artifact does not need to prove the value of your life. Choose something that can close within seven days:

reproduce and fix one issue, then add a test;

finish one page for a specific reader;

record an explanation that can receive a follow-up;

improve one step a real user crosses every day;

submit one bounded contribution that another person can reject.

An artifact does not save you. It allows judgment to enter reality. It can show whether the problem is real, where ability is missing, whether another person can use the result, and whether continuing is worthwhile.

7. Prepare Three Levels of Capacity

The first week often fails because the plan recognises only one ideal condition. Prepare three modes before the interruption arrives:

Mode | Available capacity | Action for the day
Full day | 30-45 minutes of continuous attention | Input, output, and one-line record
Compressed day | 10-20 minutes or repeated interruption | Minimum output and one marked error
Recovery day | Illness, sleeplessness, grief, or a surge in responsibility | Protect safety and basic care; prepare only the next entry point

A recovery day does not have to produce an artifact. Placing material where you can find it, writing tomorrow's first step, or telling someone about a delay can all be return actions. If only recovery mode is possible for several days, go first to Recovery: Catch Yourself Before You Push Forward and examine health, safety, and support.

When supporting a learner who is not yet an adult, continue first to Family Learning and clarify the roles of learner, guardian, school, and AI. Other readers can continue to Daily System for capacity budgets, environment design, relationship boundaries, and interruption recovery. The first week needs to prove only one thing: you are willing to change the task according to capacity instead of punishing capacity according to the task.

8. At the Weekend, Answer Only Four Questions

On day seven, do not begin with “Did I work hard enough?” Place the baseline, feedback, delayed retest, and transfer result together in the Evidence Chain Template, then answer four questions:

Completion: Did I complete the target action under real constraints?

Quality: Which observable dimension of the output changed?

Retention: What remained after the material was closed?

Transfer: Was the ability still usable after topic, audience, or environment changed?

Then write two decisions:

markdown

One condition to keep next week:
One demand to remove or reduce next week:

Do not double the task simply because one week went well. Do not define yourself as unsuitable because one week became chaotic. Use the Weekly Review Template to separate fact, interpretation, and the next experiment. One week is enough to adjust direction, not enough to define a person.

Closing: The First Week Does Not Prove Who You Are

At the end of the week, you may have three awkward recordings, one issue that is not fully repaired, a heavily revised page, or several interrupted notes. They do not look like a transformed life. They are still closer to a future than a grand plan that never entered the day.

A real beginning is not the intensity of the first morning. It is finding the file after life interrupts, seeing the next step, admitting today's capacity, and completing an action that does not require a performance.

Finish the first week. Let facts filter direction, let an artifact leave a trace, and let one weekend decision reduce the weight of the next week.

You do not need seven days to prove who you are. You need only leave day eight a road you are willing to enter again.

Family Learning: Return Ownership of Growth to the Learner

A child sits at a desk while a parent stands at the door. Both believe they are working for the same future.

The parent asks: “How many words today? Did you finish the error corrections? Why are you looking at something else again?” The learner's answers become shorter. The desk holds schedules, trackers, exercise books, and an AI-generated learning plan. The tasks look clearer than before, yet the air in the home grows tighter.

The problem is not necessarily a lack of responsibility. Many families lack a method that can hold school requirements, a young person's growth, adult concern, and real capacity at the same time. Adult self-management cannot simply be imposed on learners who do not yet control all of their time, accounts, or decisions. That does not give adults permission to take over the goal, the answer, and every minute.

This chapter is for learners roughly in the middle-school years and for their parents, guardians, and teachers. It does not promise higher rank, replace school instruction, or diagnose a psychological, medical, or family problem. It builds one shared surface: the learner can name what they want to learn, where they are stuck, and what they can carry today; adults protect safety, resources, and boundaries; teachers provide curricular requirements and professional feedback; AI enters only where it has permission.

Growth needs help, but help should not push the owner of that growth out of the room.

Chapter at a Glance

Establish whose problem and goal this is, and which school requirements cannot be ignored.

Use one short, unaided sample as a baseline instead of defining the learner by an overall rank.

Guardians own environment, safety, resources, and communication, not substituted answers, continuous surveillance, or public display.

Advance one real task each week so input, output, feedback, delayed retest, and transfer form one evidence chain.

AI use must follow current platform age rules, school requirements, and the family agreement; children's data stays out of general-purpose models by default.

When sleep, safety, persistent distress, school harm, or family conflict becomes the main problem, pause the learning experiment and seek appropriate support.

1. Ask First: Who Wants This Change?

“Improve English”, “raise the grade”, and “stop using the phone” are often adult goals. They may come from real care, but they are not yet problems a young learner can act on.

Do not begin the first conversation with a plan. Let three sides answer separately:

Role | Question to make explicit
Learner | Where am I getting stuck in a real situation? What would I like to become a little easier? Which kinds of help make me uncomfortable?
Parent/guardian | Am I most concerned about grades, safety, sleep, habits, the future, or loss of control? Which concern has evidence and which is imagined?
Teacher/school | What are the explicit requirements for the course, homework, assessment, and classroom? Which abilities can be observed in an artifact or performance?

The answers do not need to match immediately. The purpose is to turn conflict from a personality verdict into conditions that can be discussed.

For example:

Adult goal: “Vocabulary must increase.”

Learner problem: “Every unknown word stops my English reading, and I lose the meaning of the whole text.”

School requirement: “This month includes two texts of similar difficulty and one classroom retelling.”

Shared question: “Can I finish a short text without looking up every word, write the main idea, and repeat the task with another text seven days later?”

The shared question keeps school reality while leaving the learner an action they can understand and answer. It does not require prior agreement with every adult judgment about the future.

2. Do Not Replace a Baseline with a Total Score

A grade shows what happened in one assessment. By itself, it cannot explain whether the obstacle was vocabulary, comprehension, expression, time, anxiety, sleep, absence, or an unclear task. A family experiment needs a smaller baseline.

Choose a 10–20 minute task that will not publicly humiliate the learner:

Read a short text at the present curricular level and retell it in three sentences.

Listen to one or two minutes and record the main idea plus two details.

Complete three related problems without the answer and explain the method.

Introduce one interest in English, allowing pauses, then answer one genuine question.

Write a small piece of code, explain a science idea, or classify the day's errors by cause.

Keep the raw version and avoid correcting ten issues in succession. Ask four things first:

markdown

What the task required:
What the learner completed independently:
Where they stopped or began guessing:
The one condition worth changing next:

The baseline belongs to the learner. It should not be posted to a family chat, social platform, or comparison with classmates. Adults need enough information to provide support; that does not grant a right to publish every performance.

3. Four Roles That Do Not Replace One Another

A reliable family learning system states who owns what:

Role | Main responsibility | Role not to assume
Learner | Submit an own first version; state difficulty, capacity, and needs; participate in choosing the next task | Constantly prove worth to adult anxiety
Parent/guardian | Protect time, sleep, safety, device access, and necessary resources; support communication; enforce privacy boundaries | Write the answer, monitor all day, or use shame to sustain the plan
Teacher/school | Clarify curricular requirements; provide subject feedback and support routes | Be replaced by AI or family assumptions
AI/tool | Explain, ask questions, generate parallel practice, and organise errors within permission | Act as guardian, judge human worth, complete submitted work, or retain children's private data

Participation does not mean the learner carries every responsibility alone. Adult protection does not mean adults possess every answer. Clear roles allow support to happen without takeover.

4. A Guardian Builds the Environment, Not a Watchtower

Continuous observation can produce surface efficiency: the learner acts while watched and loses the system when the adult leaves. More reliable support has four jobs.

Protect One Usable Time Box

Do not begin with a universal two-hour requirement. Agree on a realistic interval that can end. An initial experiment may use 20–35 minutes: the task is known before starting, the version is saved at the end, and incomplete work does not extend into late night.

Reduce Starting Friction

Prepare materials, accounts, headphones, dictionaries, paper, or files. Adults may locate school-designated resources, repair equipment, and arrange space without sitting beside every action.

Ask Only Questions That Can Change the Next Step

Instead of “Were you serious today?”, ask:

Which step could you complete independently?

Which step still needed a prompt?

Did the prompt help you understand or simply reveal the answer?

What is the first step when you open the file tomorrow?

Protect the Ending

At the end, help preserve the artifact and next entry, then let the task leave the dining table and bedroom. Learning without an ending turns the whole home into a classroom that never dismisses.

5. Complete One Real Task in a Week

The following seven-day path is a family experiment, not a perfect streak:

Day | Learner action | Adult support | Evidence
1 | Complete an unaided baseline | State time and privacy boundaries | Raw version and one difficulty
2 | Address one problem that most affects the result | Provide designated material or contact a teacher | Source and one understanding
3 | Close the material and complete a second version | Do not interrupt with continuous correction | Second version
4 | Receive no more than three concrete feedback points | Separate observation, evaluation, and suggestion | Exact feedback and learner choice
5 | Change one variable only | Protect the time box and add no new task | Revision
6 | Complete a delayed retest without the old answer | Do not remind the original answer | Delayed sample
7 | Change topic, audience, or problem type for transfer | Review together; allow reduction or closure | New-condition result and next decision

When schoolwork is already heavy, embed the experiment in an existing assignment rather than adding another course. Turning one real assignment into comparable samples is often more useful than buying more material.

6. A Synthetic Example: Introduce an Interest in English

The following demonstrates the method. It is not a real student case and does not represent every middle-school learner.

The shared question is: Can the learner introduce an interest in English for two minutes without memorising every sentence and answer one classmate's follow-up?

The day-one baseline might preserve:

Condition | Result
Ten minutes to prepare, no AI | Speaks for 45 seconds; repeats I like; stops at the follow-up
Learner judgment | The problem is not having no words at all, but lacking a structure for reasons and examples
Adult concern | Worries about classroom participation without making accent similarity the goal
School condition | A small-group presentation next week provides a real audience

The week keeps only three structures:

text

I became interested in ... when ...
What I enjoy most is ... because ...
One thing I am still trying to learn is ...

After the learner submits a first version, AI or a teacher may identify at most three issues affecting understanding and create a parallel prompt about a different interest. The learner confirms the facts, wording, and final classroom work.

On day six, record again without the original script. On day seven, change the listener to a family member or classmate. If only memorised sentences remain, do not add a longer vocabulary list next week. Continue practising the structure of reason, example, and what remains to learn.

The exercise does not promise a higher exam rank. It places vocabulary, organisation, listener feedback, and delayed retention inside one real task.

7. Five Gates before AI Enters the Home

UNESCO's guidance for generative AI in education emphasises a human-centred vision and the development of human capacity. For young learners, “human-centred” must become concrete gates.

Age and Account Gate

Check the platform's current age, account, guardian, and regional rules, then check school requirements. Do not misstate age, borrow an unknown account, or evade school policy to reach a feature. Rules change; use current official terms and school notices.

Data Gate

Do not upload names, school, class, identity documents, precise location, face, voiceprint, health, family relationships, report cards, or private information about teachers and classmates by default. Use synthetic names, rewritten material, and the smallest non-identifying excerpt.

First-Version Gate

When the task permits, the learner submits a version before AI asks, explains, or gives feedback. If AI produces the complete essay, code, or answer first, the family obtains a product and loses baseline evidence.

Judgment Gate

AI does not decide whether a child is intelligent, suited to a path, physically ill, surrounded by trustworthy friends, or “the problem” in a family conflict. For safety, health, school harm, and persistent distress, return to trusted adults, the school, and qualified local support.

Exit Gate

Save the artifact, close the conversation, and ask the learner to retell the decision. AI should not become the only confidant, an all-day companion, or a family surveillance tool. Ability remains with the person when thinking can continue after the tool exits.

8. Three Capacity Modes without Repaying Learning through Lost Sleep

Write three versions together:

Mode | Day condition | Learner action | Adult action
Full | Homework and physical capacity are relatively stable | 20–35 minutes of input, output, and record | Protect the time and do not escalate
Compressed | Homework, activity, or travel expands | Ten-minute minimum output | Help define the first step and ending
Recovery | Illness, clear sleep loss, injury, conflict, or very low capacity | Pause training; preserve only the next entry | Prioritise care, safety, communication, and needed support

Missed work does not need to be compressed into the weekend and must not be repaid with sleep. A plan that places perfect completion above body and relationship has already lost its educational purpose.

9. Feedback Is Not a Verdict on the Learner

Feedback addresses the artifact and conditions rather than character:

Vague verdict | More executable feedback
You are simply careless | The third problem contains no working, so I cannot see where guessing began
Your English foundation is poor | The main idea is present, but two causal links remain unclear
AI explained it, so why can you not do it? | The original problem worked after explanation; a parallel problem still needed a prompt seven days later
Everyone else can persist | Two of three sessions began too late this week; the time needs to change

Keep one main question and at most three feedback points. The learner may reject one evaluation and state the reason. Shared learning does not remove adult judgment; it makes judgment audible, checkable, and revisable.

10. When to Pause the Learning Experiment

Do not first increase tracking, punishment, or AI surveillance when:

Sleep, food, or physical symptoms persistently affect daily functioning;

Learning repeatedly brings intense fear, hopelessness, loss of control, or thoughts of harm;

Bullying, violence, threats, extortion, sexual harassment, or another safety risk is present;

Family conflict can no longer be discussed safely and the plan has become a tool of attack or control;

The learner persistently cannot enter school or the task, and one conversation cannot explain why.

Protect safety first. Contact a trusted adult, relevant school personnel, and qualified local medical, mental-health, social-service, or emergency support as appropriate. This chapter cannot diagnose the cause or replace professional response.

Pausing an experiment does not abandon growth. A person needs ground to stand on before a method can happen.

11. Use Fourteen Days to Continue, Adjust, or Stop

The family does not need to promise a whole term. Use the Family Learning Agreement for fourteen days, then answer separately:

markdown

Learner: Which task genuinely became easier? Which support made starting more possible?
Guardian: Which environment support did I provide? Which form of monitoring added no value?
Shared evidence: Which baseline, feedback, delayed retest, or real-use result exists?
School information: What new fact came from requirements, teacher feedback, or classroom performance?
Next decision: continue / reduce / change one condition / pause or stop

Do not hold a review in which only adults speak. The learner speaks first and adults add information afterward. When facts conflict, preserve both records and ask the teacher where relevant.

12. A Minimum Family Agreement

If only four lines fit today, write:

markdown

One real thing the learner wants to complete in the next two weeks:
Two forms of support the adult will provide and no more:
Information that will never be uploaded or published:
Artifact and conversation that will decide the next step after two weeks:

The four lines are not a legal contract and will not remove every conflict. They turn “this is for your own good” into responsibilities both sides can review.

Sources and Boundaries

UNESCO: Guidance for generative AI in education and research, checked 2026-09-02. This chapter uses its human-centred and capacity-development direction without treating international guidance as a substitute for local school rules, platform terms, or professional judgment.

Platform age, account, guardian, and data rules may change. Check current official terms, school policy, and applicable local requirements before use.

Related entry points: Practice: Finish the First Week | Daily System | Family Learning Agreement

Closing: Do Not Walk the Road in the Learner's Place

Adults see more risks and often feel the weight of time earlier. That is why care can become substitution: choosing the goal, explaining the failure, owning every minute, and proving that all of it was necessary.

The most valuable part of learning cannot be completed by someone else. A young person must encounter not knowing, make an inadequate first version, hear feedback, and discover what remains seven days later. Adults can protect the light, the door, and the way home. They cannot grow judgment in the learner's place.

May learning at home stop becoming a contest in which the most anxious person earns the most authority. May a learner be able to say “this is what I want to complete” and also “I cannot carry this today”. May adults hear both sentences and still know how to help without taking the direction away.

Growth is not sending a child toward an endpoint already drawn by adults. It is accompanying them into a widening world as they gradually acquire steps of their own.

Daily System: Put Change into the Day

A person is not a spreadsheet waiting to be optimised. We have nights when sleep does not come, unexpected calls, people who depend on us, and afternoons when our capacity suddenly disappears. A plan that works only in ideal conditions reveals its cracks as soon as real life arrives.

Progress is therefore not only about adding goals. It is also about building a small house around those goals that does not collapse at the first disruption. This chapter does not offer a perfect schedule. It helps you place learning, work, relationships, and recovery on the same table and find a minimum system you can return to when the day becomes untidy.

Quick Overview

replace a full-score schedule with a minimum viable day;

budget time, capacity, and responsibility together instead of paying every cost with willpower;

use the environment and default choices to reduce starting friction and mindless input;

state boundaries for relationships and work so focus does not require disappearing;

restart only the next step after an interruption, and keep evidence for review;

use a seven-day practice to adapt the system to your own life.

1. Design a Minimum Viable Day

“Study for two hours every day” sounds clear, but it avoids a more useful question: what will I do when only twenty minutes remain?

Write three versions of the day. They are not success, failure, and surrender. They are three capacity settings for one system:

Setting | When it fits | What must remain
Full day | Time and capacity are relatively stable | One input, one output, one record
Compressed day | Work expands or attention is fragmented | A 10–25 minute minimum output
Recovery day | Illness, sleeplessness, grief, or responsibility rises sharply | Safety, food, rest, and a cue for returning

A full day is not the answer, and a recovery day is not a moral failure. Write your own version:

markdown

# My Minimum Viable Day — YYYY-MM-DD

What I must protect today:
Smallest learning or work output:
Person I need to contact or answer:
What I can temporarily leave undone:
First step when I open the file tomorrow:

If even the minimum output is impossible, check sleep, health, safety, and responsibility before adding pressure. This is life planning, not medical diagnosis; conditions that keep affecting daily functioning deserve assessment from qualified local professionals.

2. Budget Time, Capacity, and Responsibility

Every day has twenty-four hours, but not all of them can support deep work. Commutes, pain, care, meetings, emotion, and switching consume capacity. Writing them into a plan is not making an excuse. It is making the plan describe a real person.

Each week, answer four questions:

Which hours are already occupied by fixed responsibilities?

Which periods are most likely to hold 25–45 minutes of uninterrupted attention?

Which activities tonight will reduce tomorrow's capacity?

If only one important thing happens this week, what deserves protection?

Use this table for a rough budget:

Resource | Fact this week | Floor to protect | Adjustment when exceeded
Time | Fixed and available windows | One main time box | Shrink the task, not rest
Capacity | High, low, and unpredictable periods | One minimum output | Switch to a low-friction version
Attention | Notifications, switching, and inputs | One protected window | Close one entry point
Relationships | People and responsibilities needing a response | One honest conversation | State delay and boundary early
Body | Sleep, pain, movement, and recovery | Basic care and safety | Pause high-risk decisions and seek support

Do not budget with “I can probably squeeze in more.” A budget leaves non-negotiable floors first, then gives the remaining room to ambition.

3. Let the Environment Reduce Friction

Many delays are not value problems. The first step is simply too far away: the file is in the wrong folder, the material needs to be found again, or a phone lighting up brings ten new entrances. Instead of demanding more strength every time, put the next action within reach.

Starting friction

open one file the night before and write the next step at the top;

sort materials into “today”, “backup”, and “archive” so the collection does not choose the task;

prepare one fixed entrance for a 25-minute task: the same card, pen, or terminal command;

write your own judgment before using AI, so opening a chat window is not mistaken for beginning to learn.

Closing friction

A system needs an ending as well. Save a version, write one error, close the tabs, and record tomorrow's first step. An unfinished task with no closing action keeps occupying the mind and makes the next start harder.

Environment design is not turning life into a barracks. It makes important work easier to start and unimportant input require one more deliberate choice.

4. Attach Learning to Existing Life

New habits often fail because they require a blank period that never existed. A steadier approach attaches an action to something that already happens:

Existing anchor | Action to attach | Evidence
Opening the computer | Write one sentence about today's question | One line in the Learning State
After lunch | Listen to a short item and record its gist | One Listening Audit entry
Before a meeting | Explain one risk in English | A 60-second recording
Closing work | Save today's version and next step | An artifact or code commit
A fixed weekend slot | Review the first version and feedback | A Weekly Review

An anchor is not a rigid rule. If a situation is frequently interrupted, choose a more reliable one. The goal is not output every minute; it is to stop renegotiating the important action from scratch.

5. Let Relationships Know Your Boundary

Focus is not disappearance. When you mute notifications, delay a reply, or protect a quiet period, help affected people know when you are reachable, when you will return, and how to reach you in an emergency.

Try a sentence like this:

I need to finish a piece of work from 19:00 to 19:30, so I will not check instant messages. Unless it is urgent, I will reply by 20:00; if it must be handled today, please tell me the deadline directly.

This does not ask everyone to organise life around your schedule. It turns uncertain waiting into information that can be negotiated. The Relationships chapter discusses listening, conflict, and leaving; this chapter adds the daily execution of saying a boundary out loud.

If a boundary can be maintained only through threats, humiliation, or prolonged disappearance, it is not yet a reliable system. Safety and respect come before task completion.

6. Restart Only the Next Step

After an interruption, people often do one of two things: stay up late to compensate, or declare the entire cycle ruined. Both make the cost of returning larger.

Write four lines:

markdown

What happened (facts only):
Which condition changed: time / capacity / difficulty / environment / responsibility
Smallest output possible within 24 hours:
Work I explicitly will not repay:

Then choose an action small enough to complete: reread one section, re-record 60 seconds, fix one test, answer one essential email, or prepare tomorrow's file. Do not immediately raise the difficulty after the first return. Let the system succeed twice in a row first.

When the same resistance appears three times, it is probably more than one bad mood. Return to the Life Practice Toolkit and Weekly Review. Change time, environment, task size, or support network instead of adding blame.

7. Judge the System with Evidence, Not Mood

The quality of a life system is not decided by one excited day. Keep five pieces of evidence each week:

Did I leave an output even on a compressed day?

Did I know what to do when I opened the file next time?

Did I remove one entry point that repeatedly interrupted me?

Did I state time and boundaries clearly to the people involved?

After an interruption, how long did it take to return to one executable action?

There is no universal score. These questions turn “I seem more disciplined” into observable change. When the evidence worsens, adjust the system conditions before judging personal will.

8. Seven-Day Daily-System Practice

Do not rebuild every habit at once. Make one change each day:

Day 1: write the minimum version of a full, compressed, and recovery day;

Day 2: find one reliable 25-minute time box;

Day 3: close one mindless input and record what changes;

Day 4: tell one person exactly when you will reply;

Day 5: make one small output without AI, then decide whether to request feedback;

Day 6: simulate an interruption and write the 24-hour return action;

Day 7: use the Weekly Review Template to keep one useful design and delete one unnecessary demand.

After seven days, you do not need a beautiful timetable. You need to know when starting is easier, what event makes the system lose its weight, and which small window deserves protection next week.

Closing: Leave a Way Back

A mature system does not turn a person into someone who is always on time, focused, and energetic. It leaves a way back that does not require humiliation after you drift.

Learning needs time, artifacts need delivery, relationships need presence, and the body needs care. These are not competing projects; they are simultaneous facts about one life. Make the goal smaller, reduce the entrances, state the boundary, keep the evidence, and continue tomorrow.

That is what it means to put change into the day: do not wait for an ideal life to appear. Use the weight you can carry today to build one small piece of ground.

Rhythm: Let Small Things Travel Through Time

Some changes make almost no sound on the day they happen. You open the same file after work, explain one paragraph more clearly for the second time, or turn off the light when you want to stay up. They do not look like victories. They look like fine lines left by water on stone.

As time moves, those lines meet. A more familiar action removes tomorrow's hesitation. One honest piece of feedback prevents another round of rework. A protected night of sleep means the next day does not have to begin from the ruins. Compounding does not mean becoming larger every day. It means today's choice makes tomorrow a little less expensive.

This chapter is a bridge between the Daily System and the 90-Day Action Plan. It does not ask you to seal every hour of life. It asks you to notice which small things deserve to remain, and how they can return after an interruption. When terms such as “variation”, “compounding”, or “minimum contract” become unclear, return to the Glossary of Terms and Methods for definitions and next steps.

Quick Overview

distinguish invisible accumulation from temporary excitement instead of judging a season by one day;

give repetition a response so mechanical counts do not impersonate ability;

recognize four kinds of compounding: ability, trust, judgment, and recovery;

design one rhythm that can survive full, compressed, and recovery days;

use a one-page rhythm ledger and a 14-day experiment to find a speed that fits;

check whether the system gives life more room instead of giving you better ways to blame yourself.

1. Progress Is Not a Straight Line

We easily imagine progress as an upward line: ten more words today, two more tasks next week, more discipline and confidence next month. Real learning is closer to a tide. It rises and falls, and sometimes it seems still while strength is being rearranged underneath.

If you use one day's result to judge yourself, you will promise too much at the high point and deny too much at the low point. A better unit of observation is not “did I win today?” but “did I preserve a way back this week?” One missed practice may mean sleep was interrupted. Several weeks without a first version, feedback, or retest suggest that the system needs to change.

Separate change into three layers:

Layer | What you can see | What not to conclude too quickly
Same-day performance | Whether you completed one action | Ability is not stable yet
Retention | Whether you can still do it independently later | Transfer to a new situation is not proven
Long-term transfer | Whether you can use it with a new topic or listener | Future setbacks have not been eliminated

These layers are not competing scores. They are echoes at different distances: “I can do it now”, “it remains after a while”, and “it travels somewhere new”. The Evidence chapter shows how to record them. For now, do not let a recent success certify the whole road.

2. Repetition Needs an Echo

Repetition is the material of ability, not its proof. Looking at the same answer ten times makes the page familiar. Closing the material and explaining it again reveals what actually stayed with you.

Each repetition should bring back at least one kind of echo:

Recall: What can I say without looking?

Discrimination: Can I name the error rather than only feeling “not good enough”?

Variation: Can I use it with a different topic, listener, or constraint?

Feedback: Did an outside person or result change what I will do next time?

If four repetitions produce no new information, more repetitions may only increase familiarity. Change one variable instead: shorten the prompt, use a new example, add a follow-up question, impose a time limit, or ask a real reader to try it. Good practice does not copy one day many times. It lets each similar attempt carry a slightly new question.

3. Four Things That Compound

Growth does not only accumulate knowledge. Over time, at least four things influence one another:

Compounding asset | How it grows | How it is spent
Ability | Recall, output, feedback, and variation make an action more reliable | Looking only at answers, long disuse, or a mismatched difficulty
Trust | Keeping promises, delivering checkable work, and naming errors early | Overpromising, hiding costs, and making others clean up the result
Judgment | Recording facts, comparing outcomes, and allowing evidence to revise a view | Protecting a conclusion with emotion or identity, and seeking only support
Recovery | Sleep, boundaries, help, and return after interruption keep the system alive | Chronic depletion, treating rest as a reward, and paying every cost with shame

They are not four separate accounts. Better ability makes delivery more reliable, which can build trust. Trust allows more honest feedback, which improves judgment. Better judgment makes it easier to stop when stopping is responsible, so recovery can begin before collapse.

The reverse is also true. A single account under long-term strain can pull down the others. A person may know a great deal yet be unable to turn it into an artifact when sleep is broken. A person may work very hard yet lose trust by hiding risk. Progress is not pushing one account to its limit. It is giving all four enough support to hold one another up.

4. Design a Rhythm That Can Stay Alive

Rhythm is not a fixed frequency. It is an action you can still recognize at different levels of capacity. Design three versions of one line of work:

Capacity | What remains | Example
Full day | Input, output, and a record | Study a short passage, record an explanation, and note one error
Compressed day | A minimum output and the next step | Explain it for 60 seconds with the material closed, then write tomorrow's first step
Recovery day | Safety, care, and a cue for return | Eat, rest, contact support, and put the file somewhere tomorrow's self can find it

The three versions serve one direction. They are not three goals that cancel one another. A full day deepens ability, a compressed day keeps the chain from disappearing, and a recovery day means you do not need a breakdown to earn permission to begin again.

Write the rhythm as an if-then agreement:

markdown

If I have 45 minutes and usable capacity:
Then recall first, take input, and submit a first version.

If I have 10 minutes or fragmented attention:
Then recall once, produce once, and record the next step.

If I have two nights of poor sleep or clear physical distress:
Then pause high-risk decisions, care for myself, seek help, and decide when to return.

The agreement cannot predict every situation. Its value is reducing the argument you have to hold in the moment. On difficult days, a simpler system is easier to use.

5. Feedback Is Not a Verdict

Feedback matters because it gives the next action more information, not because it proves whether you are good enough. Split feedback into three parts:

Observation: What did someone actually see, hear, or measure?

Impact: How did it affect understanding, use, or the result?

Adjustment: Which one important variable will change next time?

Do not write “my presentation was bad” as a review. Write: “The listener asked what problem I was solving in minute two. They restated the completion standard incorrectly at the end. Next time I will give the situation and outcome first, and remove one background section.” The feedback has returned from a judgment about character to work that can be changed.

The same boundary applies when asking AI for feedback: submit your own version first, ask for no more than three issues that affect the result, require a distinction between observation, inference, and suggestion, then decide what to accept. More feedback is not automatically better. Ten pages of comments without a next action are another form of collection.

6. A Minimum Contract for Bad Days

A rhythm is mature not when it produces the most on good days, but when bad days do not eject you from the system. Write a minimum contract that answers three questions:

Under what conditions will I downgrade the task rather than force it?

After downgrading, what smallest action is still worth keeping?

When should I ask for help or hand a professional question to a qualified professional?

This is not permission to avoid effort. It protects judgment. When health, money, safety, or relationships carry a serious risk, completing the plan may not be brave. Pausing, explaining, asking for help, and rescheduling can also be responsibility toward the long term.

After each interruption, write four lines:

markdown

What happened, as facts:
Which condition changed: time / capacity / difficulty / environment / responsibility
The smallest return action within 24 hours:
What I will explicitly not make up this time:

If the same resistance appears three times, do not call it only a discipline problem. The time box may be unrealistic, the task may not be split, a boundary may be unspoken, or the support network may be too thin. Return to the Life Practice Toolkit and let the system do the work it was meant to do.

7. A One-Page Rhythm Ledger

The ledger is not for monitoring your character. It helps you see which designs deserve to stay. Keep one page each week:

markdown

# Rhythm Ledger — YYYY-MM-DD

The one question this week:
The smallest action I protected:
One piece of feedback that created new information:
One resistance that repeated:
One condition I will change next week:
One number I will stop tracking:

The last line matters. Every record costs attention; removing a number that cannot guide a decision is part of rhythm design. If you update a table every day but have no first version, feedback, or retest, shorten the record and return the time to action. For a copy-ready version, open the Rhythm Ledger Template.

8. A 14-Day Rhythm Experiment

Do not redesign your whole life at once. Test one hypothesis for fourteen days:

Day 1: write the current question, a baseline sample, and the minimum contract;

Days 2–4: use the rhythm on at least one full and one compressed day; record starting and stopping friction;

Day 5: ask a real person or a reproducible result for feedback;

Days 6–7: remove one step that produces no information and keep one useful anchor;

Days 8–10: change one variable such as time limit, listener, topic, or tool permission;

Day 11: simulate an interruption and test whether the return protocol is small enough;

Days 12–13: complete one independent version and one revised version without rereading the original explanation;

Day 14: use the Weekly Review Template to continue, downgrade, change the question, or stop the experiment.

At the end, do not ask only how many days you persisted. Compare the first and last versions: Did completion time change? Did errors decrease? Was it easier for another person to understand? Do you know more clearly when to stop? A clearer next decision is already a return on the experiment.

9. Stage Standards

A rhythm worth continuing usually has these qualities:

it works at least at two levels of capacity, not only on ideal days;

each repetition creates new information through recall, feedback, or variation;

it has a real first version, revision, and retest rather than only completion records;

after an interruption, it returns to a small action within a reasonable time without compensatory depletion;

it can say what to continue, what to remove, and which risks require escalation or help;

it leaves protected boundaries for relationships, the body, and attention.

If a rhythm makes you increasingly afraid to open the record, or requires chronic sacrifice of sleep, honesty, and relationships, it has not produced reliable progress even if the numbers rise. Change the system. That is not abandoning the goal; it is returning the goal to a weight you can carry.

Closing: Let Time Become a Companion

We often want one large decision to prove that we have become a different person. Life tends to trust another kind of evidence: you open the file without being reminded, keep listening when feedback stings, and do not exile yourself from life after an interruption.

Small things are not powerless because they are small. Their strength comes from being repeated, revised, carried into new situations, and sometimes allowed to pause. Time is not only a river that makes us older. When we place choices, work, boundaries, and care into it, time also keeps some of the effort that would otherwise disappear.

The next step does not need to be larger. It needs to be clearer. Return to the Daily System and adjust your three capacity versions, then enter Part V: Long-Term Action and let one rhythm meet a real problem and real time.

Part V: Long-Term Action

By this point, the reader has several things with which to begin: a baseline, a new reading of an old story, an artifact that can be delivered, and a rhythm that can return after interruption.

The most dangerous next step is to place all of them inside an oversized wish. Once direction appears, we easily demand ninety perfect days. At the first loss of pace in week three, we may decide that the whole plan has failed.

Long-term change is not enthusiasm stretched across a calendar. It is the same real question meeting different phases, capacities, feedback, forgetting, and new situations while remaining visible enough to revise.

This part contains three core chapters. The first gives one real problem ninety days. The second uses this book itself to show a method passing through artifacts, failure, verification, and public release. The third asks how day ninety-one closes the books, transfers what worked, and chooses continuation or closure. Action must leave the page and enter your calendar, artifacts, relationships, and life. It must also complete a handover instead of using the next burst of excitement to cover the previous season.

Questions for This Part

What must I complete in a real situation after ninety days, rather than merely “become better”?

What evidence is required before entering the next phase?

Which one main question belongs to each week, and which work will not be repaid?

How does the plan change weight when health, money, relationships, or responsibility change?

Which result means continue, and which means shrink, pause, or stop?

A plan without a stopping condition can easily rename sunk cost as persistence. A real commitment states not only what it will do, but which costs it will no longer use as payment.

Reading Path

Phase | Time | Core work
Calibrate | Days 1–14 | Preserve a baseline, locate the bottleneck, and confirm one stable entry point
Stack | Days 15–56 | Produce comparable outputs, obtain feedback, and change one variable
Ship | Days 57–90 | Change audience, topic, or environment, then complete real delivery and transfer
Hand over | After day 90 | Close the books, transfer, repair, or stop so the result enters the next part of life

Use the 90-Day Action Plan: Return Your Life to Yourself to place the first three phases into the 90-Day Cycle Map. Then read Case Study: Let the Book Prove Its Method to see one method move through structural revision, AI collaboration, failure records, automated verification, and reader handover inside a real publishing project. Finally, use After Ninety Days: Let Change Remain in Life to close and hand over your own cycle. The map owns direction and gates, the Evidence Chain explains results, and the Rhythm Ledger maintains weekly capacity. Do not ask one record to own every job or one cycle to decide an entire life.

What to Carry Forward

After ninety days and its handover, leave three things that can continue serving life:

One artifact seen, used, or reviewed by a real audience;

One map of errors that still recur;

One rhythm that can return without ideal conditions.

If the direction no longer deserves continuation, stopping can also be a valid delivery. Record the evidence, cost, and completed closure so past investment does not decide the future.

Enter the Work

Choose one thing worthy of ninety days and also worthy of being released when evidence does not support it.

Do not fill all twelve weeks first. Write the facts of day one, the question for week one, and the evidence required before day fourteen opens the next phase.

90-Day Action Plan: Return Your Life to Yourself

Many people finish one piece of advice and immediately save another. Saving feels like a beginning, but it often moves the beginning somewhere more comfortable.

Progress depends less on a burst of excitement than on a stretch of time that can be inspected. This 90-day plan does not ask you to become a different person. It asks you to collect evidence that, three months from now, you can understand more, express more, and finish more. If you have not yet found a daily rhythm that can survive interruption, read Rhythm: Let Small Things Travel Through Time first, then give one returnable action to these 90 days.

0. Define “Better”

Do not write “improve my English”, “learn AI”, or “become disciplined”. These wishes are fine, but they cannot guide today’s choice.

Use this sentence instead:

Within 90 days, in a real situation, I will complete a deliverable, and judge it with three pieces of evidence.

Examples:

In 90 days, I will give a 10-minute product presentation in English. Evidence: a recording, transcript, and feedback from one listener.

In 90 days, I will build a small tool that organizes a spreadsheet. Evidence: runnable code, instructions, and one real use.

In 90 days, I will publish 12 short industry notes. Evidence: links, reader feedback, and a review of my own decisions.

The closer the goal is to real life, the harder it is to hide behind “I am not ready yet”.

Copy the 90-Day Cycle Map first, then fill it with the phases and weekly questions below. It is not another check-in system; it puts the evidence you already collect on one timeline. Use the Evidence Chain Template to explain four time points and the Rhythm Ledger to maintain a weekly rhythm that can return.

1. Take a One-Page Baseline

On day one, spend 30 minutes writing four columns:

Column | Question
Current state | What can I do independently? Where do I stop?
Situation | Where will I use this ability in three months?
Resources | What time, material, tool, and person can I reliably access each week?
Cost | What must I do less of to make room for this goal?

The last column matters most. A plan with no cost is only a wish list. Choosing one main line does not betray every other possibility; it gives one possibility enough light for a while.

How Four Skills Join the Same Cycle

You do not need equal listening, reading, speaking, and writing every week. Choose the skill closest to the real outcome, then use another skill for input or feedback:

Part of the cycle | Role | Evidence to keep
Listening/reading | Gather material, understand the problem, and locate evidence | Listening Evidence Card or Reading Evidence Card
Speaking/writing | Turn understanding into an explanation, decision, or artifact | Speaking Evidence Card or Writing Evidence Card
Feedback/review | Find the largest barrier and choose the next variable | Weekly Review and Learning State
Delivery/transfer | Test the result with a new listener, topic, or real situation | Artifact link, user feedback, or parallel task

If the four activities do not serve one outcome, they become unrelated check-ins again. Keep at least one input, one output, and one transfer test each week; let the rest support the main line.

2. Three Phases

Phase One: Calibrate (days 1–14)

Do not chase speed. Learn what is true.

Take a baseline: record an English introduction or complete the smallest task in your field;

Find the three errors that appear most often;

Establish a fixed slot, even if it is only 25 minutes a day;

Keep one main resource, one practice situation, and one place to record results.

At the end of two weeks, you should be able to answer: What exactly am I training? What is my bottleneck? What will I repeat next time? If you cannot answer, do not add more material.

Phase Two: Stack (days 15–56)

Repeat one action until it becomes familiar, then raise the difficulty. Keep four kinds of work each week:

Input: two or three sessions of listening, reading, or example analysis;

Output: two sessions of speaking, writing, coding, or presenting;

Feedback: one concrete revision of a piece of work;

Review: a 20-minute record of what to keep and what to remove next week.

AI can be a coach, practice partner, reviewer, and tester. Do not let it complete every output. Submit your rough version first, then let the tool identify the most valuable repair. The repair you make yourself is where ability becomes yours.

Phase Three: Ship (days 57–90)

From week eight, stop expanding the course. Concentrate what you have learned into one artifact: a talk, essay, tool, report, interview simulation, or real conversation.

Make three versions:

Independent: complete it without an answer key under realistic conditions;

Revised: fix the problems that most affect understanding and results;

Public: give it to a real person to use, read, or evaluate.

The artifact does not need to win an award. It needs to be real enough to show your next direction.

3. One Main Question per Week

Begin each week with one question, not ten tasks:

Can I explain my work in English without reading from a script?

Build the week around it:

Monday: collect three natural expressions and hear them in context;

Tuesday: write a 90-second answer;

Wednesday: record it and mark pauses, repetition, and unclear sounds;

Thursday: ask AI or a partner to identify three high-value issues;

Friday: record a second version with one follow-up question;

Weekend: save the recording, revisions, and next week’s question together.

At the end of the week you will have a chain of evidence instead of a pile of check-in screenshots. Put the first version, immediate performance, delayed retention, and transfer into the Evidence Chain Template, then write the decision back into the cycle map.

4. The Daily Minimum Loop

When life is fragmented, use this 45-minute version:

Recall for 5 minutes: write three things you remember without looking;

Input for 15 minutes: work through a small section and mark only the difficulties that affect meaning;

Output for 15 minutes: speak, write, build, or demonstrate a visible result;

Feedback for 5 minutes: record one error and one reusable expression;

Plan for 5 minutes: write the first action for tomorrow.

If you have ten minutes, keep recall, output, and recording. Shorten the loop, but do not erase it.

5. When You Fail, Restart the Next Step

Plans will be interrupted by illness, overtime, arguments, poor sleep, and unexpected bills. The interruption is not the failure. Turning it into a verdict about your character is what makes it grow.

Use this recovery protocol:

Write the fact: I have not practiced for several days. Do not add a personality judgment;

Name the resistance: time, difficulty, mood, or an unsupportive environment;

Reduce the task to one third of its size;

Complete one tiny output within 24 hours;

Do not repay missed work by staying up late. Return to today.

Long-term practice does not mean never falling behind. It means not punishing yourself with shame when you do.

6. An Honest Scorecard

Each Sunday, record only “done” or “not done”:

Did I complete at least two active outputs?

Did I receive one concrete piece of feedback?

Did I turn one mistake into the next exercise?

Did I leave an artifact I can show or reuse?

Did I protect basic sleep, movement, and relationships?

The last item is not a bonus. It is infrastructure. The body is not a container for your goals; it is part of your life. Any plan that requires chronic depletion needs redesign.

7. Leave Three Things After 90 Days

At the end, do not ask only how many days you checked off. Leave:

One artifact that proves you did more than study;

One error map showing recurring problems and the next priorities;

One sustainable rhythm that survives a busy week.

If these three things exist, the 90 days were not wasted. You have built something more reliable than a disciplined-person image: trust that you know how to begin, revise, and finish.

Closing: Return Progress to Ordinary Days

I no longer trust the phrase “change your life completely”. It sounds powerful, but often leads to a larger disappointment. Real change usually has no soundtrack: someone gets up on time and opens yesterday’s file; says the first prepared sentence in a meeting; edits an article until they are willing to sign it; or, when escape feels urgent, looks at the facts first.

May the 90 days give you more than a skill. May they return a little texture to your contact with life. May you know where you are going, while accepting that the road may be quiet for a while.

Case Study: Let the Book Prove Its Method

A book can easily impersonate completion.

Give it a cover, a table of contents, several sentences that sound like declarations, and a clean page. It begins to resemble an answer. The author can be persuaded by the same surface: there are many words, chapters occupy the sidebar, and the website loads, so perhaps the only missing ingredient is a larger audience.

But a book that repeatedly asks readers to preserve a baseline, make an artifact, verify sources, accept feedback, and retest later must face the same examination. It cannot ask others to speak through evidence while using length as proof of its own value. It cannot teach delivery while keeping important decisions inside the author's head. It cannot teach transfer while succeeding only on one person's computer.

This chapter therefore introduces no new method. It places Life Level-up Guide on the table as the public case review the rest of the book requires.

Why This Chapter Must Exist

The central temptation of a method book is to confuse correct sentences with effective methods.

“Begin with a real problem.” “Do not outsource judgment.” “Let the artifact face feedback.” “Keep a way back after interruption.” None of these sentences is wrong. If they have never entered one difficult project together, however, they may remain a well-arranged collection of ideas.

This book offers a sufficiently untidy field. It began in 2017 as an English-learning guide. Years of material, personal experience, technical work, and changing direction later, it attempted to become a bilingual book about lifelong learning, AI, real projects, and recovery. The old work could not simply be discarded. A new identity could not be obtained through a title change. The author's life could not prove a method for every reader. The publishing system could not count as reliable because it looked correct on a local machine.

That history makes a stricter question possible: can a method for learning, artifacts, evidence, and long-term change first turn the book proposing it into a more trustworthy piece of work?

1. Turn “Write a Great Book” into an Acceptable Problem

“Make it a bestseller” is a wish, not an acceptance standard. Sales, distribution, recommendation, reputation, and time produce that outcome together. An author cannot announce it in advance. What the project can own now is the quality of the conditions under which the work may be understood, used, discussed, and improved.

The reconstruction therefore began by translating the wish into a project brief:

Project element | Concrete answer for this book
Real problem | Years of material existed, but the whole still resembled a collection of essays, resources, stories, and tools rather than one visible path of change
Core readers | Ordinary people improving English or AI ability, building real projects, moving through difficult periods, or beginning again
Main constraints | Preserve history without decorating it; protect third-party privacy; keep meaning aligned across languages; make web, EPUB, and PDF editions independently readable
Core artifact | A bilingual manuscript with a reading arc, cases, tools, published editions, and a maintainable source of truth
Acceptance evidence | Continuous reading paths, methods connected to worksheets, checkable sources and boundaries, downloadable editions, and changes that survive automated verification
Stopping conditions | Do not pursue impact through invented experience, inflated product claims, exposed privacy, chronic depletion, or compromised factual accuracy

Once completion became concrete, many apparently important tasks lost priority. Not every historical paragraph belonged in the main arc. Not every resource deserved continued recommendation. Not every technical feature made the book better. The project gained an order of judgment: reader problem before chapter placement; factual boundary before narrative intensity; intended use before tool selection.

2. Preserve the Baseline Before Revision Hides It

The easiest first move was to rewrite the home page. A new title would create a brief sense of progress and make old structural problems appear to have disappeared.

It was more useful to preserve the baseline:

The project contained years of English-learning material, technical word lists, personal writing, and resource recommendations;

Individual pages held sincere experience and useful advice, but their roles inside a book were not always clear;

English functioned both as a subject and as the old boundary of the whole project, leaving little room for later work on AI, entrepreneurship, relationships, recovery, and long-term action;

Historical links and product descriptions could expire, while memory could pour later knowledge back into earlier events;

A working website did not yet equal a coherent manuscript, bilingual handover, or offline publication.

This baseline did not declare the past a failure. The earlier project completed a task appropriate to its time: helping people learn English and preserving traces of how a younger writer understood learning and life. What changed was the responsibility the project now wanted to carry.

Reconstruction did not need to prove the old work bad. It needed to admit that the old structure could no longer hold the new question.

3. Architecture Is a Causal Chain, Not a Contents Page

After the baseline, the project did not ask which fashionable chapters were missing. It asked which changes could not be skipped if a reader were to move from a present problem into long-term action.

The five parts became a causal chain:

Part | Change that occurs | What breaks without it
Open Input | Move from vague self-rating into observable English ability and access to the world | The reader has an attitude but no channel into knowledge or collaboration
Return to Life | Bring skill back into the body, relationships, failure, choice, and responsibility | Ability becomes a success story detached from cost
Amplify Ability | Move from receiving answers into attention, artifacts, evidence, and delivery | AI amplifies speed and unchecked judgment together
Practice and Recovery | Bring the plan into one day, one week, changing capacity, and interruption | The method works only inside an ideal schedule
Long-Term Action | Move from one completion into phase gates, handover, transfer, and stopping | Temporary enthusiasm is mistaken for lasting ability

The contents page therefore stopped being a taxonomy. Each part creates a condition for the next, and the next part tests whether the previous one was real. English practice must enter expression and projects. Projects must face evidence. Evidence must enter daily rhythm. Rhythm must finally face time through long-term action and explicit stopping conditions.

When a chapter cannot name its place in that causal chain, it should move, shrink, enter the toolkit, or remain in the archive. Affection from the author is not enough to grant it space in the main manuscript.

4. Rescue the Personal Story from Becoming a Proof

This book carries a special risk: the author's life can become a shortcut for proving every method.

Starting again after a failed venture can be written as “a low period always creates growth”. Learning again and building new projects can become “persistence reverses everything”. Changes in relationships and physical disorder can be arranged into a road that appears destined to end at the present day. Such stories are smoother. They are not necessarily truer.

While revising the personal chapters, I had to separate three layers repeatedly:

Confirmable fact: what happened, what I did, and what the work, time, and consequences recorded;

Present interpretation: how I understand the experience now and how hindsight may shape that reading;

Remaining unknown: other people's inner lives, missing data, unrecoverable causes, and whether one experience transfers to someone else.

The result loses some legendary force and gains a longer form of credibility. The story no longer has to prove that “the method works”. Its task is to show one person making mistakes, interpreting, taking responsibility, repairing, and giving the next action back to reality.

Literature is not the art of making causality prettier. It begins by refusing to let a conclusion close a person's complexity too soon.

5. Where AI Entered and Where It Had to Leave

AI participated extensively in this editing and publishing cycle. Hiding that would make the book dishonest about its production. Inflating AI's role would erase ownership of fact and authorial responsibility.

A more accurate division looks like this:

AI may participate in | AI may not replace
Comparing bilingual structures and locating omissions, repetition, or divergence | Deciding which facts from a personal life may be disclosed
Checking links, navigation, metadata, heading levels, and build results | Speaking consent for a third party or guessing another person's motives
Offering revisions and identifying abstract, generic, or rhythmically repetitive passages | Deciding whether a sentence matches the author's lived experience and values
Assisting with EPUB, PDF, tests, and deployment code | Certifying product capability, commercial results, health guidance, or source accuracy
Tracking changes and unresolved questions across versions | Carrying final responsibility for authorship, privacy, copyright, facts, and social effects

One working rule matters: a fluent sentence generated by AI does not earn admission into the manuscript. It must face four questions about fact, voice, structural position, and reader use. If it cannot answer “what supports this, who carries it, whom does it help here, and do I still agree after the tool closes?”, it has not yet become the author's sentence.

Tools may extend editorial ability. A signature means the final judgment remains human.

6. Make One Passage Travel through the Whole Artifact Chain

The source of the book remains a set of Markdown files, but a passage must travel much farther before it reaches a reader:

Manuscript source → bilingual navigation → content and privacy checks → reading site → EPUB → PDF → browser regression → continuous integration → public release

Each layer answers a different question:

Layer | What it is responsible for proving
Manuscript | Whether sentences, structure, factual boundaries, and surrounding context hold
Bilingual navigation | Whether both languages have an entry and the chapter occupies the right reading position
Content checks | Whether local links, metadata, images, privacy rules, and bilingual structures have broken
EPUB | Whether contents, internal links, images, and offline reading survive without the website
PDF | Whether pages, fonts, bookmarks, links, images, and print dimensions remain complete
Browser regression | Whether desktop and mobile readers can enter, read, download, and identify the right edition
Continuous integration | Whether the change rebuilds in an independent environment rather than only on the author's machine
Public release | Whether the live pages and files are the exact version that passed the gates

This chain transforms “I finished writing” into “a reader can receive a delivered edition”. It also makes maintenance transferable. A future editor need not guess which files should agree; the checks name the broken contract.

7. Three Failures Taught More than One Green Build

The publishing system became real not when it first succeeded, but when failures left reusable judgments behind.

First, both PDFs rebuilt byte for byte on the local machine, then differed in Linux. The text and pagination had not changed; low-level image encoding produced different bytes. Simply weakening the check would hide the issue. Demanding identical compressed bytes from every platform would mistake an irrelevant difference for a content failure. The published files remained locked by exact SHA-256, while a cross-platform semantic fingerprint was added for page text, dimensions, bookmarks, links, images, and embedded fonts. Integrity and reproducibility became two explicit contracts.

Second, the manifest advanced to a new version while the browser test still expected the old one. The builder was correct and the test failed. That failure reminded the project that tests are not spectators. They are consumers of the public contract and must migrate with it.

Third, the published EPUB returned the right MIME type, but a verification script interpreted the + as a regular-expression operator and reported failure. The repair did more than change string matching. It added file-signature checks: EPUB must begin with a ZIP header and PDF with %PDF-. A failed assertion does not always mean the product is broken. It may mean the measuring instrument did not accurately express the fact it intended to protect.

Together, the three failures changed the project. A gate no longer aims merely to look strict. It states which fact it protects.

8. Replace “I Think It Is Good” with Release Gates

An author is too familiar with the work for private satisfaction to serve as the only standard. The book now uses several release gates:

Gate | Central question | Action after failure
Structure | Does each chapter have an entry, context, bilingual counterpart, and clear role? | Move the chapter or repair the reading path instead of hiding the gap with home-page copy
Fact | Are research, products, personal experience, and inference distinguished correctly? | Add a source, narrow the claim, mark the unknown, or remove it
Privacy | Does the material expose unnecessary identity, relationship, health, or session data? | Stop release and remove or minimise the material
Artifact | Can readers obtain a site, EPUB, PDF, and usable tools? | Rebuild and verify contents, links, fonts, images, and downloads
Transfer | Has the method travelled through at least one complete real case? | Add a case, feedback, and delayed review rather than only more explanation
Release | Do an independent environment, browsers, and public URLs point to the same edition? | Do not announce completion; repair until remote evidence exists

Gates cannot automatically make a good book. They prevent several predictable forms of self-deception. Human judgment still owns the reading experience, but “it looked fine on my machine” can no longer substitute for delivery.

9. Readers Are Not Traffic; They Are the Next Layer of Evidence

Traffic can show that a page opened. It cannot show that a chapter was understood, a worksheet was used, or a method remained seven days later. The book does not yet possess enough evidence that unfamiliar readers finish the main arc, complete the tools, or transfer the method into their own lives.

The next phase therefore needs field notes with more explanatory power than a larger number:

Which real problem brought you into the book?

Which passage clarified it, and which remained abstract?

What did you actually complete rather than merely agree with?

Seven days later, what remained and what disappeared?

Which boundary, example, or tool should be added, removed, or rewritten?

Readers can first copy the Reader Field Note into a private note and complete it once after reading and again three to seven days later. After the privacy gate, those who choose to share may submit a public field note. It is not a five-star review and does not ask for praise. One precise confusion or unsuccessful attempt often helps the next edition more than “this is excellent”.

If the book eventually reaches many readers, the most important thing to preserve will not be traffic itself. It will be the reader's ability to say: this was unclear, this did not transfer, and this narrative outran its evidence.

10. What Has Not Yet Been Proved

This publishing cycle has proved several things: the manuscript can sustain a reading arc; both languages can be maintained together; web and offline editions can be generated; key structures and releases can be checked.

It has not proved that:

Most readers will finish the full manuscript;

Readers will keep using the methods after closing the page;

A workflow useful for English, AI, and the author's projects will work equally well across professions, ages, and life conditions;

The English edition already carries a natural, stable, literary voice for native readers;

The work has achieved commercial bestseller status.

These are not gestures of modesty. They are unknowns the next cycle must preserve. Reader field notes, delayed follow-ups, usage samples, professional editing, distribution data, and time may gradually answer them.

A book unable to state what it has not proved is poorly equipped to teach readers honesty about their own evidence.

11. Transfer This Case into Your Project

You do not need to write a book to use the same path. Choose a current project and complete seven steps:

Preserve the baseline: keep the current version so revision cannot erase the starting point;

Write the project brief: name the real problem, reader or user, constraints, artifact, and stopping conditions;

Build a causal structure: every module must state which condition it creates for the next;

Assign judgment rights: write what AI, tools, collaborators, and you are each allowed to decide;

Create the artifact chain: make source, delivery, feedback, tests, and public versions traceable;

Record failure contracts: after each failure, repair the symptom and name the fact future checks must protect;

Complete reader handover: tell another person how to use, question, review, continue, or stop the work.

Then schedule a delayed review. Seven or thirty days later, ignore the project declaration and inspect three things: what a real person used, what survived under a new condition, and which cost can no longer continue.

Transfer does not mean copying this book's tools. It means allowing your project to leave enthusiasm and enter evidence and handover.

12. Write a Current Handover for This Book

If another editor took over today, the following note should let them begin without first guessing what the author meant:

Handover item | Current state
Main arc | From reading contract and English input through life review, AI and artifacts, practice rhythm, and long-term handover
Core outputs | Chinese and English websites, EPUB and PDF editions, toolkit, source register, and asset attribution
Existing evidence | Bilingual structure checks, content and privacy validation, publication manifests, browser regression, independent builds, and live-edition verification
Largest unknown | Real-reader completion, delayed use, cross-context transfer, and native review of the English edition
Next variable | Collect specific reader field notes and observe which chapter produces action rather than agreement alone
Non-negotiable boundary | No invention, exposed privacy, commercial affiliation used as evidence, or health and relationship costs used to maintain release pace
Return point | Re-enter through a failed reader task, failed release gate, or newly established fact rather than through another expansion of length

A handover means the book no longer depends entirely on the author's present memory. It can be inspected, challenged, maintained, and reduced when evidence no longer supports a direction.

Closing: Let the Work Face Its Own Judgment

I once thought the hardest part of writing was bringing inner language onto the page. I later learned that the more difficult task is letting those words leave me while remaining understandable, usable, answerable, and able to find a way back when errors appear.

A book does not deserve a reader's time merely because its author invested a great deal of time. Every chapter must answer: what did I help you see, make, and protect, and which conclusions do I still have no right to speak?

Life Level-up Guide has not completed the proof of itself. It has finally agreed to stand before the gates it sets for readers. It no longer asks for belief in the author while promising that evidence will arrive later.

May the deepest confidence of a work be not the claim that it has arrived, but the willingness to let reality enter again and again, changing its sentences, structure, and direction. May what we make do more than speak for us. May it leave an honest entrance for whoever comes next.

After Ninety Days: Let Change Remain in Life

The easiest day of a plan to imagine is the first.

The new document contains no mistakes. Twelve tidy weeks wait on the calendar. The goal looks like a road that has finally agreed to move forward. Day ninety-one is harder to picture. The reminders have stopped, the artifact has shipped, excitement and exhaustion are receding together, and you sit beside the records unsure whether to begin something larger or admit that less changed than you hoped.

I used to make the same mistake at this point. As soon as one phase ended, I covered it with another. If something worked, I raised the target. If it did not, I changed the target. Continuing forward kept me from answering what those months had actually left behind.

I eventually understood that the end of a cycle is not a time for another wish. It is a handover. Ability must be handed to a new situation, an artifact to real people, errors to the next practice, and the body and relationships back from temporary conscription. Effort without a handover often exists only while the plan is active. When the reminders stop, change loses its place to live.

This chapter is not about maintaining high intensity forever. A life does not need to become a perpetual-motion machine. It is about letting an effort that has already happened remain useful after enthusiasm recedes.

Chapter at a Glance

After ninety days, do not begin the next cycle immediately. Complete five things first:

Close the previous cycle with the first sample, final sample, real feedback, and actual cost;

Send each result toward continuation, transfer, repair, or closure;

Test whether ability survives outside the original practice conditions;

Protect foundational life, one main project, and free margin so no goal consumes the whole person;

Work in seasons and give every serious commitment an explicit exit gate.

What you need at the end is not a fuller annual plan. You need a trustworthy handover note: what now belongs to you, what still needs practice, what deserves continuation, and what has gone far enough.

1. On Day Ninety-One, Stop Replacing Judgment with Excitement

Ninety days is an observation container, not a character examination. It gives one undertaking enough time to meet repetition, feedback, and interruption. It has no authority to decide whether you are disciplined, intelligent, or worthy of success.

Two impulses commonly appear when the cycle ends, and neither is reliable.

The first is escalation. After one English presentation, you demand that you chair the whole meeting next quarter. After building one small tool, you imagine a company. After twelve essays, you plan a book. Growth is not the problem. The problem is exchanging a temporary result for a heavier commitment before testing whether the ability is stable, the work is needed, or the body is already paying too much.

The second impulse is dismissal. The artifact missed its target, feedback was quiet, or several weeks broke apart, so the entire period becomes “another failure”. That conclusion is also too quick. A cycle without a successful delivery may still leave a clearer boundary, a more accurate error map, a direction stopped in time, or the first attempt you did not sustain by sacrificing sleep.

On day ninety-one, prove nothing. Set excitement, disappointment, and shame aside long enough to ask a plainer question: which observable conditions, actions, and outcomes changed during these ninety days?

2. Close the Books Before Making Another Wish

Closing the books is not giving yourself one final score. It lets what happened stop floating. Place the evidence on one surface: the day-one baseline, the last independently completed sample, at least two pieces of real feedback, the error record, and the costs paid along the way.

Then fill four columns:

Area | Fact to preserve | Do not replace it with
Ability | What you can now complete independently and where prompts remain necessary | “I have learned it”
Artifact | Who saw, used, or reviewed it and which problem it addressed | “I did a lot”
Cost | Time, money, sleep, relationships, and opportunities spent | “If it mattered, the cost does not count”
Unknowns | Which samples are too small and which causes remain uncertain | “Persistence will eventually answer everything”

Answer at least six questions:

What did I initially believe the main difficulty was, and what became the real bottleneck?

Which improvement remains when material and immediate prompts are removed?

Which result appears only with a familiar task, familiar tool, or ideal conditions?

Who actually used the work, and what do their behaviour and feedback show?

What did this progress cost, and which costs cannot continue?

If I began again today, which half of the activity would I remove?

Use the Evidence Chain Template to compare samples and the Weekly Review to find recurring problems. Conversation logs, study hours, and streaks can show that activity happened. By themselves, they cannot show that transfer happened.

3. Give Every Result One of Four Destinations

Not every goal deserves another quarter. After closing the books, send each result toward one destination:

Destination | When it fits | Next action
Continue | The result has value, evidence supports it, and the cost is bearable | Preserve the main line and raise only one difficulty
Transfer | The foundation exists and needs a new situation | Change the audience, topic, tool, or constraint
Repair | The direction matters, but the system or boundary is damaged | Reduce load and repair health, relationships, or process first
Stop | Value is weak, conditions changed, or cost exceeds return | Complete the handover, preserve the lesson, and release resources

Continuation is not the default, and stopping is not the failure option. The most dangerous state is refusing to stop without having the capacity to continue seriously. The goal then occupies attention indefinitely and uses guilt to maintain a false existence.

When stopping, complete three actions: record the grounds, archive reusable material, and tell the people affected. A project ended honestly does not collect interest from memory every day. It returns time to new responsibilities and releases your past self from endless defence.

4. Ability Must Transfer, and Work Must Be Handed Over

Improving on the same material may mean you memorised the route. An ability that belongs to you must continue working, at least partly, after conditions change.

Design one transfer task for the previous cycle and change one main condition:

For English, move from a familiar topic to an unfamiliar one, or from a monologue to questions you cannot predict;

For AI use, write your judgment first, then change models or turn the tool off for the critical step;

For a project, ask someone outside development to follow the documentation and observe where they stop;

For writing, explain the same idea to a different audience and remove the signals only an insider understands;

For daily life, test whether the minimum version can return during travel, overtime, or a low-capacity week.

Transfer is not deliberate suffering. Change one condition at a time so you can see which part of the ability travelled with you. If every condition changes at once, failure produces only more confusion.

Artifacts also need a handover. Code needs operating instructions. An essay needs a statement of scope. A workflow needs to be usable by a colleague. A business service needs an owner, failure entry point, and stopping condition. Work that functions only while its author is present has not fully entered the world.

5. Protect the Long Term with Three Layers

Long-term action is not one goal expanded without limit. It gives different responsibilities different places. Arrange the next season in three layers:

Layer | What belongs there | Minimum protection
Foundation | Sleep, health, income floor, important relationships, and necessary duties | Do not fund the goal with chronic depletion
Main project | The one ability, artifact, or real problem most worth advancing | Give it a clear weekly block and one main question
Margin | Curiosity, reading, walking, unproductive interests, and open space | Do not demand immediate return

I once allowed the main project to become the whole of life. A company, product, or direction I wanted to prove gradually gained the power to explain everything. Sleep could be repaid later, relationships repaired after success, and the body ignored as long as it still worked. Such concentration can create short-term speed. It can also let one failed project damage income, identity, relationships, and self-respect at the same time.

Three layers do not require equal effort. A critical season may lean toward the main project, but the lean needs an expiry date, the foundation needs red lines, and the margin needs some air. A life without margin can only repeat known goals. A life without foundation may be unable to hold even the results it earns.

6. Work in Seasons Instead of Swearing by Passion

Long-term change resembles seasons more than a continuously rising line.

Sowing: explore the problem, encounter material, and allow direction to remain uncertain;

Growing: reduce choices, repeat the central action, and accept slowness and monotony;

Harvesting: finish, publish, evaluate, and hand over without endlessly expanding scope;

Resting: lower the load, repair health and relationships, organise material, and wait for the next question to become visible.

The phases need not last three months each, and life may not present them in perfect order. Their purpose is to stop you demanding the same performance from every period. Do not shame sowing for its low output, use exploration to escape completion during harvest, or quietly rename rest as falling behind.

Keep one main task in each season and write its ending signal in advance. Exploration ends after three recurring user problems appear. Growth moves to delivery after four comparable outputs. Expansion stops after acceptance. The plan immediately shifts down when insomnia, pain, or relationship conflict persists.

Passion helps us leave. A sense of season tells us when to cultivate, when to harvest, and when to put the tools down.

7. Every Goal Needs an Expiry Date and an Exit Gate

A goal without an expiry date quietly becomes an identity. You are no longer “testing a product”; you are “the person whose product cannot fail”. You are no longer “learning English”; you are “the person who must prove those years were not wasted”. Once a goal defends identity, evidence struggles to enter.

Give every long-term direction four exit gates:

Value gate: Does this problem still deserve solving, and do real people still need it?

Evidence gate: Which result supports continuation, and how long without it requires reconsideration?

Cost gate: Which health, financial, relational, and ethical costs will never be crossed?

Responsibility gate: What refund, explanation, documentation, apology, or handover is required if the work stops?

An exit gate is not an excuse prepared for weakness. It is a boundary prepared for commitment. It prevents the cost already paid from becoming a reason to pay more.

At every expiry date, allow the conclusion to change. A changed direction does not make the past entirely wrong. It may simply mean that new information finally entered the judgment.

8. Let Long-Term Change Enter Relationships and Responsibility

Many self-improvement plans are written as if one person lives in a vacuum: all time is privately owned, emotion affects no one else, and failure has no shared cost. Real life is different. Two more hours of work at night may mean two more hours of care carried by a partner. One investment may change a household's safety boundary. Weeks of mental absence make relationships pay attention on behalf of the goal.

Before the next phase begins, talk with the people affected about four things:

What I will invest and how long I expect it to last;

Which shared responsibilities will not disappear;

Which signals will make me reduce or stop;

What support I hope for and which responsibilities I will not place on the other person.

This is not asking someone else to approve your life. It is acknowledging that a choice enters shared life. Mature long-term action is not one person enduring longer. It makes commitments, boundaries, and effects speakable.

If the previous cycle already harmed a relationship, do not replace repair with a promise of future success. Name the specific effect, hear the other person's account, and make the repair you can carry now. Tomorrow's achievement cannot apologise for today.

9. Leave Only Three Lines for the Next Year

The common problem with an annual plan is not that it lacks ambition. It preserves too many competing lives at once. Learn a language, master an AI stack, start a company, become fit, write a book, travel, and improve every relationship: each may be reasonable alone, yet together they can produce only switching and guilt.

Keep three lines for the next year:

One ability: What do I want to complete more reliably after closing the tools and material?

One artifact: What will a real person see, use, or review before the year ends?

One life condition: Which physical, relational, financial, or environmental condition must improve and remain protected?

The three lines should serve one another. English may support a product explanation for international clients instead of becoming a collection of vocabulary. While the artifact advances, the life condition may be stable sleep that no longer uses midnight to repay the day. Ability, work, and life then stop becoming three wars over the same resources.

Put every other wish on a “later is still possible” list. Deferring a wish does not make it unimportant. It simply keeps it outside this year's field of commitment.

10. Once a Quarter, Review Who You Are Becoming

A long-term review that inspects output alone can make the person an accessory to the project again. Every three months, look beyond work and results to four abilities repeated throughout this book:

Ability | Quarterly question
Honesty | Can I distinguish fact, interpretation, and wish more clearly?
Responsibility | Have I seen the effects of my choices on others and carried the part that belongs to me?
Judgment | Has new evidence genuinely changed the plan, or have I only protected the original conclusion?
Return | Do I return earlier after interruption and punish myself less with shame?

These questions do not produce a satisfying total score. They show whether ability grew with judgment, artifacts increased with responsibility, and speed improved with care for life.

Write a short note to the person you will be three months from now. Include only facts, gratitude, and one reminder. Do not predict how powerful you will become. Tell your future self which cost must not be forgotten, which people and responsibilities deserve protection, and where to return the next time the road disappears.

11. Use Thirty Days to Complete the Handover

If the path from ninety days to a year remains unclear, reserve thirty days for handover:

Time | Central action | Evidence of completion
Days 1–7 | Close the books and recover | Samples, feedback, costs, and unknowns appear together
Days 8–14 | Transfer and hand over | One new-context test is complete, and another person can understand or take over the work
Days 15–21 | Choose and stop | Every result moves toward continuation, transfer, repair, or closure
Days 22–30 | Establish the next season | One main line, three-layer boundaries, and explicit exit gates are written

These thirty days are not a fourth sprint. They can be slower than the months before and should contain some unclaimed days. Empty space lets exhaustion become visible. It also quiets the goals that survived only through momentum.

After the handover, decide whether to begin another ninety days. You may continue, reduce, turn, or stop. Whatever the choice, the new beginning no longer depends on forgetting the life that came before it.

Closing: Give the Result Somewhere to Live

We often imagine change as leaving an old place: leaving insufficient ability, unimpressive work, or an unstable self. Change that remains is often less a departure than a rearrangement of life.

A new ability enters work and completes a conversation that once stopped. An artifact enters another person's hands and no longer exists only to prove that its author tried. A boundary enters a relationship so love no longer pays for ambition. A stopping decision enters the calendar and returns time to the body, family, and a new question.

Then ninety days is no longer an achievement to display. It is simply a season that happened with care. You cultivated, harvested, and admitted that some seeds did not grow. You carried forward what could travel, returned what had been borrowed, and before the next weather arrived, still knew where you lived.

May you have not only the courage to begin another cycle, but the honesty to end this one. May everything you worked so hard to gain eventually find somewhere to live.

Afterword: Progress Is Not Leaving Yourself Behind

I have returned to that afternoon in July 2017.

My friend W. was preparing for the TOEFL and asked, “How can I learn English efficiently?”

At the time, I thought the answer must be hidden in a vocabulary book, a set of grammar rules, or a smarter learning app. I laid out what I knew as if I were spreading a map across a table. I did not first ask where she wanted to go, or how much time she could actually leave each week.

Years later, I can admit that her question may not have been only about English. She was asking how an ordinary person can move life a little forward when time is limited, confidence keeps changing, and life does not cooperate.

Almost every chapter in this book is another echo of that question. English is a concrete door. AI is an increasingly powerful tool. An artifact is an answer that can be delivered. Evidence is a way to reduce self-deception. Rhythm is how a small action travels through time. The door, tool, artifact, evidence, and rhythm all return to the same person in the end.

Return to the First Question

If someone asked me today how to learn English efficiently, I would not begin with a longer resource list. I would ask:

In what real situation will you use it?

What can you complete independently now, and where do you stop?

How much time can you give it without charging sleep, relationships, or health?

When the plan breaks, how will you return?

Efficiency that does not bring you closer to a real purpose is only a faster way to do something unrelated to that purpose. More vocabulary and more sounds can help. They begin to belong to you after you close the material and can still explain, complete the task before an unfamiliar listener, and revise when you are wrong.

That is why I trust the phrase “the best method” less and less. A method works inside conditions: for which person, for which task, with which resources, at what cost, and with what stop condition. A method that works only on ideal days is incomplete. A method that makes it frightening to admit exhaustion will eventually turn exhaustion into a moral failure.

Failure Did Not Write the Conclusion for Me

I once imagined life as a route that could keep levelling up. Complete one goal and receive the next piece of equipment. Earn enough money and protect everyone important to me. Build a product and prove that the choices behind it were right.

Then the company failed. My body lost control. My family and relationships carried the weight of choices I had made. For a while I called it “a small episode in life”, because that made it easier to stand up. It was not the whole truth. Failure did not end my life, but it did leave losses, guilt, sleeplessness, arguments, departures, and a long period when I did not know how to continue.

Naming the cost is not an attempt to make the story more tragic, or to assign every responsibility to one person. It gives a review a truthful beginning: what I knew then, what I learned later, which effects I caused, which motives I have no right to explain for others, and which conclusions remain guesses no matter how elegantly they are written.

I keep the failure not because failure is noble by itself, or because every failure automatically teaches a lesson. It can provide information only after it is separated into facts, costs, responsibility, and the next gate. Otherwise it is only a wound played on repeat, or an advertisement dressed up as courage.

In 2026, I returned to practical work with AI and physical industries. I still treat every direction as work under test. My role, company affiliations, and plans belong in public view. Customers, costs, delivery quality, continued use, and risk outcomes can be answered only by real projects and time. I do not want new names to replace old illusions, or one visit or article to stand in for long-term evidence.

What Progress Means

If progress means becoming a completely different person, it becomes another way to run away. We keep rejecting the person we are and imagine that life may begin once we are intelligent enough, wealthy enough, healthy enough, or stable enough.

I would rather define progress as four abilities becoming more dependable:

Ability | What it looks like in life
Honesty | Distinguishing fact, interpretation, and wish, while admitting what remains unknown
Responsibility | Seeing how a choice affects others and repairing what can be repaired
Judgment | Letting sources, feedback, and outcomes change a view instead of protecting a conclusion
Return | Knowing how small the next step can be after interruption, failure, or reduced capacity

English taught me to hear other voices and my own limits. AI taught me that stronger tools require more human judgment. Projects taught me that artifacts must meet users, costs, and failure. Health and relationship lows taught me that a goal without care is not worth calling success.

None of this arrived as one revelation. It usually happened somewhere ordinary: an email I did not answer in time, an explanation I recorded again, a feature I removed, a request for help I finally spoke aloud, or an evening when I stopped trying to repay an interruption with lost sleep.

Small actions matter not because they create legends, but because they can be repeated, revised, and carried into new situations. Evidence of growth is often not “I have become good”. It is “I notice earlier when something is wrong, and I can stop without making the wrongness a verdict on my character”.

From the Afterword to Tomorrow

You do not need to reread the whole book first. Choose an entry point that matches your present condition:

If you do not know where to start, open the Toolkit Overview and choose one worksheet by the problem;

If you have samples but cannot tell whether anything changed, use the Evidence Chain Template to place baseline, immediate performance, delayed retention, and transfer together;

If you want to protect one week's rhythm, copy the Rhythm Ledger and write a full, compressed, and recovery version of the action;

If you want to give one task ninety days, use the 90-Day Cycle Map to name the situation, acceptance standard, and cost first;

If the plan has already broken, return to Recovery and the Daily System instead of judging yourself at your most exhausted.

Track one main question in week one and change one condition in week two. Three months later, place the first sample, revision record, real feedback, and remaining errors side by side. You do not have to announce that you have changed. If change exists, it will appear in the comparison of conditions, actions, and results.

When evidence does not support continuing, downgrade, change the question, or stop. Stopping an unworthy investment is not a betrayal of your past self. It may be the first time you have placed judgment back in your own hands.

To the Reader Ahead

I do not know who will open this book later. It may be someone preparing for an exam, someone newly unemployed, someone trying to build a product without users, someone repeatedly hurt in a relationship, or someone with five minutes today who only wants life to stop slipping out of control.

I cannot promise that tomorrow will be better, and I cannot decide which road is worth taking for you. I can leave a few quiet wishes:

May learning a language make you less eager to prove yourself and more able to hear another person's silence;

May building tools bring you closer to real people, real places, and real responsibility rather than farther away;

May you keep the ability to review yourself after failure without reducing yourself to the failure;

May you ask for help earlier, allow yourself to stop when stopping is responsible, and begin again without waiting for perfect permission.

Progress may not mean moving from a low place to a high one. It may be more like installing a new window in the same house. You still carry old wounds, habits, debts, and awkwardness. You can simply see more kinds of weather now, and know which light should remain on at night.

May progress not mean leaving yourself behind, but finally refusing to despise the person who stumbled all the way here and still did not give up completely.

Thank you for reading this far.

— Han Xiankai

Glossary of Terms and Methods

This is not an attempt to turn life into a vocabulary test. It gives recurring words in Life Level-up Guide a stable place to land. Return here when a term is unclear or you do not know which page to open next.

How to Use It

Find the task you are facing, then follow “definition → evidence → next step”. If a term does not help you complete a task, preserve a sample, or make a better decision, you do not need to memorise it for its own sake.

Problems and Goals

Term | Meaning in this guide | Continue here
Real problem | A situation with affected people and an action to complete, not “I want to improve” | Learning Principles
Context | When, where, and for whom a skill will be used | CEFR Goals and Self-check
Acceptance standard | An outcome another person can observe, check, or restate | AI Task Brief
Evaluation set | Normal, boundary, missing/conflicting, and realistic redacted samples used to check output instead of showing only model-friendly examples | AI Task Brief
Main question | One answerable question tracked for a week | 90-Day Action Plan

Evidence and Judgment

Term | Meaning in this guide | Common trap
Baseline | A raw sample saved before tool support or concentrated training | Replacing the first version with feelings or a polished result
Evidence | A record that returns to work, recording, test, source, or real feedback | Treating hours, saves, or chat logs as proof of ability
Fact | Something with a source, date, sample, or direct observation | Writing an explanation as a proven cause
Interpretation | A reading of the facts that may still need revision | Stopping verification because it sounds plausible
Hypothesis | A judgment waiting for the next action to test it | Writing a wish or model answer as a conclusion
Inference boundary | Separating what a source says, what evidence supports, and what you add | Treating a headline, emotion, or one anecdote as the whole picture
Narrative compression | Turning a complex experience into a shareable sentence or causal chain | Mistaking a shortened story for the whole event after removing chance, others' work, and unknowns
Hindsight bias | Explaining a past choice with outcomes that were known only later | Sending later information backwards into the past

Learning Actions

Term | Meaning in this guide | Related chapter
Retrieval practice | Close the source and answer, retell, write, or perform from memory | Learning Principles
Complete learning loop | Define the task, preserve a first version, diagnose, target input, produce actively, and record feedback/state | Learning Principles
First-version conditions | Material, time, tools, help, and acceptance standard recorded for the first attempt so later comparison is not confused by polish | English Diagnostic
Capacity mode | Choose a full, downgraded, minimum, or paused version of an action based on attention, body, time, and responsibility | Daily System
Distributed practice | Return at multiple points instead of cramming once | Vocabulary
Unknown-item decision queue | Decide whether to skip, infer, look up, learn, or professionally verify each unknown and record why | Vocabulary Evidence Card
Eight vocabulary dimensions | Separate form, sound, current sense, collocation, grammar, register, concept boundary, and retrieval condition | Vocabulary
Receptive / productive vocabulary | Receptive knowledge understands in listening/reading; productive knowledge retrieves in speaking/writing without the answer displayed | Vocabulary
Form–meaning choice | Treat grammar as a choice that changes time, participants, condition, negation scope, logic, or certainty rather than only a rule label | Grammar
Grammar contrast card | Preserve an original sentence, likely interpretation, intended meaning, form contrast, revision reason, and delayed retest for one real task | Grammar Evidence Card
Reference variety | A relatively stable dictionary-audio, spelling, or pronunciation reference chosen to reduce early decisions; it does not rank other English varieties below it | Speaking
Intelligibility / comprehensibility | The first records how much meaning the listener recovered; the second records effort such as guessing, replay, or confirmation. Both differ from accentedness | Speaking
Listener retelling | A listener restates gist, detail, numbers, responsibility, and next step without seeing the script, showing what the sound actually carried | Speaking Evidence Card
First-pass baseline | Preserve original gist, detail, timestamps, and action judgment after the first play under recorded caption, pause, speed, device, and environment conditions | Listening Evidence Card
Scaffold ladder | Adjustable support moving from a no-caption first pass through local replay, English transcript, and minimum background help, then closing text and removing support after a delay | Listening
Meaning reconstruction | Recover gist, relationships, critical detail, and next step in a retelling, process, decision, or handover instead of repeating the model word for word | Listening
First-reading baseline | Preserve original gist, structure, unknowns, and action judgment after the first read under recorded time, dictionary, translation, search, and AI conditions | Reading Evidence Card
Claim map | Label paragraphs as background, problem, claim, reason, evidence, limit, or action while preserving source locations | Reading
Technical fact card | Keep documentation goal, version, prerequisites, minimum input, expected/actual output, failure, and next test on one page | Reading Evidence Card
Narrow reading | Read multiple sources in one topic or domain so background, terminology, and structure recur | Reading
Fact and responsibility ledger | Record source, version, permission, confidence, and owner for facts, numbers, quotations, experience, inference, and information about others | Writing
Feedback uptake | Accept, partly accept, reject, or defer each item with a reason, then test independent use in a parallel text | Writing Evidence Card
Decision to sign | Decide before delivery whether the text is accountable as written, needs verification, needs narrower scope, or should not be published | Writing Evidence Card
Intensive listening/reading | Use short material to check detail, structure, evidence, and language form | Listening · Reading
Parallel material | A different source with similar difficulty and task for testing transfer | Reading Evidence Card
Transfer | Complete a related action after changing topic, listener, time, or task | 90-Day Cycle Map
Delayed retention | Complete a similar task after time has passed and recent prompts are removed | Evidence
Evidence chain | One page connecting baseline, immediate performance, delayed retention, transfer, and next step | Evidence Chain Template · Evidence
Variation | Keep the core action while changing the topic, listener, time, or constraint to test whether learning is real | Rhythm
Learner agency | The learner participates in defining the goal, submits an own first version, states capacity, questions feedback, and carries responsibility appropriate to age and context | Family Learning
Role language map | Extract recruiter communication, project explanation, technical follow-up, asynchronous writing, and other language tasks from one real role and connect them to existing evidence | Job-search English

Tools and Delivery

Term | Meaning in this guide | Related chapter
Task brief | A one-page record of context, input, action, boundaries, acceptance, and ownership | AI Task Brief
Learning State file | A versioned source of truth outside any conversation, preserving goal, evidence, errors, boundaries, handover, and next task | Learning State · Toolkit Walkthrough
Case review | A record that separates a public experience into source, facts, judgment, outcome, and transferable principle | AI Case Review
Evidence card | A template for preserving a first take, feedback, and retest for one language skill | Four-skill path
Reader Field Note | A private-first two-pass record of reading entry, real action, immediate result, delayed retest, transfer, and editorial feedback | Reader Field Note
Family Learning Agreement | A private worksheet where learner and guardian record goals, concerns, support, AI and data boundaries separately, then review fourteen days of evidence together | Family Learning Agreement
Job-search English Evidence Card | One record connecting a real role, unscripted baseline, stories, unfamiliar follow-ups, asynchronous writing, delayed retest, and integrity boundaries | Job-search English Evidence Card
Grammar Evidence Card | Track one high-impact structure through a real-task baseline, meaning contrast, four-skill retrieval, feedback classification, and day-fourteen transfer | Grammar Evidence Card
Listening Evidence Card | Connect material conditions, a no-caption first pass, six-layer error map, caption scaffolds, meaning reconstruction, action output, and parallel-material transfer | Listening Evidence Card
Reading Evidence Card | Connect source version, first pass, six-layer barrier map, claims/evidence, technical facts, source comparison, real output, and delayed transfer | Reading Evidence Card
Writing Evidence Card | Connect real audience, unaided draft, fact sources, translation changes, five revision passes, feedback uptake, AI use, async delivery, and authorship responsibility | Writing Evidence Card
Vocabulary Evidence Card | Connect a real task, first encounter, unknown-item decisions, eight-dimensional verification, unaided retrieval, error repair, and delayed transfer | Vocabulary Evidence Card
Speaking Evidence Card | A private record connecting reference variety, three unscripted baselines, listener retelling, comprehension effort, interaction repair, unfamiliar follow-ups, and delayed transfer | Speaking Evidence Card
Interaction repair | When hearing, scope, or knowledge is incomplete, request repetition, confirm, ask for thinking time, and summarise agreement | Speaking · Job-search English
Artifact | An output others can read, use, question, or improve; not necessarily a product | Artifacts
Delivery | Completing work under a real audience, user, or constraint and accepting the result | 90-Day Action Plan
Human gate | AI may assist, but named people confirm source, fact, permission, privacy, quality, cost, and final ownership before release or execution | AI Task Brief · AI Project Development
Speed debt | Real cost owed when shorter immediate time creates more rework, verification, communication, or incident risk | AI Learning Log
AI Learning Log | A private sheet comparing unaided, assisted, delayed-independent, and parallel tasks to record tool contribution and owned ability | AI Learning Log
Rollback | Pause, degrade, switch, or return to a known usable state after failure | AI Learning and Project Practice

Life and Boundaries

Term | Meaning in this guide | Related chapter
Boundary | What I will do to protect myself and state a consequence when something happens | Relationships
Recovery | Restore safety, body, relationships, and agency before efficiency and growth | Recovery
Recovery mode | A safety, reduced-load, or rebuilding load chosen from current safety, basic care, and agency; a life-recording term rather than a clinical rating | Recovery
Return-to-work load test | Increase one variable such as duration, complexity, responsibility, or exposure, then inspect same-day completion and next-day cost | Recovery
Support agreement | State what a supporter may do, must not replace, when to escalate, and how control returns as risk falls | Recovery · Life Practice Toolkit
Minimum order | A safe action and visible result that remain repeatable during disorder | Life Practice Toolkit
Minimum viable day | A version of the day that preserves safety, one minimum output, and a cue for the next step at the capacity available | Daily System
Capacity budget | A rough estimate that includes time, attention, body, and responsibility rather than time alone | Daily System
Return action | The smallest output that can be completed within 24 hours and bring the system back after interruption | Daily System
Rhythm | One pattern of action that remains recognisable and executable at different capacities, connecting repetition, feedback, and recovery over time | Rhythm
Compounding | Today's choice reduces tomorrow's hesitation, rework, or recovery cost, allowing ability, trust, judgment, and recovery to support one another | Rhythm
Minimum contract | An agreement for bad days that states when to downgrade, what action to keep, and when to ask for help or escalate risk | Rhythm
Rhythm ledger | One page each week recording the main question, protected action, useful feedback, repeated resistance, and next condition to change | Rhythm Ledger Template · Rhythm
Cost | Time, money, health, relationships, privacy, and responsibility that must be named | Decision-Making
Reversibility | Whether a choice can be paused, undone, or changed back at manageable cost | Decision-Making
Value conflict | Two important aims cannot both be fully preserved, requiring an explicit priority and a statement of what each option gives up | Decision-Making
Decision authority | Final power to approve or refuse a choice, with the source of authority, affected people, and responsibility made explicit | Decision-Making
Disconfirming evidence | A fact or result named before action that would remove support for the current choice, guarding against collecting only confirmation | Decision-Making
Stop gate | An observable evidence, cost, safety, or responsibility signal that triggers pause, stop, rollback, or escalation for help | Decision-Making · Life Practice Toolkit

One Sentence to Keep

If you keep one sequence: name the problem, save a baseline, use the right tool for one small task, let a real person test it, write the feedback into the next action, and recover before adding pressure.

Related entry points: Prologue: Do Not Rush to Change Your Life | 90-Day Cycle Map

Toolkit Overview: Choose the Problem Before the Tool

Templates are not another course to collect. They are work sheets you can reuse: name the problem in front of you, preserve an unpolished sample, take one action, and let feedback decide what comes next.

If you do not know where to begin, choose one sheet. An incomplete sheet used on a real problem is more valuable than ten blank templates.

First Ask: Where Am I Stuck?

Current block | First tool | Open next | What this tool cannot prove for you
There are too many tools and I do not know how to fill them | Toolkit Walkthrough | Learning State | A synthetic example cannot prove the same plan fits you
No clear goal or baseline | Learning State | English Diagnostic | It cannot choose a permanently correct direction
Preparing for a global role, English interview, or remote collaboration | Job-search English Evidence Card | Job-search English | It cannot guarantee an offer or turn one level into a universal hiring line
Starting a 90-day cycle | 90-Day Cycle Map | Rhythm Ledger | It cannot guarantee success or persistence
Weekly rhythm keeps breaking | Rhythm Ledger | Weekly Review | It cannot turn fatigue, illness, or responsibility into laziness
I have samples but cannot tell whether anything really changed | Evidence Chain | Evidence | It cannot turn one smooth performance into stable ability
Reading moved me, but I do not know what remains seven days later | Reader Field Note | Evidence Chain | It cannot turn one personal experience into a universal effect
I am supporting a middle-school-age learner | Family Learning Agreement | Family Learning | It cannot choose a life for the learner, replace school, or diagnose difficulty
I recognise words but cannot use them | Vocabulary Evidence Card | Vocabulary | It cannot replace contextual performance with card counts
I know the rule but still repeat errors in real expression | Grammar Evidence Card | Grammar | One corrected sentence, a style preference, or AI polish cannot prove stable grammar ability
I collect audio but still depend on captions or do not know what each replay should do | Listening Evidence Card | Listening | Minutes, repetitions, caption understanding, and smooth shadowing cannot prove stable listening
I read documentation slowly, translate word by word, or cannot deliver after reading | Reading Evidence Card | Reading | Page count, highlights, translation, and tool summaries cannot prove independent understanding or verification
I sound fluent only with a script, fear accent difference, or freeze on follow-ups | Speaking Evidence Card | Speaking | Accent similarity, recognition scores, and one retake cannot prove stable interaction ability
I cannot leave my own draft, depend on sentence translation, or only have a tool-polished product | Writing Evidence Card | Writing | Fluent final text, automated scores, and one revision cannot prove accountable authorship or transfer
I do not know how to involve AI | AI Task Brief | AI Learning Log | It cannot turn a model response into a fact or final judgment
I have an idea but no deliverable | Artifact Brief and Delivery Card | AI Project Scorecard | It cannot find users, carry responsibility, or prove a commercial result
I want to analyse a person or project story | AI Case Review | Narrative and Evidence | It cannot turn a public narrative into an independent audit
I am handling a decision, attention, relationship, or recovery problem | Life Practice Toolkit | Decision-Making · Attention · Relationships · Recovery | It cannot replace medical, psychological, legal, or financial support

Connect the Tools into One Loop

For a first use, follow the complete synthetic cross-session AI-learning case. Do not fill every template at once. Follow this order and keep only the evidence each step needs:

Locate: use Learning State or English Diagnostic to name the real situation, baseline, and acceptance standard;

Choose: use the 90-Day Cycle Map for a longer cycle, or the Rhythm Ledger for one week;

Practice: choose a vocabulary, grammar, listening, reading, speaking, or writing evidence card; when the goal is an interview, use the Job-search English Evidence Card to include unfamiliar follow-ups and asynchronous writing, and complete your own first version;

Collaborate: when AI is useful, fill the AI Task Brief, then record the collaboration and your closed-AI performance in the AI Learning Log;

Deliver: for a real audience, use the Artifact Brief and Delivery Card; after a release or pilot, use the AI Project Scorecard to record quality, cost, risk, and rollback;

Review: use the Evidence Chain to place the first version, immediate performance, delayed retention, and transfer together, then use the Weekly Review to change one condition;

Field note: when the action began from a chapter in this book, use the Reader Field Note to record what entered action and what remained unusable.

This is a returnable path. If a step reveals risk, lower capacity, or missing evidence, go back and reduce the task. Going back is not waste; it makes the next action more trustworthy.

Three Rules

Track Only What Can Change a Decision

If a number cannot help you continue, downgrade, change a variable, or stop, you do not need to record it for long. The purpose of a record is not to fill a page. It is to clarify the next step.

A First Version Should Be Human-made

Complete the baseline, first version, and independent retest before AI enters or after it is closed whenever possible. A tool can explain, compare, and point out problems. It cannot manufacture the feeling of having learned.

Records Must Keep Boundaries

Do not paste passwords, identity documents, exact addresses, customer data, medical privacy, or unauthorised third-party content into a template or model. For health, safety, legal, financial, or persistent loss-of-control concerns, contact a qualified professional or trusted support person first.

A Minimum Beginning

Write only four lines today:

markdown

The real problem I am solving:
The baseline evidence I already have:
The smallest output I will complete in 25–45 minutes:
Where I will preserve the evidence:

When it is done, choose the tool closest to the task, give it a date, and set the next review time. Do not wait for every field to be complete. Starting is what makes the missing information concrete.

Related entry points: Toolkit Walkthrough | Reader's Guide: Put the Book Back into Life | Glossary of Terms and Methods | Rhythm: Let Small Things Travel Through Time

Toolkit Walkthrough: Let AI Continue a 90-Day Learning Project across Sessions

Many readers do not lack plans. They do not know when each worksheet should open. Another common problem appears during a three-month learning project: one AI conversation grows too long, while a new conversation seems to erase the state that came before it.

The answer is not to demand permanent memory from AI. Let a file preserve state and let AI handle the current task.

This page uses a Python learner preparing for a career change as a complete walkthrough. The person, tasks, code results, scores, and feedback are synthetic. They demonstrate how to fill the tools; they are not a real reader outcome and do not prove that ninety days is enough for a career transition.

This Is Not a Success Story

The demonstration learner has these conditions:

Can read variables, conditions, and simple loops but cannot independently complete a small program;

Can reliably invest four 45-minute sessions each week;

Has a ninety-day goal of independently completing a command-line tool that reads CSV, validates rows, and prints a summary;

Will not upload company data, ask AI to write the final artifact, or repay interruption with lost sleep;

Will not add frameworks or another course if core code still cannot be explained on day fourteen.

These conditions are demonstration boundaries. Your starting point, time, body, work, and goal may differ completely.

Scene: Why the Plan Loses Its Memory

The initial failure is to leave everything inside one chat window:

Ask AI for a twelve-week plan;

Ask questions, practise, and revise code in the same conversation every day;

Depend on prior messages to preserve errors, progress, and the next step;

As context grows, new answers begin mixing old tasks together;

After opening a new conversation, reconstruct the learner from a long recollection.

Context length is not the only problem. A chat log has no stable version and does not clearly separate completed fact, AI interpretation, and next hypothesis. Learning state should not be trapped inside one provider or one conversation.

The Job of Each of Five Tools

Tool | Job in this case | What it does not own
Learning State | Preserve cross-session facts, evidence, errors, boundaries, and next task | Every line of conversation
AI Task Brief | Bound the current 45-minute task, input, assistance, and acceptance | The whole life plan
Evidence Chain | Compare unaided baseline, assisted version, delayed retest, and transfer | Proving “mastery” through one score
Weekly Review | Change one variable from one week's evidence | Turning one poor week into a verdict about character
Reader Field Note | Record whether the toolkit entered action and where it remained unusable | Public disclosure or a rating of the book

If this is your first use of the toolkit, follow this page for one week. Do not open every other template at the same time.

Step One: Put State outside the Conversation

The learner creates python-learning-state.md instead of using an AI thread as memory:

markdown

# Learning State — python-90d-v1

Updated: 2026-09-02
Ninety-day situation: independently deliver a CSV-summary command-line tool and explain input validation, error handling, and tests.
Current baseline: can write variables, if, and for; cannot independently read CSV, separate functions, or write tests.
Reliable capacity: Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday, 45 minutes each.
Existing evidence: baseline/day-01.py; crashes on a row with an empty value.
Repeated errors: looking at answers first; treating running code as explained code; changing several variables and losing the cause.
Boundaries: synthetic data only; submit my version first; no make-up study after 23:00.
Current phase: days 1–14, calibrate.
Smallest next task: read a 12-row synthetic CSV, skip empty rows, and print valid-row count plus total amount.
Acceptance: the unaided version runs; I can explain each function; at least one failing test is preserved.
Stop condition: save state when 45 minutes ends; do not stay up to finish.

The state file keeps only what can change the next action. Course notes, full chat logs, and every attempt belong in the evidence folder rather than on the state page.

Step Two: Give AI One Task at a Time

A new conversation does not ask AI to “remember me”. It receives the latest state and one task brief:

markdown

Below is my Learning State file. First restate the version, goal, current evidence, main errors, boundaries, and next task in no more than six bullets. Point out conflicts or gaps. Do not add facts that are absent.

This session has one task: read a synthetic CSV, skip empty rows, and print valid-row count plus total amount.
Process: let me submit an unaided version first; identify at most three problems that affect the result without giving full code; after I revise it, test with two cases. At 45 minutes, return five updates: completed, evidence, error/risk, handover, and next step.

AI's first job is to restate the state, not begin a lecture. When the restatement is wrong, repair the state or prompt before generating another plan on a false premise.

Step Three: Save a Baseline before Asking for Help

The synthetic unaided attempt produces:

Condition | Result | Evidence
25 minutes, no answer | Reads valid rows; empty amount raises an exception; all logic in one function | evidence/week-01/baseline.py
AI identifies only three issues | Empty-value validation, function ownership, and missing tests become visible | evidence/week-01/feedback.md
After revision | Normal-row and empty-row tests pass; invalid amount format remains unsupported | evidence/week-01/revision.py

The record is not “AI wrote the program”. It says the unaided version exposed three issues, AI helped classify them, the learner repaired two, and the third became the next task.

Asking for complete code first may produce a better-looking file while erasing the baseline and any way to tell which ability belongs to the learner.

Step Four: Put the Artifact into an Evidence Chain

Week one does not preserve the statement “learned CSV”. It records four time points:

Time point | Condition | Synthetic result | What it still cannot show
Baseline | No AI, 25 minutes | 1/3 acceptance conditions pass | Understanding of error handling
Immediate after assistance | Three feedback points seen | 2/3 pass; two functions can be explained | Retention after several days
Day-seven delayed retest | Old code closed; parallel CSV | 2/3 pass; invalid amount is missed again | Adaptation to a new field
Transfer | Add a currency field | Finds where change belongs; currency validation incomplete | Structure begins to transfer, prerequisites remain missing

The result is not perfect and is more informative than “maintained a seven-day streak”. The next variable is not pandas, a web framework, and a database. It is input validation and failing tests.

Step Five: Continue in a New Conversation

The weekly review writes only decision-changing information back into state:

markdown

# Learning State — python-90d-v2

Updated: 2026-09-08
Completed: normal and empty CSV rows; logic separated into read_rows and summarize.
Evidence: week-01/baseline.py; revision.py; day-07-retest.py; tests.md.
Delayed result: 2/3 conditions remain on day seven; invalid amount fails again.
Main error: failure paths lack tests; normal output causes testing to stop too early.
Boundaries retained: synthetic data; unaided answer first; stop at 45 minutes; no repayment of missed time.
Smallest next task: write three failing tests before implementing parse_amount.
Acceptance: empty, alphabetic, and negative inputs have explicit outcomes; design choice can be explained aloud.
Next review: 2026-09-15.

The old conversation can close. The new one needs only v2 and the relevant evidence locations, not tens of thousands of words from the chat. AI did not track learning across sessions. The state file tracked it, and AI read and served that state.

Step Six: Complete a Reader Field Note after Seven Days

The synthetic demonstration must also inspect whether the toolkit supported action:

markdown

Entry problem: I did not know how a new AI conversation could continue a three-month plan.
Action: created a versioned Learning State, completed one CSV task, and saved an unaided version plus retest.
What remained after seven days: could write state v2 without the old chat and begin one defined task in a new conversation.
Failed transfer: knew errors should be preserved but still did not know how to classify them.
Most useful: the five-tool responsibility table and filled state example.
Still abstract: phase gates need examples for more kinds of goals.
Cannot conclude: this workflow guarantees job readiness after ninety days.

The note remains private first. Only after paths, identity, and sensitive details are removed should a public version be considered.

If the Week Is Interrupted

The state file does not require repayment of the whole plan. The first return record states facts:

markdown

Interruption fact: no practice for seven days.
Cause evidence: two overtime evenings, one period of illness, no retest completed.
What I will not do: compress four lessons into the weekend or repay them through lost sleep.
Return action: run the previous tests, write one failing case, and update state.
24-hour acceptance: preserve the failing test and the next 25-minute entry point.

When health, safety, work responsibility, or relationships need priority, recovery itself can be the week's result. The plan serves life; life does not owe the plan an apology.

Session Protocol You Can Copy

markdown

1. Restate the submitted state version, goal, evidence, errors, boundaries, and next task.
2. Identify conflicts and missing information; do not infer unwritten history.
3. Handle one minimum task only and let me submit the unaided version first.
4. Give at most three high-impact feedback points, separating observation, interpretation, and suggestion.
5. Do not provide a complete answer unless I explicitly request it.
6. End with: completed, evidence, error/risk, handover, and next step.
7. Treat the file as the source of truth and do not claim memory of other conversations.

This protocol cannot guarantee that AI never errs. It makes errors easier to detect and preserves the learner's ownership of the problem, state, and final judgment.

What This Walkthrough Shows and Does Not Show

It shows that five tools can form a clear handover: state lives outside the conversation, the task becomes smaller, unaided and assisted versions remain separate, a delayed retest occurs, and a new conversation has a reliable entry.

It does not show that:

The synthetic learner will persist for ninety days;

This task difficulty fits every beginner;

AI always makes learning faster than studying without it;

Completing a command-line tool equals real job readiness;

One week represents long-term transfer.

In real use, preserve your own baseline, artifacts, time, cost, and failures. The example shows how to fill the records. Reality decides whether they are useful.

Closing: Give Memory to the File and Keep Judgment with Yourself

A long learning project should not lose its past when a chat closes, and it should not impersonate continuity merely because one chat is long.

Let the state file remember what happened. Let evidence preserve what you actually made. Let the next conversation carry only the next step. Tools may change, models may update, and the plan may shrink. As long as you know where you came from, what remains unproved, and where the next task lives, learning is not trapped inside any conversation.

Related entry points: Learning State | AI Task Brief | Evidence Chain | Reader Field Note

Evidence Chain Template

This worksheet answers one concrete question: What exactly do I know has changed?

It does not require every result to improve or turn life into a score. It places samples from the same task under different conditions side by side, so you can distinguish “I can do it now”, “I still can after a few days”, and “I can use it somewhere new”.

Copy it into a private note and use one copy for each main question. Do not record passwords, identity documents, customer data, medical privacy, or unauthorised third-party information. For health, safety, legal, financial, or persistent loss-of-control concerns, contact a trusted person and a qualified professional first.

1. Define the Question

markdown

Record start date:
Real situation and audience/user:
The one question this record answers:
Acceptance standard:
Possible risks and stop conditions:

The question should be observable, such as “Can I explain a project risk in English without a script and answer one follow-up?” Do not write “Am I better now?”

2. Save an Unaided Baseline

The baseline should happen before AI, peer feedback, or concentrated training whenever possible. Record the conditions so tools, extra time, and familiar material do not disappear from the comparison.

Date | Task and constraints | Tool used? | Result/errors | Raw evidence location
|  | No |  |

markdown

What I could complete independently at baseline:
Where I stopped or needed a prompt:
What the baseline cannot prove:

3. Record Immediate Performance

Immediate performance says what happened under the current conditions. It does not automatically say that ability is stable.

Date | Conditions and prompts | What I completed | Quality/time/rework | Evidence location

If AI was used, state what it did and what you completed independently after closing it. A chat log is a process trace, not proof of ability by itself.

4. Test Delayed Retention

Wait for a period, remove recent prompts and the original answer, and complete a related task. Choose the interval according to the task and your capacity, but write it down.

markdown

Retest date:
Time since the last practice:
Prompts removed:
Related task:
Independent result:
Errors that remained:
Evidence location:

5. Test Transfer

Keep the core action and change at least one condition: topic, listener, time limit, material, tool permission, or purpose.

Changed condition | New task | Independent result | How did the other person/user understand it? | Evidence location

A failed transfer does not make earlier practice worthless. It shows that the change may be too large, prerequisite knowledge is missing, or the acceptance standard needs revision.

6. Separate Fact, Interpretation, and Hypothesis

markdown

Fact: I can point to a date, condition, sample, source, or direct observation.
Interpretation: How I understand those facts; it may need revision.
Hypothesis: The judgment I will test in the next action.
Conclusion I cannot draw yet:

For example, “the unaided version finished in 90 seconds” is a record. “It was clearer because my sleep improved” is an interpretation. “It may work if I can repeat it with an unfamiliar listener next week” is a hypothesis.

7. Let Evidence Choose the Next Step

markdown

This evidence most supports: continue / downgrade / change one variable / pause or stop
The one condition I will change:
Smallest next task:
Acceptance standard for the next task:
Support, permission, or professional judgment needed:
Next review date:

When evidence conflicts, do not hide the conflict in an average. Write the different conditions first, then decide whether another sample is worth collecting. When evidence is thin, shrinking the question is usually more honest than manufacturing a precise score.

8. Handover Summary

markdown

Main question and acceptance standard:
Most reliable evidence:
Least reliable or still missing evidence:
Repeated errors/risks:
Smallest next task and stop condition:
Evidence folder or link:

When handing this summary to your future self, a peer, or AI, ask them to work only from this record. They should not pretend to remember another session or fill in facts that are not present.

Related chapters: Evidence: How Change Becomes Visible | Toolkit Overview | Rhythm Ledger | Glossary of Terms and Methods

Reader Field Note: What Remains Seven Days Later

This field note is not a book review and does not ask you to prove that a book works. It follows a plainer path: what brought you in, what you did after reading, and what remained several days later.

Copy it into a private note first. Complete the first pass within ten minutes of reading and the second pass three to seven days later. Do not repeatedly reread the chapter just to complete the form. The second record matters because fewer prompts remain.

Public sharing is always optional. Names, employers, customers, relationships, health, finances, and conversation content that lack permission should not enter a public note merely to make it look “real”.

Complete It Privately First

A useful field note answers only four things:

What real problem did I bring to the page?

What did I actually make or do rather than merely agree with?

Three to seven days later, could I act again with fewer prompts or under a changed condition?

Which passage supported action, and which remained abstract, unsafe, or unusable?

It is valid to record no action or no retest. “This produced agreement but no action yet” is evidence. You do not need to invent a success story to complete the sheet.

First Pass: Ten Minutes after Reading

1. Entry Problem

markdown

Date:
Chapter or page:
Why I opened it:
Real situation at the time:
What I could already do before reading:
Where I was stuck before reading:
Time and capacity available today:

Do not write “I want to improve myself”. Name a situation that can occur, such as: “I need to hand project risks to a colleague, but the current record contains only chat messages and scattered screenshots.”

2. Retell It in Your Own Words

Close the page and use no more than three sentences:

markdown

Core judgment as I understand it:
Fact, example, or source supporting it:
What it still cannot prove for me:

If you can only copy the original wording, do not rush to rate the chapter. Write “I cannot explain this in my own words yet”. That is more accurate than a polished quotation.

3. Take One Minimum Action

Choose an action that can end within 10–45 minutes and leaves something visible.

markdown

Minimum action I will complete:
Acceptance standard:
AI or human assistance used:
What I must decide myself:
Location of the artifact, recording, code, or note:
Stop condition:

Possible actions include rewriting an email, recording an explanation, repairing one test, creating a learning-state page, removing an invalid requirement, or confirming a boundary with someone affected. Saving more material is not an action.

4. Preserve the Immediate Result

markdown

What I actually completed:
What remained incomplete:
Direct feedback or outcome:
Largest error or resistance:
The conclusion I am most tempted to exaggerate:
Next retest date:

An immediate success shows only what happened under the present conditions. If AI was used, keep the assisted version separate from the independent version completed after closing it.

Second Pass: Three to Seven Days Later

5. Retest before Rereading

Do not open the original chapter, chat, or answer first. Complete a related task and then record:

markdown

Retest date and interval:
Prompts removed:
Related task:
What I completed independently:
Prompts still needed:
What genuinely remained from the first attempt:
Evidence location:

If nothing returns, do not convert the result into “I was busy”. Record the fact first. Then decide whether the task was too large, the entry unclear, or the chapter produced only short-term agreement.

6. Change One Condition

For transfer, change only one condition: topic, audience, time limit, material, tool permission, or purpose.

Changed condition | New task | Independent result | Where it failed | Next step

A failed transfer is not a bad review. It exposes the boundary of a method and helps an author distinguish a sentence that sounds right from something a reader can actually use.

7. Give Editorial Feedback

Point to a specific paragraph, heading, example, or tool whenever possible:

markdown

Passage that most supported action:
Passage that remained abstract or unusable:
Missing boundary, example, or prerequisite:
Passage that could be removed or shortened:
Part that did not work when I tried it:
Question I hope the next edition answers:

“This is excellent” may encourage the author but rarely changes the next edition. “I followed step three but could not define the acceptance standard” carries more editorial value.

Separate Fact, Interpretation, and Wish

Before sharing, check whether three layers have been mixed:

Layer | Example
Fact | Seven days later, without the page, I completed two requirements and needed a prompt for the third
Interpretation | The example may have helped me retain the structure, while the boundary remained abstract
Wish | I hope the next edition includes one fully completed example

Do not turn one personal result into “this works for everyone”, or one failure into “the method is useless”. Keep the task, conditions, and sample so the conclusion retains boundaries.

Privacy Gate before Sharing

Consider public sharing only when every item passes:

[ ] Passwords, keys, identity documents, exact addresses, and private contact details are removed;

[ ] Customer data, company secrets, medical records, and non-public financial information are removed;

[ ] Unnecessary third-party names, photos, relationships, and identifying details are removed;

[ ] Material involving others is authorised or reduced to non-identifying minimum facts;

[ ] Direct observation, personal interpretation, and next hypothesis are separated;

[ ] I accept that this record may remain public and searchable for a long time.

If any item is uncertain, keep the note private. An author does not need your privacy in order to improve a book.

When to Move into an Evidence Chain

A Reader Field Note answers whether one reading entered action. When one ability needs several comparable samples, scoring conditions, delayed retention, and transfer across contexts, move the record into the Evidence Chain Template.

For a completed walkthrough, read Toolkit Walkthrough: Let AI Continue a 90-Day Learning Project across Sessions. It uses synthetic data to show how Learning State, an AI task, an artifact, a retest, and this field note connect.

After the privacy gate, you may optionally submit a public Reader Field Note. Public sharing does not determine the value of the practice.

Related entry points: Case Study: Let the Book Prove Its Method | Toolkit Overview | Weekly Review

Family Learning Agreement: Fourteen Days of Negotiable Support

This is not a parent-issued contract or a promise a child must sign in obedience. It is a private worksheet that lets a learner and parent or guardian write separately, read each other accurately, and use fourteen days of evidence to choose the next step.

Keep it in a private family location. Do not include passwords, identity numbers, precise addresses, internal school accounts, medical records, or private information about teachers and classmates. Do not publish the agreement, baseline, or failed samples unless the learner understands the scope, relevant people have authorised the use, and the content has been minimised.

1. Write Separately, Then Read Together

Learner First

markdown

One real thing I want to become easier after two weeks:
What I can already complete:
Where I most often stop:
Help that works for me:
Help that makes starting harder or makes honesty less safe:
Time and capacity I can carry today:

Parent or Guardian Next

markdown

Specific facts I have observed:
What I am most concerned about:
Concerns supported by evidence:
Parts that remain my interpretation:
Time, space, device, or communication support I can provide:
Monitoring, substituted work, or public sharing I will not do:

When reading together, do not rebut immediately. Restate the other person's meaning until they consider it substantially accurate.

2. Write One Shared Question

markdown

The one question these fourteen days answer:
School or life situation where it occurs:
Explicit school requirement:
Learner's own acceptance standard:
Safety and responsibility boundary the adult must protect:
Result that supports continuation:
Result that supports reduction, pause, or closure:

The question must permit an unsuccessful result. “Can I retell the main idea of a parallel text after two weeks?” preserves reality more easily than “increase vocabulary by 500 words”.

3. Preserve the Baseline

Date | Task and constraints | Learner's independent result | Where prompts entered | Raw evidence location

markdown

What the baseline can show:
What it still cannot show:
The one condition this experiment changes:

An adult may help preserve the file but does not give the complete answer before the baseline is finished.

4. Three Capacity Modes

Mode | When it applies | Learner action to preserve | Adult support to preserve
Full |  |  |
Compressed |  |  |
Recovery |  |  |

markdown

Latest ending time:
Work explicitly not repaid:
Minimum return action within 24 hours after interruption:

A recovery day may contain no learning artifact. Safety, basic care, communication, and preparing the next entry can be the whole result.

5. Adult Support List

Choose only two or three for these two weeks:

[ ] Protect one time box from casual interruption.

[ ] Prepare school-designated material or necessary equipment.

[ ] Help contact a teacher or confirm an assignment requirement.

[ ] Give no more than three concrete feedback points after the learner's first version.

[ ] Give one reminder at the agreed time without repeated questioning.

[ ] Help save versions and the next entry point.

[ ] Agree to downgrade or pause when capacity falls.

The adult explicitly will not:

[ ] Write or answer in the learner's place, or ask AI to produce work the learner submits under their name.

[ ] Inspect the screen, chat history, or minute-by-minute status all day.

[ ] Send artifacts, grades, or failures to unrelated relatives or public platforms.

[ ] Shame through comparison with classmates, siblings, or past high points.

[ ] Repay the plan through lost sleep, removed basic rest, or continuing conflict.

6. AI and Data Agreement

markdown

Permitted platform and account:
Current platform age/guardian rules checked: yes / no / not applicable
Does the school permit AI for this task?
AI may: ask / explain / give feedback / create parallel practice / other
AI may not:
Independent version the learner submits first:
Evidence saved after each use:
Retelling or independent action after the session closes:

Never upload:

[ ] Name, school, class, identity document, precise address, or private contact details.

[ ] Face, voiceprint, health, family relationships, or non-minimised grade records.

[ ] Private information or unauthorised work from teachers, classmates, or other third parties.

[ ] Internal school accounts, test answers, restricted material, or sensitive family information.

When the platform, school, or family cannot confirm the boundary, use paper, offline material, synthetic data, or a teacher-approved alternative first.

7. Feedback Rules

markdown

One main question kept in each review:
Maximum number of adult feedback points:
How the learner may reject or question feedback:
Fact to establish first during disagreement:
When a teacher should participate:

Feedback form:

markdown

I observed:
Effect on the task:
What I remain uncertain about:
One thing I suggest testing next:

Avoid “you are just…”, “you never…”, and “everyone else can…”.

8. Fourteen-Day Evidence

Time point | Condition | Independent result | Feedback received | Still unknown
Day-one baseline |  |  |  |
Immediate revision |  |  |  |
Delayed retest |  |  |  |
Transfer under one new condition |  |  |  |

Chat duration, streaks, and reminder counts are process traces. Key judgment returns to artifacts, problems, recordings, classroom use, and performance after prompts are removed.

9. Pause and Support Gate

markdown

Safety, physical, sleep, emotional, school, or family conditions that pause the experiment immediately:
Trusted adult the learner can contact first:
School contact route:
Qualified local or emergency support route:
Work that does not need repayment after a pause:

For persistent functional difficulty, thoughts of harm, violence, bullying, threats, or unsafe communication, protect safety and seek appropriate support rather than diagnosing or handling the situation through this worksheet.

10. Two-Week Review: Learner Speaks First

Learner

markdown

One thing that genuinely became easier:
One thing still impossible or prompt-dependent:
Most useful support:
Monitoring that added no value or made me uncomfortable:
Action I am willing to continue:

Parent or Guardian

markdown

Artifacts and facts I observed:
Control or failed demand I reduced:
Concern that remains unsupported by enough evidence:
Support I will keep in the next cycle:

Shared Decision

markdown

Continue / reduce / change one condition / pause or stop:
Evidence:
Smallest next task:
Next review date:
Teacher or professional involvement needed:

Closing: Support Must Face Review Too

Families often review whether the learner completed the task and rarely review whether adult support worked. This agreement asks both sides for evidence: did the task become clearer, did support reduce friction, and can the relationship still tell the truth?

When help becomes only surveillance, substituted work, and transferred anxiety, it too must shrink or stop. Useful support may not make a learner do more immediately. It helps them see the problem, state a need, own a version, and know whom to contact when difficulty grows.

Related chapter: Family Learning: Return Ownership of Growth to the Learner | First Week Practice | Evidence Chain Template

Learning State Template

Copy this into a private note. It is a cross-session source of truth, not a performance diary. Do not include passwords, government IDs, exact addresses, sensitive health data, or third-party information without permission.

markdown

# Learning State

State version: v1
Updated: YYYY-MM-DD
Owner:
Primary file location:

## Goal
- Real context:
- Current main task:
- 12-week outcome:
- This week's focus:
- Acceptance criteria:
- Deadline:

## Constraints and Boundaries
- Weekly time/energy available:
- Materials and tools allowed:
- Content that must not be uploaded or published:
- AI may assist with:
- A person must confirm:

## Current Level and Baseline
- I can currently:
- Baseline sample:
- Latest score/feedback:

| Sample | Conditions | Location | Date | What it does not show yet |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | |

## Completed
- [date] task — output/evidence location — result/next step

## Errors, Risks, and Knowledge Gaps
| Error/risk | Evidence | Likely cause/confidence | Next treatment and stop condition |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

## Methods That Worked
- Method — conditions — evidence

## Hypotheses to Test
- Hypothesis — counterexample — next test — deadline

## Latest Handover
- Completed and evidence:
- Facts still unconfirmed:
- Open decisions:
- Cost/rework so far:
- First action when reopening:
- People to notify or consult:

## Next Action
1. Smallest next task:
2. Expected time:
3. Material needed:
4. Evidence to save:
5. Next review date:

Cross-session Recovery Prompt

text

Below is my learning-state file. In no more than six bullets, restate the state version, goal, current evidence, main errors, boundaries, and next action. Flag conflicts or missing information; do not pretend to remember another chat or invent facts absent from the file. Design one exercise only for the “smallest next task”: let me answer first, then give feedback against the acceptance criteria. Do not provide a complete answer unless I ask. Finish with five paste-ready updates: completed, evidence, errors/risks, handover, next action.

[paste Learning State]

An AI summary is not the source of truth. Resume from the file, saved work, sources, and version number; after a weekly review, update the Weekly Review, Evidence Chain, and 90-Day Cycle Map by their separate jobs instead of copying the same record.

Rhythm Ledger Template

Copy this ledger into a private note and use one page each week. It is not a streak table or a dashboard for scoring your character. It helps you see what deserves to stay, which condition needs to change, and how to return after an interruption.

Do not write passwords, identity documents, customer data, medical privacy, or unauthorised third-party information. When safety, health, money, or relationship risks are involved, contact a qualified professional or a trusted support person first.

1. One Main Question

markdown

Date range:
The one question this week:
Real situation and audience:
Acceptance standard:
Baseline evidence at the start of the week:

The question should be observable, such as “Can I explain a project risk in English without a script and answer a follow-up?” Do not write “be better this week”.

2. Three Capacity Versions

Capacity | When to use it | Minimum action | Evidence that must remain | Stop or downgrade condition
Full day | Time and capacity are relatively stable |  |  |
Compressed day | Time is short or attention is fragmented |  |  |
Recovery day | Illness, sleeplessness, grief, or responsibility rises sharply |  |  |

The three versions serve one direction. A recovery day is not a failure. When safety, sleep, the body, or relationships are clearly affected, protect those limits before completing the plan.

3. Give Repetition an Echo

Date | Action | Recall / variation / output / feedback | What new information appeared? | Which variable changes next time?

If four repetitions produce no new information, change the topic, listener, time limit, number of prompts, or tool permission before simply adding more repetitions.

4. Record One Useful Piece of Feedback

markdown

Who or what provided the feedback:
Observation: What did the person actually see, hear, or measure?
Impact: How did it affect understanding, use, or the result?
Next adjustment: Which one important variable will I change?
Evidence location:

When asking AI for feedback, submit your own version first. Ask for no more than three issues that affect the result, and require a distinction between observation, inference, and suggestion. A person decides what to accept.

5. Interruption and Return

markdown

What happened, as facts (no character judgment):
Which condition changed: time / capacity / difficulty / environment / responsibility
The smallest return action within 24 hours:
What I will explicitly not make up:
Who I need to contact or which risk needs escalation:

If the same resistance appears three times, change the time box, task size, environment, boundary, or support network. Do not repay an interruption with sleep deprivation or shame.

6. This Week's Decision

markdown

One design I will keep:
One demand or entry point I will remove:
One condition I will change next week:
One number I will stop tracking:
Next review date:
First action when I open the file next time:

7. Handover and Evidence Locations

markdown

First version:
Revised version:
Feedback or retest:
Next task: owner / date:

Related chapters: Rhythm: Let Small Things Travel Through Time | Daily System: Put Change into the Day | Weekly Review Template

Weekly Review Template

A review is not a verdict. It gives next week a more accurate starting point. Reserve 20 minutes, inspect evidence before explaining causes, and change one variable only. Do not include passwords, client data, sensitive health information, or unauthorised third-party details.

markdown

# Weekly Review — YYYY-Www

## Main Question
- Goal:
- One question this week:
- Acceptance criteria:
- Constraints (time, energy, responsibility):

## Evidence Inventory
- Completed:
- Work/recording/test location:
- First, assisted, and delayed-retest locations:
- External reader/user feedback:

| Evidence | What it shows | What it does not show yet |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | |

## Four Checks (0–2)
| Item | Score | Reason and evidence |
| --- | ---: | --- |
| Completion: was the task done? | | |
| Quality: did it meet the standard? | | |
| Retention: can it be reproduced days later? | | |
| Transfer: does it work under changed conditions? | | |

## Errors and Causes
| Error/barrier | Evidence | Likely cause | Next test |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | |

## Energy and Recovery
- Effect of sleep/stress on performance:
- Unsustainable arrangement:
- What needs pausing or support:

## Change One Variable
- Keep:
- Stop:
- Adjust:
- Most important task and acceptance criteria:
- Next review date:

## Write Back Without Duplicating Records

Write back only what can change a decision. Do not copy the same paragraph into four files. Choose the file by its job:

- [Evidence Chain Template](evidence-chain.md): compare baseline, immediate performance, delayed retention, and transfer;
- [Rhythm Ledger](rhythm-ledger.md): keep this week's rhythm, capacity versions, repeated resistance, and next condition to change;
- [Learning State](learning-state.md): keep cross-session handover, unconfirmed facts, boundaries, and the smallest next task;
- [90-Day Cycle Map](90-day-cycle.md): keep phase gates, twelve weekly questions, and the direction of the cycle.

```markdown
Evidence Chain updated: yes / no / not applicable
Rhythm Ledger updated: yes / no / not applicable
Learning State updated: yes / no
90-Day Cycle Map updated: yes / no / not applicable
Evidence location for the smallest next task:

Handover Links

After the review, open only the files whose jobs apply: the Evidence Chain Template compares four time points; the Rhythm Ledger records this week's rhythm; Learning State carries cross-session handover; the 90-Day Cycle Map carries cycle gates.

Do not redesign the whole system after one poor week. Separate random variation from a pattern repeated at least three times; when a pattern persists, change the environment, task size, or support network first.

English Diagnostic: Four-skill Baseline and Transfer Record

This is not an exam that pins a person to A1-C2. It is an evidence page for choosing the next action. Choose one real topic, complete listening, reading, speaking, and writing first versions under comparable time and explicit limits, then retest a parallel task after seven days and one real delivery after thirty days.

Copy this card into a private note. Do not include passwords, customer records, identity documents, medical privacy, unauthorised third-party material, or exam content that may not be recorded.

1. Define the Diagnostic Boundary

markdown

# English Diagnostic - YYYY-MM-DD

Real context: work / study / job search / life / other
Real topic:
Audience or conversation partner:
Smallest shared delivery across four skills:
Start/end dates:
Material, version, and source:
Shared limits (time, device, environment):
Permitted dictionary / captions / translation / search / AI / human help:
Privacy, copyright, exam, and expert-responsibility boundary:
Day-7 parallel-task date:
Day-30 retest date:
Week-12 real-task date:

The four tasks need not use identical material. Keep topic, difficulty, time, and acceptance standards comparable enough to interpret. For a real role, do not let one overall level replace the language actions in the job description.

2. Four First-version Tasks

Complete the first version without looking things up or asking AI to answer or rewrite. Finish first, then mark where support was needed.

Skill | Suggested first version | Minimum delivery
Listening | Hear a real 2-4 minute clip once | Main point, three certain details, responsibility/next step, and 60-second retelling
Reading | Read a real 600-1000-word text | Five-line main thread, one evidence location, and one challenge or unknown
Speaking | Record an unscripted two-minute explanation, experience, or process | Listener can retell purpose, key facts, and next step
Writing | Write a 180-250-word email, explanation, or argument in 20 minutes | Reader knows conclusion, support, limits, and action

Do not flatten genuine differences to make the four skills look equal. The diagnostic should show where ability works, not manufacture a flattering average.

3. Preserve the First Version and Conditions

Skill | First-version location | Start/end | Tools and cues | Completed? | Main uncertainty
Listening |  |  |  |  |
Reading |  |  |  |  |
Speaking |  |  |  |  |
Writing |  |  |  |  |

markdown

What I can still explain independently:
Condition I would most like to change:
Conclusion this first version cannot support:

4. Score Impact, Not Feeling

Score each 0-2: 0=no evidence/not completed, 1=partial, cue-dependent, or unstable, 2=independent under current conditions. Give every number an evidence location.

Skill | Task completion | Comprehensibility | Accuracy/range | Organisation/fluency | Independence/transfer | Evidence reason
Listening |  |  |  |  |  |
Reading |  |  |  |  |  |
Speaking |  |  |  |  |  |
Writing |  |  |  |  |  |

Scoring Meaning

Task completion: did information and intention arrive, and can the action continue?

Comprehensibility: could a real reader/listener understand without excessive guessing?

Accuracy and range: did vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, spelling, and detail support the task?

Organisation/fluency: did structure, order, pauses, or layout obstruct use?

Independence/transfer: can the task return after recent cues are removed and one condition changes?

Use totals only for your own longitudinal comparison, never as a personality, intelligence, or hiring label. For CEFR direction, combine this with CEFR Goals and Self-check rather than turning one diagnostic into a permanent level.

5. Choose One Primary Barrier per Skill

Skill | Primary barrier | Sample/timestamp | Task impact | Smallest next repair | Evidence card
Listening | vocabulary / sound / syntax / background / attention / device |  |  |  | Listening Evidence Card
Reading | vocabulary / structure / background / evidence / layout / capacity |  |  |  | Reading Evidence Card
Speaking | chunks / pronunciation / organisation / interaction / register / follow-up |  |  |  | Speaking Evidence Card
Writing | task / fact / structure / sentence / register / delivery |  |  |  | Writing Evidence Card

If a barrier cannot be tied to a sample or timestamp, do not treat it as a conclusion yet. A learner may know many words and still fail to segment speech, or be accurate while unable to organise an asynchronous handover.

6. Design One Targeted Repair

markdown

One barrier I will repair:
Repair action (25-45 minutes):
Material and source:
Minimum scaffold allowed:
Acceptance standard:
Before/after samples to preserve:
Feedback that would change the plan:

Usually protect meaning and task completion first, then facts and structure, then high-impact vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, or register. Leave style details that do not change the result until later.

7. Delayed Retest and Transfer

Time | Remove | Change | Output | Result/evidence
Day 1 | Answers after first version | Original conditions | Repair version |
Day 7 | Recent cues and old sentences | Parallel topic or audience | Same kind of task |
Day 30 | Tool conversation and comments | Real source or time pressure | One real delivery |
Week 12 | Old task and score | Target role, course, or life context | Complete task |

markdown

What I can still do independently on day 7:
Error that still returns on day 30:
Skill that succeeded only on a familiar topic:
Where extra time would most affect life:
What this retest cannot prove:

8. Record AI, Translation, and Human Feedback

markdown

Tool / model / version and date:
Samples that existed before tool use:
What it did: diagnosis / questions / counterexample / transcript / feedback / other
Scope generated or rewritten:
Primary source, dictionary, teacher, peer, or real-audience check:
Suggestions accepted, rejected, or deferred and why:
Independent sample after closing the tool:
Disclosure required by school, client, employer, or exam:

Model answers, speech-recognition scores, and polished final prose cannot independently prove ability. Important judgments return to original material, actual response, and a named accountable owner.

9. Decide the Next Cycle

markdown

Current component direction (not a permanent level):
Strongest real evidence:
Weakest evidence with the largest life impact:
Continue:
Downgrade:
Change variable:
Pause or seek help:
Smallest next task:
Next review date:

Related entry points: Learning Principles: Turn Effort into Verifiable Learning | Vocabulary Evidence Card | Grammar Evidence Card | Listening Evidence Card | Reading Evidence Card | Speaking Evidence Card | Writing Evidence Card | Evidence Chain

Job-search English Evidence Card: From Job Description to Unfamiliar Follow-up

This card does not decide whether you are suited to overseas work or promise an interview result. It answers a narrower question: under this role and process, can I deliver my real ability in English?

Copy it into a private note. Job descriptions, recruiting email, take-home tasks, company code, customer information, and interview recordings may contain confidential or personal information. Preserve only the minimum material you have a right to use, and obtain necessary consent before recording.

1. Role and Process

markdown

Role title and public link:
Application deadline or interview date:
Work mode: remote / hybrid / on-site
Primary time zones and collaboration mode:
Known interview stages:
Explicit language requirement:
Recruiting rules still unknown:

2. Role Language Map

Role fact | Language task | Current evidence | Risk | Build evidence in two weeks?
| recruiter communication / project explanation / technical follow-up / behavioural question / async writing / customer communication |  | high / medium / low |

markdown

Can complete independently:
Can complete with preparation:
Depends on prompts or translation:
Has no sample:
One highest-risk gap to repair:

3. Complete Baseline

markdown

Date:
Preparation time:
Visible support: none / outline / full script
Tools: none / dictionary / captions / AI / other
Recording and text location:

Stage | Time | Acceptance | Independent result | Main error
Role-relevant introduction | 2 min | Present work, evidence, direction |  |
Project explanation | 5 min | Context, responsibility, trade-off, result, unknown |  |
Unfamiliar follow-up | 3 questions | Understand, answer, or clarify |  |
Asynchronous update | 20 min | Progress, evidence, risk, next step, owner |  |
Interaction repair | 1 case | Repeat/confirm/thinking time/unknown boundary |  |

4. Error Map

Segment/question | Type | Effect on the task | What to test next
| content / retrieval / listening / organisation / interaction / accuracy |  |

markdown

Largest problem that is not primarily English:
Language error that repeatedly changes key meaning:
Repair action worth preserving:

5. Real Story Bank

Keep six lines rather than a full script:

markdown

Story name:
Situation and required task:
My specific responsibility:
Key action and trade-off:
Result, cost, and unknown:
What I would change now:
Evidence location:

Story | Questions it can answer | Available after unfamiliar follow-up? | Fact/privacy check
| problem / failure / conflict / decision / feedback / stopping | yes / no |

6. Listening and Repair

markdown

Original question I did not understand:
Sentence used to request repetition or confirmation:
Meaning after restatement:
My answer:
How shared understanding was confirmed:

Repair ability | Baseline 0–2 | Day seven 0–2 | Evidence
Request a specific repetition |  |  |
Confirm scope |  |  |
Ask for thinking time |  |  |
Admit an unknown and give a verification step |  |  |
Summarise agreement and next action |  |  |

7. Asynchronous Writing Sample

markdown

Context:
Completed:
Evidence:
Blocked / risk:
Decision needed:
Owner and next update:

Ask one reader:

markdown

What happened:
What needs a decision:
Who continues and when:
Sentence that required guessing:

8. AI and Integrity Record

markdown

Tool and date:
Role it simulated:
Independent version submitted first:
Three problems it raised:
Feedback accepted/rejected and why:
Parallel result after closing the tool:
Stage where AI must be disclosed or is prohibited:
Confidential/personal information kept out:

Do not invent experience, numbers, or ownership. Do not use covert real-time prompting in a live interview without explicit permission.

9. Fourteen-Day Comparison

Time point | Condition | Task completion | Understanding/repair | Organisation/retrieval | Async writing | Evidence
Day-one baseline | Unscripted, no AI |  |  |  |  |
Immediate revision | Feedback seen |  |  |  |  |
Day-seven retest | Parallel questions, original answer removed |  |  |  |  |
Day-fourteen transfer | New interviewer/order/role question |  |  |  |  |

Score each 0–2: 0=not completed, 1=partial or prompt-dependent, 2=completed under the current condition. Use only for one person's comparable tasks.

10. Current Role Gates

[ ] At least three real stories remain available under changed wording.

[ ] Recruiter screen, project explanation, and unfamiliar follow-up can be completed.

[ ] Unclear questions produce clarification rather than guessing.

[ ] Repeated language errors do not change key meaning.

[ ] One usable asynchronous update can be written.

[ ] Confidentiality, recording, and AI boundaries are known.

[ ] Unknowns can be admitted with a verification method.

[ ] Equipment, time zone, and interview environment are checked.

markdown

Current evidence most supports: apply and continue practising / repair one high-risk gap / defer this role
Evidence:
Conclusion I still cannot draw:
Smallest next task:
Next review date:

11. Post-interview Close

markdown

Actual questions:
Evidence of correct understanding:
Clarification that worked:
Story that failed to answer the question:
Structure that transferred:
Difficulty not caused primarily by English:
Recruiter feedback in original wording:
One variable to change:
Preparation to stop:

Related chapters: Job-search English: Bring Ability into Interviews and Remote Work | Speaking Evidence Card | Writing Evidence Card

Grammar Evidence Card: From Rule Recognition to Real Expression

Track one high-impact structure per card. Copy it into a private note and keep the original sentence plus revision reason. Do not record sensitive customer, company, school, medical, or third-party material; use synthetic facts or a minimised excerpt.

1. Define the Real Task

markdown

Date:
Situation: email / explanation / dialogue / retelling / interview / other
Audience:
What the task must let the other person understand or do:
Time, tool, and length restrictions:
Raw sample location:

2. Locate One Structural Problem

markdown

My original sentence/segment:
Most likely interpretation:
Meaning I intended:
Impact: meaning-changing / task-blocking / recurring / register mismatch / low-impact
One structure tracked in this cycle:

Sample | Structural choice | Real relationship expressed | Fits the task?
Original |  |  |
Contrast A |  |  |
Contrast B |  |  |

3. Write a Meaning Contrast Card

markdown

Meaning I need to express:
Forms I confuse:
Example and source from reliable material:
One-sentence explanation in my words:
Counterexample or boundary:

The explanation should answer why the form matches the fact rather than copy only a terminology definition.

4. Preserve Revision and Reason

Version | Condition | Sentence/output location | What changed | Why
First | No prompt |  |  |
Revised | Explanation/feedback seen |  |  |
Independent repeat | Material closed |  |  |

markdown

How the other person understood the revision:
Problem still affecting the task:
Suggested style change I rejected:

5. Retrieve across Four Skills

Skill | Small task | Result | Evidence
Listening | Hear the relationship carried by the structure |  |
Reading | Mark scope, reference, or logical connection |  |
Speaking | Use under time pressure and repair after error |  |
Writing | Compare how two versions change reader understanding |  |

You do not need all four every cycle. Keep at least one input observation and one active output.

6. AI and Feedback Record

markdown

Tool/reviewer and date:
Problem observed:
Explanation given:
Did it separate error, ambiguity, register, and style?
Dictionary, corpus, teacher, or reader check:
What I accepted/rejected, and why:

7. Delayed Retest

Time point | Prompt condition | New task | Independent choice | Result
Day 1 | Original task, no prompt |  |  |
Days 3–7 | Rule and old answer removed | Parallel topic |  |
Day 14 | New audience or time pressure | Transfer task |  |

markdown

Judgment retained on day seven:
Error that returned:
Where transfer failed:

8. Score and Decide

Score 0–2: 0=not completed, 1=prompt-dependent or unstable, 2=completed under the current condition.

Item | Day 1 | Day 7 | Day 14 | Evidence reason
Explain form–meaning difference |  |  |  |
Recognise it in a new sentence |  |  |  |
Retrieve it in output |  |  |  |
Self-repair after error |  |  |  |
Stop repeatedly changing key meaning |  |  |  |

markdown

Current evidence supports: continue same structure / add variation / move to another problem / pause
Evidence:
Conclusion I still cannot draw:
Smallest next task:
Next review date:

Related chapters: Grammar: Let Structure Serve Meaning | Learning Principles | Evidence Chain Template

Vocabulary Evidence Card: From Card Familiarity to Contextual Retrieval

Copy this card into a private note for one real topic or task. Do not include passwords, customer records, unpublished documents, exam answers, medical privacy, or unauthorised third-party material. A final word list may be public without making source material, recordings, and feedback public.

1. Define the Task and Evidence Conditions

markdown

# Vocabulary Evidence - YYYY-MM-DD

Real situation and audience:
Task: listen / read / speak / write / exam / hand over
Material, version, and source:
What should another person understand, decide, or complete?
Time and length limit:
Permitted captions / dictionary / translation / search / AI / people:
Privacy, copyright, confidentiality, exam, and expert boundary:
First-encounter date:
Parallel-task date:

The target is not "items added." It is understanding, choosing, and retrieving under these conditions.

2. Preserve a No-Lookup First Encounter

markdown

First-encounter start/end time:
Gist, relationships, and next step before lookup:
Details understood with confidence:
Places that required guessing:
Sentence or timestamp where meaning stopped:
Sense/expression I tried then:
Raw retelling, recording, cloze, or draft location:
Did it complete the real task? yes / partly / no

First check whether the barrier is lexical. Sound segmentation, syntax, background, layout, and attention can also break a sentence.

3. Build an Unknown-Item Decision Queue

Word/chunk | Task impact | Decision | Basis then | Next check
| blocking / important / minor / none | skip / infer / quick lookup / learn / expert check |  |

markdown

Five to eight chunks entering deliberate learning:
Items to skip and why:
Items requiring a primary source or expert:
Items deferred because of capacity:

4. Record Eight Dimensions for Each Valuable Chunk

Copy once per chunk:

markdown

Word/chunk:
Task function:
Form, inflection, and derivation:
Sound, stress, and connected speech:
Current sense in my own words:
Common collocation or sentence slot:
Grammatical behaviour:
Register, politeness, stance, and identity:
Concept, referent, version, or domain boundary:
Current retrieval time and required cue:
One near-synonym/counterexample and difference:

Do not copy an entire dictionary page to fill the fields. Keep only what can change understanding or use in this task.

5. Verify Sense, Collocation, and Source

Item to check | My candidate | Source, version, location | Result | Unknown
Sense |  |  |  |
Pronunciation |  |  |  |
Collocation |  |  |  |
Register |  |  |  |
Technical/institutional concept |  |  |  |

markdown

Why this dictionary/corpus fits this task:
Primary document / standard / code location:
Check date:
Who decides the high-risk term:
What evidence would change the decision:

AI examples and explanations are candidates, not sources. Frequency or confident model tone cannot decide high-risk terminology.

6. Design Unaided Retrieval

markdown

Real intention or situational cue:
Prompt allowed on first attempt:
Prompt removed next time:
Target retrieval time:
Speaking task:
Writing task:
Person / time / topic / tone / mode to change:

Attempt | Condition | Actual expression | Retrieval time | Result
Original context | Answer hidden |  |  |
Changed context | Source sentence removed |  |  |
Real task | Audience and consequence |  |  |

Reproducing only the complete source sentence is not transfer.

7. Ask a Real Reader or Listener to Check It

markdown

Meaning retold by the reader/listener:
Relationship, certainty, and next step they heard:
Place that required guessing or confirmation:
Did the lexical choice change fact or responsibility?
Task completed? yes / partly / no
Real response or execution result:

Feedback | Type | Decision | Reason | Used in parallel task?
| necessary repair / acceptable variant / register / style | accept / partly / reject / defer |  |

8. Record the Error and Minimum Repair

Error sample | Type | Likely gap | Change only this | Retest condition
| form / sound / sense / collocation / grammar / register / slow retrieval / transfer |  |  |

markdown

Chunks correct on cards but failed in the task:
Chunks heard but not written:
Chunks read but not heard:
Acceptable variation mislabelled as error:
Items needing a split card, lower volume, or more background:

9. Record AI and Tool Use

markdown

Tool / model / version and date:
First encounter and candidate that existed before use:
Request: sense contrast / collocation candidate / cloze / counterexample
         / audience simulation / error classification / parallel task
         / other
Scope generated or rewritten by the model:
Content that may be invented or outdated:
Dictionary / corpus / primary source / human verification:
What I accepted, rejected, or deferred, and why:
Retrieval task after closing the tool:

10. Test Delayed Retention and Transfer

Time | Remove | Change | Output | Result
Same day | Answer and gloss | Original topic | Contextual recall |
Day 1 | Source sentence | Sentence and people | Spoken/written retrieval |
Days 3-7 | Recent cue | Mode or audience | Parallel input/output |
Day 14 | Old cards and feedback | New topic, same task | Timed real output |
Day 30 | All practice prompts | Real material/consequence | Full delivery |

markdown

Chunks still retrieved in time:
Chunks successful only in the original item:
Most frequent returning error:
Did the real task require less guessing or rework?

11. Score and Decide What to Keep

Score each item 0-2: 0=no evidence/not completed, 1=cue-dependent or unstable, 2=independent under the current condition.

Item | Same day | Day 7 | Day 14 | Evidence reason
Recognise it in sound and text |  |  |  |
Judge current sense and task impact |  |  |  |
Use fitting collocation, form, and register |  |  |  |
Retrieve without prompts under time |  |  |  |
Deliver intended meaning to reader/listener |  |  |  |
Transfer after topic, audience, or mode changes |  |  |  |

markdown

Chunks to keep learning and why:
Chunks needing a split or new cue:
Chunks to archive:
Chunks requiring expert verification:
One condition to change next cycle:
Next review date:

Related chapters: Vocabulary: From Familiarity to Retrieval in Real Tasks | Listening | Reading | Speaking | Writing | Learning English with AI

Listening Evidence Card: From Playback Time to Meaning Reconstruction

Copy this card into a private note for one main source and one parallel source at a time. Do not record passwords, client data, or unapproved meeting, student, or family audio. Preserve copyrighted clips, transcripts, and notes only within permitted personal-learning use.

1. Define the Task and Real-World Boundary

markdown

# Listening Evidence - YYYY-MM-DD

Real situation:
Task: gist / detail / relationship / action / interaction / transfer
What must I answer, decide, or do afterwards?
Completion standard:
Confirmation, captions, and written support allowed in reality:
Recording, upload, transcript, and sharing permission:

Training may remove scaffolds. Real work must not abandon necessary safety confirmation to prove ability.

2. Audit Material and Conditions

markdown

Main-source title, origin, and access date:
Parallel-source title, origin, and access date:
Segment length:
Reliable English transcript: human / automatic-needs-checking / none
Topic, speaker, and accent familiarity:
Device / network / room noise:
Copyright and retention boundary:
Why I will return during the next seven days:

Condition | Main source | Parallel source | Comparable?
Task and difficulty |  |  |
Length and information density |  |  |
Transcript quality |  |  |
Speaker/accent familiarity |  |  |
Device and environment |  |  |

Different material is not automatically a comparable transfer condition. Keep the task and approximate difficulty similar.

3. Preserve a No-Caption First Pass

markdown

First-pass permission: pause / speed / captions / notes / replay
One-sentence gist:
Three certain details:
Speaker stance or purpose:
Critical number / time / person / condition:
Uncertain timestamps:
Action I would take from what I heard:
First-pass answer location:

Do not overwrite the first pass after a replay or caption check. It is the comparison baseline.

4. Build the Six-Layer Error Map

Timestamp | I thought I heard | Reliable content | Barrier layer | Task impact | This cycle's action
|  |  | technical / unknown language / known-not-heard / structure-reference / background-inference / attention-capacity | meaning-changing / task-blocking / recurring / effortful / low-impact |

markdown

One to three problems that most affect the task:
Low-impact missing words I will not repair yet:
Device or fatigue effects that cannot be assigned directly to ability:

5. Use the Scaffold Ladder

Stage | Action | What became visible? | What remains unproven?
1 | First pass without captions |  |
2 | Replay only the 5-20 second problem segment |  |
3 | Open the English transcript for boundaries and structure |  |
4 | Check minimum definition, background, or translation |  |
5 | Close the text and listen at normal speed |  |
6 | Remove old support and retest on parallel material after 3-7 days |  |

markdown

Automatic-caption errors:
What translation helped:
Meaning still triggered after the text closed:
Segment understood only while captions remained visible:

6. Make Each Pass Produce Different Evidence

Pass | Question | Output | Result
1 | What did I predict and recover? | Raw gist and details |
2 | Where did the difference occur? | Timestamp and barrier layer |
3 | What did minimum support explain? | Mishearing, transcript, and cause |
4 | Does sound trigger meaning after support closes? | No-text replay |
5 | How can I reconstruct and act? | Retelling / process / decision / handover |

Play count is not a result. Each pass should create a new judgment or show that repetition should stop.

7. Move from Dictation and Shadowing into Generation

markdown

High-impact 5-20 second segment:
My dictation:
Reliable transcript:
Boundary / ending / reduction / stress difference:
Delayed-shadow recording:
Three keywords:
Retelling after closing the text:
Explanation after changing one fact or position:
Unfamiliar follow-up and answer:

When shadowing is smooth and retelling is empty, shorten imitation and increase keyword reconstruction. When every word is written correctly but the gist is missing, return to structure and relationship.

8. Record AI, Teacher, and Real-Task Feedback

markdown

Tool / reviewer / model version and date:
Did it use raw audio, automatic transcript, or my candidate transcript?
Error category it proposed:
Did it invent wording, background, or speaker intention?
Teacher/peer check:
Response, action, or repair result in the real task:
What I accepted / rejected, and why:

AI and automatic transcripts provide candidates, not final judgment about the original sound.

9. Test Delayed Retention and Transfer

Time | What is removed | Changed condition | Output | Result
Day 1 | No full captions | Main source | First pass and meaning reconstruction |
Days 3-7 | Old notes and transcript removed | Parallel source | Gist, detail, and action |
Day 14 | Recent feedback removed | New speaker, accent, or device | Retelling plus unfamiliar follow-up |
Day 30 | All practice prompts closed | Real meeting, course, or conversation | Complete task |

markdown

Method still available after seven days:
Barrier that returned after material changed:
Did full-caption or translation dependence decrease?
Can I request repetition, confirm, and preserve agreement more reliably?
One variable for the next cycle:

10. Score and Decide

Score 0-2: 0=not completed, 1=prompt-dependent or unstable, 2=completed under the current condition.

Item | Day 1 | Day 7 | Day 14 | Evidence reason
Preserve the first-pass main line |  |  |  |
Recover critical details and relationships |  |  |  |
Locate the barrier layer |  |  |  |
Understand after captions close |  |  |  |
Reconstruct, respond, or act |  |  |  |
Complete after material, speaker, or device changes |  |  |  |

markdown

Current evidence supports: continue main source / downgrade to extensive listening / replace source / move to another problem
Most important evidence:
Conclusion I still cannot draw:
Smallest next task:
Next review date:

Related chapters: Listening: From Sound Recognition to Real Understanding | Speaking | Learning English with AI | Evidence Chain Template

Reading Evidence Card: From Finished Summary to Real Delivery

Finishing a text is an action, not proof of comprehension. Copy this card into a private note for one article, chapter, documentation section, or source set at a time. Do not record passwords, client data, unauthorised third-party information, or unnecessary personal details.

1. Define the Task, Reader, and Boundary

markdown

# Reading Evidence - YYYY-MM-DD

Real situation:
Task: locate information / follow an argument / read documentation / build stamina / synthesise sources / support a decision
Who must know, decide, execute, or continue something after the reading?
Completion standard:
Time limit:
Dictionary / translation / search / notes / AI allowed:
Copyright, privacy, and retention boundary:

Write completion as a result, such as "can run the minimum example under the current version", not only "finished".

2. Record Source and Version

Item | Main source | Parallel source | Comparable?
Author/maintainer, title, link |  |  |
Edition, publication date, or version |  |  |
Access date and length |  |  |
Author/institution position or interest |  |  |
Quotation, image, code, and copyright boundary |  |  |
Topic, genre, and difficulty |  |  |

Web pages change, become paid, or disappear. Keep necessary citation details; do not copy an entire article without permission.

3. Preserve an Unpolished First Pass

markdown

First-pass conditions:
First-pass time:
Did I look up every word?
One-sentence gist:
How the text moves:
Three certain details:
What the author/maintainer wants me to believe or do:
One unresolved point:
Action I would take from this understanding:

Finish the first pass before checking words or explanations. Do not replace it with a polished translation.

4. Build a Six-Layer Barrier Map

Paragraph/page | Where I got stuck | Barrier layer | Task impact | This cycle's action
|  | vocabulary/grammar / structure/reference / background/schema / argument/evidence / layout/technical / attention/capacity | meaning-changing / task-blocking / recurring / effortful / low-impact |

markdown

One to three barriers that most affect the task:
Low-impact words or sentences I will skip for now:
Possible device, version, fatigue, or environment effects:

If almost every sentence blocks the gist, choose easier parallel material or learn domain chunks first. Lowering the entry point does not lower the destination.

5. Map Claims, Evidence, and Limits

Paragraph/page | Function | Author claim | Source evidence/example | Limit, counterexample, or unknown

markdown

Facts stated directly:
Inference supported by the source:
My own judgment or association:
Evidence still missing:
What new evidence would change my judgment:

Separate what the author says from whether you agree. For technical, health, legal, or financial claims, return to reliable primary sources or qualified professional advice.

6. Technical Documentation Fact Card

For an API, SDK, migration guide, command-line help, error reference, or README, add:

markdown

Goal and applicable version:
Prerequisites, permissions, and environment:
Minimum input:
Expected output:
Actual output:
Defaults, ranges, order, or side effects:
Failure condition/error:
Limit explicitly stated in the source:
Part I am still inferring:
Smallest next test:

Reading documentation without running, reasoning through, reproducing, or confirming one minimum fact shows that you saw the page. It does not show mastery.

7. Record Unknown Words, Word Families, and Translation

Word/expression | Role in the task | Definition/family/collocation checked | Source location | Explainable after tools close?
| core / recurring / technical / low-impact |  |  |

markdown

Background the translation helped me supply:
English structure, stance, or qualifier the translation may hide:
Word I decided not to check yet:

Unknown-word count diagnoses source fit; it does not directly set a level. Word families help guessing and coverage, but a derived form is not automatically usable.

8. Compare Sources and Deliver an Output

markdown

Shared question:
Definition, date, and evidence in source A:
Definition, date, and evidence in source B:
Omitted evidence or institutional interest:
Which differences are factual, and which are values?

Output | Audience | What I delivered | Audience response | Traceable basis?
Confirmation / minimum test / explanation / decision memo / handover |  |  |  |

After reading, let a reader, code, decision, or next task test the understanding.

9. Record Tools and Feedback

markdown

Tool / reviewer / version and date:
Did it see the source, my first pass, or my summary?
Source locations it says I missed:
Did it confuse fact, inference, and style?
Teacher/peer/primary-source check:
What I accepted/rejected, and why:

AI may extract candidate terms, ask structural questions, and create parallel tasks, but it may invent summaries, citations, background, and author intention. Preserve the first pass before asking it to locate evidence.

10. Test Delayed Retention and Transfer

Date | What is removed | Changed condition | Output | Result
Day 1 | No full translation or AI summary | Main source | First pass and five-sentence reconstruction |
Days 3-7 | Old notes and dictionary removed | Parallel source | Gist, evidence, and inference |
Day 14 | Recent feedback removed | New topic or genre | Explanation, test, or decision memo |
Day 30 | All prompts closed | Real document, report, or handover | Complete delivery |

markdown

Method still available after seven days:
Barrier that returned after the source changed:
Did word-by-word translation or summary dependence decrease?
Which post-reading action remains unstable?
One variable for the next cycle:

11. Score and Decide

Score 0-2: 0=not completed, 1=prompt-dependent or unstable, 2=completed under the current condition.

Item | Day 1 | Day 7 | Day 14 | Evidence reason
Preserve the first-pass main line |  |  |  |
Separate claim, evidence, and inference |  |  |  |
Locate the barrier layer and choose an action |  |  |  |
Verify a technical fact or source location |  |  |  |
Reconstruct after tools close |  |  |  |
Deliver after source, topic, or genre changes |  |  |  |

markdown

Current evidence supports: continue main source / downgrade to extensive reading / replace source / move to another problem
Most important evidence:
Conclusion I still cannot draw:
Smallest next task:
Next review date:

Related chapters: Reading: From Word-by-word Translation to Claims and Evidence | Vocabulary | Grammar | Listening | Learning English with AI | Evidence Chain Template

Speaking Evidence Card: From Accent Anxiety to Verifiable Interaction

Copy this card into a private note for one real situation at a time. Keep raw recordings private by default. Before recording another person or using customer, family, medical, or unreleased project information, obtain necessary permission or practise with fictional details.

1. Define the Task, Listener, and Boundary

markdown

# Speaking Evidence - YYYY-MM-DD

Real situation:
Task: explain / answer / repair / collaborate / transfer
Listener and relationship:
What the listener must know or do afterwards:
Time limit:
Allowed notes / retakes / captions / dictionary / AI:
Recording and upload permission:
Content that must remain private:

Write completion as a listener result, such as "can retell the risk and next step", not only "sounds fluent".

2. Record Reference Variety and Technical Conditions

markdown

Current reference variety or audio source:
Why it fits:
Differences I only need to recognise, not force myself to imitate:
Other English varieties added this cycle:

Device / microphone:
Network / room noise:
Recording or call platform:
Listener familiarity with the topic and my accent:

When device, network, or listener familiarity changes, do not assign the entire score difference to ability.

3. Preserve Three Unscripted Baselines

Sample | Condition | Recording | First break | Task completed?
90-120 second monologue | Explain a real experience/problem without a script |  |  |
Five-turn exchange | Include at least one unfamiliar follow-up |  |  |
One interaction repair | Repetition, scope confirmation, rephrasing, or summary |  |  |

markdown

One-sentence main point:
Two details the listener must hear:
Critical number / time / responsibility / condition:
What I most expect to be misunderstood:

Do not remove pauses, clean noise, or ask AI for a script first. The baseline shows what remains when scaffolding leaves.

4. Preserve What the Listener Actually Heard

Ask the listener to hear the recording before seeing a transcript:

Listener/condition | Retold gist | Retold details | Guess/replay point | Next response
Listener A |  |  |  |
Listener B or new device |  |  |  |

markdown

Noticeable accent that remained intelligible:
Place where meaning was actually lost:
Place that required effort without misunderstanding:
Familiarity or bias that may shape the feedback:

One subjective impression is not a conclusion. Preserve what the person heard and could do, not only whether you resembled a prestige accent.

5. Build a High-Impact Problem Map

Segment/time | Listener may hear | Intended meaning | Type | Task impact | This cycle's action
|  |  | sound / ending / stress / pause / chunk / grammar / organisation | meaning-changing / task-blocking / recurring / effortful / low-impact difference |

Choose only one to three problems. When a difference marks reference variety, region, or personal voice and does not raise comprehension cost, record it without forcing it away.

6. Move from Chunks into Unfamiliar Follow-ups

markdown

Five replaceable chunks:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Topic variation:
Position variation:
Listener variation:
Unfamiliar follow-up:
Unscripted answer:

When fluency exists only inside a memorised script, reduce complete-sentence memorisation and increase keyword reconstruction plus follow-ups.

7. Record Interaction Repair

Break | How I noticed | Repair action | Listener response | How shared understanding was confirmed
Not heard / scope unclear / thinking needed / expression failed / agreement unstable |  |  |  |

markdown

My repetition or confirmation request:
My rephrasing:
My final summary of agreement:
If repair failed, the one change for next time:

Repair is not a penalty. Failing to notice a misunderstanding, or failing to restore the task after noticing it, is the training signal.

8. Record Teacher, Listener, and AI Feedback

markdown

Reviewer / tool / model version and date:
Did it use raw audio or a transcript?
Speech-recognition transcript errors:
Problems it marked as high impact:
Did it separate accent difference, misunderstanding, effort, grammar, register, and style?
Dictionary audio, teacher, or real-listener check:
What I accepted / rejected, and why:

Recognition scores change with microphone, noise, network, model, and accent. Treat them as clues only.

9. Test Delayed Retention and Transfer

Time | What is removed | Changed condition | Output | Listener result
Day 1 | No AI-written script | Original situation | First take and retake |
Days 3-7 | Old script and model audio removed | New topic or listener | 90-120 seconds plus follow-up |
Day 14 | Recent feedback removed | New device, accent, or time pressure | Collaboration/decision explanation |
Day 30 | All practice prompts closed | Real meeting, interview, or conversation | Complete task |

markdown

What remained retrievable after seven days:
What failed again after conditions changed:
Did the listener guess or replay less often?
Next variable:

10. Score and Decide

Score 0-2: 0=not completed, 1=prompt-dependent or unstable, 2=completed under the current condition.

Item | Day 1 | Day 7 | Day 14 | Evidence reason
Complete task and main line |  |  |  |
Listener recovers critical information |  |  |  |
Understanding does not require repeated guessing/replay |  |  |  |
Handle an unfamiliar follow-up |  |  |  |
Notice and repair an interaction break |  |  |  |
Complete after listener, device, or topic changes |  |  |  |

markdown

Current evidence supports: continue same problem / add variation / move to another problem / pause
Most important evidence:
Conclusion I still cannot draw:
Smallest next task:
Next review date:

Related chapters: Speaking: Make Meaning Arrive | Listening | Job-search English | Evidence Chain Template

Writing Evidence Card: From Tool Polish to Accountable Delivery

Copy this card into a private note for one real writing task at a time. Do not include passwords, client data, unauthorised third-party information, exam answers, or unnecessary personal details. A final version may be public without making the raw draft, feedback, and tool record public.

1. Define the Task, Reader, and Responsibility

markdown

# Writing Evidence - YYYY-MM-DD

Real situation:
Task: explain / request / status / decide / narrate / reflect / hand over
Audience and relationship:
What should they understand, decide, or do afterwards?
Genre, length, and deadline:
Completion standard:
Dictionary / translation / search / AI / human help allowed:
Confidentiality, copyright, privacy, and authorship boundary:
Final accountable owner:

When an institution, school, client, or hiring process prohibits assistance, follow the current rule.

2. Preserve an Unaided Draft

markdown

Raw draft location:
First-version time and length:
Outline or sources allowed:
One sentence the reader should remember:
Fact I trust least:
Gap most likely hidden by attractive prose:
Action I expect from the first version:

Do not check whole-sentence translations or ask AI for prose first. Keep pauses, repetition, and failed paragraphs as the baseline.

3. Build a Fact and Responsibility Ledger

Claim/content | Type | Source, version, and location | Check date | Confidence | Publishable? | What changes it?
| fact / number / quotation / experience / inference / advice / other-person data |  |  |  |  |

markdown

What I knew then and learned later:
Third-party content requiring permission:
Part still unverifiable:
Content to remove or anonymise before delivery:

4. Preserve the Document Skeleton

markdown

Problem facing the reader:
Direct answer:
Support 1:
Support 2:
Concrete example/minimum fact:
Limit, counterexample, or unknown:
Reader's next step:

Paragraph | Function | Must keep | Delete/move | Reason
| context / problem / claim / reason / evidence / example / turn / limit / request / decision / handover |  |  |

5. Record Translation Meaning Changes

What I mean | English first draft | Translation/tool candidate | Final decision | Reason

markdown

Did agent or responsibility change?
Was certainty strengthened or weakened?
Did negation or condition scope change?
Does tone fit the relationship?
Non-equivalent institutional/cultural term:
Glossary and reviewer:

Natural, fluent, and faithful are different judgments. The final author explains the trade-off.

6. Complete Five Revision Passes

Pass | Main problem | Before | After | Why it changes the task result
Task and fact |  |  |  |
Structure and evidence |  |  |  |
Sentence and meaning |  |  |  |
Register and voice |  |  |  |
Delivery and boundary |  |  |  |

markdown

Necessary correction:
Ambiguity repair:
Register choice:
Personal voice retained:
Change I rejected because I could not explain it:

7. Record Feedback Uptake

Ask for a retelling before comments:

markdown

Reader's retold point:
Evidence and limits the reader heard:
Next step the reader understood:
Place requiring guessing:

Feedback | Source/relationship | Category | Decision | Reason | Used in parallel text?
| real reader / peer / teacher / editor / AI | correction / ambiguity / structure / evidence / register / style | accept / partly / reject / defer |  |

An improved old draft does not prove new-task use. Feedback begins to show transfer when it enters a parallel text.

8. Record AI and Automated Tool Use

markdown

Tool / model / version and date:
Draft and sources that existed before use:
Request: diagnosis / reader simulation / fact candidate / correction
         / version comparison / counterexample / other
Scope generated or rewritten by the model:
Facts, quotations, or sources it may have invented:
My item-by-item verification:
What I accepted/rejected, and why:
Disclosure required for school, client, employer, or reader:
Parallel task after closing the tool:

Model output is a candidate. It does not own authorship or carry final accountability.

9. Check Asynchronous Delivery

Check | Content | Accepted?
One-sentence conclusion/subject |  |
Completed work and evidence location |  |
Risk, block, and unknown |  |
Who decides what by when |  |
Next step, owner, and checkpoint |  |
What happens without a response |  |
Failure, stop, and rollback |  |
Links, attachments, and permissions |  |

markdown

Can the reader continue without another meeting?
Real response or execution result:
Gap that still required oral explanation:

10. Test Delayed Retention and Transfer

Time | What is removed | Changed condition | Output | Result
Day 1 | No AI-written prose | Original task | Draft and delivery version |
Days 3-7 | Old sentences and comments removed | New topic, same genre | Parallel text |
Day 14 | Recent feedback and translation removed | New audience, same information | Register-transfer text |
Day 30 | All practice prompts closed | Real email, report, application, or handover | Complete delivery |

markdown

Structure and judgment available after seven days:
Problem that returned with a new topic:
Did whole-sentence translation/full rewrite dependence decrease?
Did the reader guess less?
One variable for the next cycle:

11. Score and Decide Whether to Sign

Score 0-2: 0=not completed, 1=prompt-dependent or unstable, 2=completed under the current condition.

Item | Day 1 | Day 7 | Day 14 | Evidence reason
Leave an independent draft |  |  |  |
Make task, reader, and next step clear |  |  |  |
Separate fact, source, and inference |  |  |  |
Support conclusion with structure and evidence |  |  |  |
Explain translation/AI/feedback changes |  |  |  |
Let async reader continue or roll back |  |  |  |
Deliver after topic, audience, or genre changes |  |  |  |

markdown

Current version: willing to sign / needs verification / narrow scope / do not deliver
Most important evidence:
Conclusion I still cannot draw:
Smallest next task:
Next review date:

Related chapters: Writing: From Draft to Verifiable Revision | Grammar | Reading | Learning English with AI | Job-search English | Artifacts

90-Day Cycle Map

This sheet manages one cycle; it is not a test of daily discipline. Keep one main question each week, one input, one output, and one transfer test. When health, work, or relationships change, adjust the plan's weight first. Do not include passwords, IDs, client data, sensitive health information, or unauthorised third-party details.

This sheet owns cycle direction and phase gates, not every detail: the Evidence Chain Template explains results, the Rhythm Ledger maintains weekly rhythm, and Learning State carries cross-session handover.

1. Cycle commitment

markdown

# 90-Day Cycle — YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD

Real context:
Deliverable by day 90:
Completion standard:
Three core pieces of evidence:
Weekly time and boundaries:
What must be reduced or paused:

2. Day-one baseline

Item | Current evidence | Largest barrier | Planned treatment
What I can do independently |  |  |
Situation where I will use it |  |  |
Materials, tools, and people available |  |  |
Sleep, energy, and responsibility boundaries |  |  |

Keep one sample made without AI doing the task: a recording, short text, reading reconstruction, code, presentation, or real conversation note.

3. Gates for three phases

Phase | Dates | Question to answer | Evidence to enter the next phase
Calibrate | Days 1–14 | What exactly am I training, and what is the bottleneck? | Baseline, three error categories, one stable time slot
Stack | Days 15–56 | Which action is becoming stable under which conditions? | At least four comparable outputs and one external feedback
Ship | Days 57–90 | Can a new listener, topic, or user still use the result? | Independent, revised, and real-delivery versions

Without evidence for a gate, do not raise difficulty automatically. Shrink the task or repair prerequisites first.

4. Twelve weekly questions

Week | One question only | Input evidence | Output evidence | Feedback/transfer
1 |  |  |  |
2 |  |  |  |
3 |  |  |  |
4 |  |  |  |
5 |  |  |  |
6 |  |  |  |
7 |  |  |  |
8 |  |  |  |
9 |  |  |  |
10 |  |  |  |
11 |  |  |  |
12 |  |  |  |

Write an observable question such as “Can I explain project risk in English without a script and handle one follow-up?” Do not write “be better this week”.

5. Evidence chain

Date | Evidence card/tool | Location kept | Result or error | Next variable
| Listening / Reading / Speaking / Writing / Life Practice |  |  |

Chat logs, playback time, and check-in screenshots are process traces. Key judgments should return to artifacts, recordings, reader/user feedback, and performance under a new condition; use the Evidence Chain Template when comparing all four time points.

6. Interruption and recovery

markdown

Interruption fact (no character judgment):
Main resistance: time / difficulty / energy / environment / responsibility
Task reduced to:
Smallest output possible within 24 hours:
Work I will not repay:
Review date:

Do not stay up late to repay missed work or rewrite the 90 days after one failure. When the same barrier appears three times, record capacity and resistance in the Rhythm Ledger, then change the system condition instead of demanding more force.

7. Day-ninety review

markdown

Final delivery:
What genuinely changed from the baseline:
Errors that still recur:
What a real reader/user said:
Cost that proved unsustainable:
One habit to keep next cycle:
One entry point to stop next cycle:

Related chapters: 90-Day Action Plan: Return Your Life to Yourself | Evidence Chain Template | Rhythm Ledger

Artifact Brief and Delivery Card

An artifact does not need to be complete on day one, but it needs boundaries on day one. Copy this card into a private project directory and keep the independent, revised, reviewed, and delivered versions. Do not include passwords, client data, unauthorised third-party information, or unnecessary personal details.

1. Artifact boundary

markdown

# Artifact Brief — YYYY-MM-DD

Artifact name:
Real situation:
Audience/user:
One problem to solve:

Inputs and sources:
My current baseline:
Key assumptions:

Smallest deliverable:
Format, time, and other constraints:
Acceptance criteria:
What this will not include:

First-version deadline:
Who will give feedback:
Evidence to preserve:
How to shrink, pause, or roll back:
Next review date:

2. Four versions

Version | Completion condition | What to keep
Independent | Complete the smallest action without an answer key or AI writing it | Original file, time, bottlenecks
Structure | Audience can find the problem, conclusion, and next step | Structural diff, fact/guess marks
Review | A real reader, user, peer, or defined AI reviewer completes a review | Feedback, error categories, accept/reject reasons
Delivery | Another person can begin without your oral explanation | Version, limits, sources, known issues, handover record

3. Quality gates

Gate | Check | Evidence location | Owner/date
Clear | Does the audience know the problem and next action? |  |
Accurate | Do facts, citations, code, and numbers return to a source or test? |  |
Usable | Can the main action work under real constraints? |  |
Maintainable | Are version, dependencies, limits, and owner visible? |  |
Responsible | Are privacy, copyright, permissions, and error consequences handled? |  |

Write “unverified” when there is no evidence for a pass. Speed, word count, and feature count are proxy measures, not quality gates.

4. AI and feedback record

markdown

AI/tool and date:
Work it was allowed to do:
Human judgments I kept:
Three highest-impact issues it raised:
What I accepted/rejected, and why:
Main point restated by a real reader/user:
Most important repair:

Save your version first, then use AI to diagnose, simulate an audience, or generate a parallel task. A person confirms critical facts, permissions, privacy, cost, and final authorship.

5. Delivery and rollback

markdown

Delivery audience and permission scope:
Delivery date and version:
Instructions:
Known limits:
Support owner/contact:
Cost and retention period:
Pause/degrade/rollback trigger:
Who must be notified after a problem:
Next review date:

Delivery is not the end. After 3–7 days, run a parallel test and record whether another person can start independently, what still needs explanation, and the one change for the next version.

Related chapters: Artifacts: Turn Learning into Something Made | 90-Day Cycle Map

AI Task Brief: From Problem to Human Acceptance

Copy this into a private project directory before a model call. It is not a prompt collection. It is permission to start: when task, data, sources, acceptance, or ownership remain unclear, do not ask a model for the final result yet.

Do not include passwords, identity documents, precise addresses, medical privacy, children's data, customer records, unpublished vulnerabilities, or unauthorised third-party material. Redact sensitive material or use an organisation-approved environment.

1. Task and Ownership

markdown

# AI Task Brief - YYYY-MM-DD

Real situation:
User/audience:
Decision or action to complete:
Why now:
Deadline and non-negotiable checkpoints:
Final owner and human reviewer:
Who is affected if this is delayed or not done:

Replace “learn AI” or “build an intelligent assistant” with an observable action, such as “a user can import a file in ten minutes and see an explainable report with sources and errors”.

2. Inputs, Sources, and Data Boundary

Input/claim | Type | Source, version, location | May reach model? | Verifier | Expiry condition
| fact / inference / experience / user data / third-party |  | public / redacted / approved / prohibited |  |

markdown

Files and fields allowed:
Material deliberately withheld:
Data sensitivity: public / internal / confidential / restricted
Collection, transfer, retention, and deletion dates:
Required consent obtained:
Copyright, licence, citation, and authorship requirements:
Minimum data scope the model can see:

A source is not automatically true. Each critical claim must return to an original passage, version, data definition, or direct observation. Model links, numbers, and quotations still require human verification.

3. Output and Evaluation Set

markdown

Final deliverable:
Format, length, and audience:
Observable definition of done:
Hard gates that must pass:
Acceptable variation:
Content that must not appear:

Build a small, realistic evaluation set instead of only model-friendly examples:

Sample | Input condition | Expected result | Unacceptable result | Actual result | Evidence location
Normal case |  |  |  |  |
Boundary case |  |  |  |  |
Missing/conflicting input |  |  |  |  |
Redacted historical case |  |  |  |  |

Acceptance should answer whether facts are traceable, the action is complete, errors are visible, permissions are correct, and failure can stop. Fluent, fast, or human-like is not an acceptance standard.

4. AI's Working Scope

markdown

AI may: ask / classify / propose explanations / give counterexamples / transcribe
        / draft / suggest tests
AI may not: make final factual decisions / invent sources / approve for the owner
             / cross permissions / complete a prohibited exam or application
             / publish or execute automatically
Mode: diagnosis / assistance / candidate generation / batch processing / other
Model, version, region, and call date:
Prompt, system instruction, or workflow version location:

Ask the model to restate goal, input, limits, unknowns, and acceptance before generation. Version prompts, and never treat one chat window as the project's only record.

5. Human Gates

Gate | Who confirms | Passing evidence | If it fails
Source gate |  | Original link, version, location | Mark unverified; do not circulate
Fact gate |  | Sample checks and data definition | Delete or downgrade claim
Privacy/permission gate |  | Scope, consent, access record | Stop and redact
Quality gate |  | Evaluation set, edge cases, real feedback | Repair, narrow, or reject
Cost gate |  | Tokens, time, human rework, budget | Downgrade or stop
Ownership gate |  | Named approval and disclosure | Do not publish or execute

Critical decisions cannot be approved only by the generator, an automated score, or one developer alone. High-risk domains return to current primary sources and qualified professionals.

6. Cost, Retention, and Reversibility

markdown

Call volume, time, and cost ceiling:
Human review and rework budget:
Does data enter training, logs, or third-party retention:
Acceptable latency and downgrade path:
Version that can be withdrawn, rerun, or restored:
Release scope and pilot audience:

A cheap call that causes a privacy incident, wrong decision, or major rework is not cheap in reality. Record human time, review, failure, reruns, and communication in addition to model fees.

7. Failure, Pause, and Rollback

Trigger | Immediate action | Notify | Recovery/rollback location
Source or version cannot be found | Stop circulation; return to original |  |
Evaluation hard gate fails | Block release or automatic action |  |
Input crosses permission boundary | Stop upload; revoke access |  |
Cost/latency exceeds ceiling | Downgrade, throttle, or stop |  |
Real user reports harm | Remove, preserve evidence, escalate |  |

Without a named stop owner, notification path, and known-good version, the task is not ready for a real workflow.

8. Handover and Public Disclosure

markdown

Current state: not started / experiment / internal pilot / limited release / delivered / stopped
Completed work and evidence locations:
Open questions and risks:
Smallest next task:
Handover owner, date, and access:
What readers/users need to know about AI involvement:
Source, privacy, copyright, and conflict-of-interest note:

The next operator should not search chat history to discover what to do. Public work should state which step used a tool, which facts a person confirmed, and which content remains a candidate.

9. Preflight Check

[ ] Audience, action, deadline, and owner are explicit.

[ ] Input fields, sensitivity, consent, copyright, and retention are confirmed.

[ ] Critical sources, versions, and expiry conditions are traceable.

[ ] Normal, boundary, conflict, and redacted historical cases are in the evaluation set.

[ ] AI may/may-not scope is explicit.

[ ] Human gates, cost ceiling, stop conditions, and rollback location are named.

[ ] Handover, disclosure, and next review date are set.

AI Learning Log: From Tool Collaboration to Independent Ability

Record one inspectable learning slice at a time. An AI-generated summary, score, or explanation is not a source of truth; original material, your first version, actual work, and real feedback are evidence. Do not write “what I discussed with the model”. Write “what I can still complete independently after the tool leaves”.

1. Task and Starting Point

markdown

# AI Learning Log - YYYY-MM-DD

Real situation and audience:
Main question:
Action and acceptance standard:
Material, version, and source:
Time, device, and environment limits:
Permitted dictionary / translation / search / AI / human help:
Privacy, copyright, exam, and ownership boundary:

2. Unaided Baseline

markdown

Start/end time of independent attempt:
Unaided sample location:
What I could explain or complete:
Errors, unknowns, and judgment blind spots exposed:
Confidence (0-2):

Do not ask AI to write an answer first and call that the starting point. If the task permits a dictionary or documentation, record the permitted support; the baseline states what you can do independently under those conditions.

3. Agree What AI Does

markdown

Model / version / date:
Mode: diagnosis / follow-up / explanation / counterexample / transcript / candidate / other
AI may:
AI may not:
Minimum material sent:
Fields or files withheld:

Move one slice per round. Ask the model to identify gaps, assumptions, sources, and uncertainty before requesting any rewrite or candidate.

4. Interaction and Source Verification

Turn | My question/action | Model suggestion | Type | Source/uncertainty | My decision
|  |  | explanation / question / candidate / feedback / code / other |  | accept / partly / reject / verify

markdown

Primary sources I checked:
Errors, outdated claims, or invented material I found:
Suggestions that changed my understanding and why:
Suggestions that changed only surface wording:

People confirm sources, facts, permissions, privacy, and final judgment. Model confidence does not raise the evidence level.

5. Active Production After Closing AI

markdown

Time AI was closed:
Work, explanation, code, or decision completed independently:
Independent time:
Cues still required:
Can I explain every critical step? yes / partly / no
Test, reader/user feedback, or run result:

6. Three Comparisons

Sample | Conditions | Task/quality | Time | Rework | Confidence | Evidence location
Unaided baseline |  |  |  |  |  |
AI-assisted version |  |  |  |  |  |
Delayed independent (3-7 days) |  |  |  |  |  |
Parallel task (changed condition) |  |  |  |  |  |

Result | Cautious interpretation
Assisted and independent versions improve | A removable scaffold may be forming; test more transfer
Only assisted version improves | Product improved; critical steps may be outsourced
Time falls while rework rises | Speed created speed debt
Confidence rises while facts/tests fall | Calibrate judgment before increasing tool access

One comparison cannot prove causality, but it records contribution more clearly than “AI was useful”.

7. Errors, Feedback, and Transfer

Error/gap | Sample | Type | Change only this next | Parallel-task result
|  | fact / vocabulary / structure / grammar / strategy / attention / tool dependence |  |

markdown

Real reader/user retelling or execution result:
Feedback accepted, partly accepted, rejected, or deferred and why:
Action that survived a changed topic/audience/mode/time:
Action that still succeeds only on the original task:

8. Delayed Retention and Handover

markdown

Day 1: what I removed and completed independently:
Days 3-7: what changed and what happened:
Day 14: can I explain and use it after closing the old chat:
Day 30: did the real task require less guessing or rework:
State-file location:
Handover owner, date, and access:
Stop or rollback condition:

9. Next Cycle Decision

markdown

What the tool genuinely helped:
Risk or dependence the tool created:
Evidence of ability I now own:
Conclusion still unsupported:
Continue / downgrade / change variable / pause / seek help:
Smallest next task:
Next review date:

Related entry points: Learning Principles: Turn Effort into Verifiable Learning | Learning Anything with AI | AI Task Brief | Learning State | Evidence Chain

AI Case Review Template

Use the author's public writing, official pages, or clearly authorised material only. A third-party narrative cannot independently prove capability, revenue, or project impact.

markdown

# AI Case Review — YYYY-MM-DD

## Source and facts
- Experience/project:
- Primary source and publication date:
- Access/check date:
- What may be public:
- What must be removed or redacted:

## Judgment
- Problem at the time:
- Facts known then:
- Assumptions:
- Choice made:

## Outcome
- What happened:
- Evidence location:
- What remains unknown:
- Failure or cost:

## Transferable principle
- Principle that still holds:
- Part that depended on the old conditions:
- Small exercise for a reader:
- How to test it next:

AI Project Scorecard Template

Complete this after each release or pilot. Every number should lead back to a test, ledger, feedback record, or operations log.

markdown

# AI Project Scorecard — YYYY-MM-DD

Project/version:
Owner:
User and situation:
Test conditions and sample scope:
Locations of baseline, assisted, and delayed independent retest:

| Metric | Result | Evidence location | Change from last time |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Task completion | | | |
| First-pass acceptance | | | |
| Average/high-percentile latency | | | |
| Human time and rework | | | |
| Model/infrastructure cost | | | |
| Delayed independent performance | | | |
| Security/privacy issues | | | |
| User feedback | | | |

## Gates
- Facts and sources checked: yes / no
- Tests and edge cases covered: yes / no
- Permissions and data scope confirmed: yes / no
- Pause/degrade/rollback path works: yes / no
- Owner can explain critical decisions without the chat: yes / no

## Release Gates

| Gate | Evidence location | Owner | Date | Pass |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Requirements and acceptance criteria | | | | yes / no |
| Real samples and boundary tests | | | | yes / no |
| Permissions, privacy, and retention | | | | yes / no |
| Cost ceiling and monitoring | | | | yes / no |
| Pause, degrade, rollback, and notice | | | | yes / no |

## Decision
- Keep:
- Adjust:
- Stop:
- Smallest next experiment:

Life Practice Toolkit

This is not a perfect daily streak. It is a private record for seeing reality again. When you face an important choice, scattered attention, relationship conflict, or prolonged exhaustion, copy the relevant section and write facts and a next step.

Keep the file in a private notes or project directory. Do not include passwords, identity numbers, precise addresses, medical privacy, customer records, or unauthorised third-party information. When there is immediate danger, persistent insomnia, severe low mood, violence, debt, or legal responsibility, contact qualified professional support first.

How to Use It

Write the date and current problem before interpreting yourself;

complete only the worksheet relevant to the current problem;

leave one executable action and one evidence location;

return on the agreed review date; do not turn the result into a personality verdict;

remove records that no longer help and keep facts that improve the next decision.

1. Decision Brief

markdown

# Decision Brief — YYYY-MM-DD

Problem to solve:
Decision deadline:

Known facts and sources:
My interpretation:
Still unknown:
Problem type: missing information / outcome uncertainty / value conflict / identity defence
Non-negotiable values and boundaries:

Option A:
Option B:
Do nothing for now:

Benefits of each option:
Money cost of each option:
Health cost of each option:
Impact on relationships and responsibility:
What is reversible:

Smallest experiment:
Evidence gate and review date:
Cost gate:
Safety gate:
Responsibility gate:
Action when triggered: pause / stop / roll back / escalate for help
What evidence would overturn this choice:

Proposer:
Final decision owner and basis of authority:
Affected people and what they will actually carry:
Matters requiring explicit consent:
Implementer and required resources:
Reviewer and authority to pause:
Whose advice is relevant:
Current decision:
Review date:
Evidence to preserve:

Related chapter: Decision-Making: Choosing Under Uncertainty. When a decision affects shared life, privacy, or unequal power, also use Relationships to check consent and exit routes.

2. Attention Audit

markdown

# Attention Audit — YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD

Most important question this week:

| Area | Facts this week | Result | Adjustment next week |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Input: reading, video, meetings, chat | | | |
| Switching: notifications, interruptions, browsing | | | |
| Output: work, decisions, retelling, delivery | | | |
| Relationships: conversations where I was present | | | |
| Body: sleep, movement, energy | | | |

One entrance to close:
One 25–45 minute time box to protect:
What I know before using AI:
What I can still do after closing AI:
One experiment for next week:

Related chapter: Attention: Return Your Attention to Yourself

3. Relationship Conversation Card

markdown

# Relationship Conversation Card — YYYY-MM-DD

Relationship and situation:
Who holds more resources, evaluation power, account access, information, or exit cost:
What I want this conversation to accomplish:
Can the other person safely refuse, pause, or leave this conversation?
Do I have explicit consent to record, upload, forward, or publish any material?

Specific facts I observed:
Impact and feelings:
What I actually need:
One concrete request:
Boundary I can enforce:
Which responsibilities are mine, and which are not?
If the conversation becomes unsafe, I will contact:

After the conversation:
- What did the other person actually say?
- Did I really listen?
- What did we explicitly agree to, and what did we not agree to?
- Who owns each action, and when is it due?
- What repair can be observed without requiring forgiveness or reconciliation?
- What remains unresolved?
- When will we review it?

Related chapter: Relationships: Becoming an Adult in Connection

4. Recovery Reset

markdown

# Recovery Reset — YYYY-MM-DD

Safety issue to protect today:
People I can contact:
High-risk decision to pause:
Today's mode: safety / reduced load / rebuilding
If safety worsens, what will I stop, whom will I contact, and where will I go?

Body:
- Sleep:
- Food:
- Light activity I can tolerate:
- Professional support to consult:

Basic-life floor: food / sleep preparation / necessary care / critical bills and communication
One smallest task today:
Evidence of completion:
Task limit and end time:
Next-day cost to check:
What I am allowed not to do today:
First action after opening the file tomorrow:

Support agreement:
- What a supporter may do:
- What a supporter must not do in my place:
- Signals that require escalation:
- How accounts, documents, and decisions return as risk falls:
- Minimum information needed for the safety task:

Return-to-work gates:
- Safety gate:
- Basic-life gate:
- Time-boxed task gate:
- Boundary communication gate:
- Review date and person authorised to pause:
One variable to increase next:

Related chapter: Recovery: Catch Yourself Before You Push Forward

5. Weekly Review

Answer five questions each week:

Which fact changed my judgment?

Which action left an inspectable result?

Which error repeated, and what might cause it?

Which boundary needs clearer language or firmer follow-through?

Which single smallest experiment will I keep next week?

Keep this toolkit beside the Weekly Review template in the same private directory. The purpose is not to turn life into a spreadsheet. It is to leave one small piece of fact standing when emotion becomes loud.