Technical subject lesson shape

Every phase 2 technical subject lesson is written to the template in standards/LESSON-PLAN-TEMPLATE.md, with the four additions below. Nothing here replaces a field in that template. If the two ever disagree, the template wins and this page is wrong.

Every technical subject lesson ends with the candidate teaching the subject to a Simulated Student. Not describing how they would teach it. Teaching it.

This is US-4.1 and it is the property that makes phase 2 worth doing. The knowledge test and the checkride both test whether you can teach these subjects, so the lesson tests the same thing.

A completion standard that can be met by a correct answer fails this shape. The observable behavior is a delivered presentation with a Simulated Student in front of it who asks questions.

Length. Ten minutes of teaching is enough for most subjects. The point is not endurance. It is that the candidate has to organize the material for somebody else, in real time, and discover which parts they only thought they understood.

Lessons reference the current publication. They do not copy it.

This is US-4.2. A lesson that reproduces a chart excerpt, a regulation, or an airspace diagram goes stale silently: the source changes, the copy does not, and nobody notices until a candidate teaches something that stopped being true. A lesson that sends the candidate to the current chart cannot go stale, because the chart is the chart.

Performance and limitations, specifically. Cross-cutting requirement 5 is absolute: no artifact in this program reproduces a performance number from a POH or AFM. Lessons direct the candidate to the specific airplane's own approved material. This applies to lesson 15 most obviously and to every lesson that touches weight, balance, speeds, or distances.

The teaching point sits underneath the rule and is worth making explicitly to the candidate: a number copied onto a handout applies to an airplane that may not be the one they are sitting in. Teaching performance from the book in the aircraft is the habit that does not produce that error.

Every technical subject lesson that carries both marks which is which, in the teaching, not in a footnote. This is US-3.4, taught in lesson 5 and applied from here on.

The instructor plan carries a short table naming any item in that lesson where North Aero's practice is stricter than, or simply different from, the regulation.

Every technical subject lesson is a Taught Ground Lesson as CONTEXT.md defines it: the candidate teaches, the Supervising Instructor is present role playing the Simulated Student. That makes it the unit Epic 12 records, transcribes, and assesses.

The hooks live in the shape rather than being retrofitted to seventeen lessons, which is what ticket 22 asks for and what lets ticket 47's capture convention attach here.

Every technical subject lesson plan carries this block:

Taught Ground Lesson: yes Meeting title convention: CFI Ground Lesson - L<NN> <subject> - <YYYY-MM-DD> Participants: each on their own device, headset, Workspace account Candidate reads their own Session Transcript before the instructor's review Coverage maps to: <the ACS task codes this lesson claims> Fallback if capture fails: instructor attests from contemporaneous notes; the lesson is not lost and is not re-taught for the sake of a recording

Four things about that block are load bearing.

1. **The title convention** means the lesson is identifiable as a CFI ground lesson from the
   filename, without opening it (Decision 29).
2. **Separate devices and headsets** is the condition speaker attribution depends on (Decision 27).
   It is unproven. See `TICKET-03-MEET-ATTRIBUTION-TEST.md`.
3. **The candidate reads their own transcript first.** Self-assessment precedes feedback.
4. **The fallback is not a re-teach.** A capture failure costs the Coverage, not the lesson. Nothing
   in Epic 12 gates a lesson.

**Coverage credits only the candidate's speech.** A topic the Simulated Student had to raise is
recorded as a prompted gap, not as Coverage (Decision 24). Instructors playing the Simulated Student
should know that volunteering a topic the candidate missed is useful teaching and is *not* going to
be credited to the candidate, which is the correct outcome and worth understanding rather than
working around.

Ticket 22 asks that any place the shape had to bend against real subject content be written up. Writing lessons 8 through 24 against it, nothing bent. The phase 1 template survived contact with seventeen technical subjects without amendment.

Two observations worth recording anyway, neither of which is a defect:

• The 0.75 hour lessons are tight. Lessons 16 to 19 carry 45 minutes, of which 10 is the taught presentation and 5 is the critique. That leaves 30 minutes of instruction, which is enough for those four subjects and would not be enough for a larger one. The lesson set was sized around this rather than the reverse.
• Two subjects legitimately want more than one taught presentation, lesson 12's squawk scenarios and lesson 21's weather briefing. Both are handled inside the existing shape by making the taught presentation itself the scenario, rather than by adding a field.