Use evidence levels rather than self-awarded expertise labels:
0 = no artifact; 1 = practice with fictional material; 2 = reviewed work with real approved context; 3 = applied work with observed outcomes and clear personal contribution.
| Capability | Evidence to show | Your level and link |
|---|---|---|
| Problem framing | User task, evidence, alternatives, and unknowns | [ ] |
| Research judgment | Source-linked synthesis and contradictions | [ ] |
| Prioritization | Tradeoff, uncertainty, and review trigger | [ ] |
| Prototyping | One testable journey and honest simulation boundaries | [ ] |
| Technical collaboration | Feasibility discussion, permission model, reviewed handoff | [ ] |
| AI evaluation | Cases, rubric, failures, and release reasoning | [ ] |
| Measurement | Defined denominator, baseline, and limitations | [ ] |
| Communication | A decision update a stakeholder can understand | [ ] |
| Creator capability | Audience access, validation, distribution, operating model | [ ] |
Do not sum these into a universal employability score. Select the capabilities relevant to your intended work and choose the next missing artifact.
Case study outline
- Context and your role.
- User problem and evidence.
- Alternatives and the consequential decision.
- Prototype, workflow, or implementation.
- What AI did; what you decided, checked, and corrected.
- Evaluation or research method and limitations.
- Observed result, with source and time window if available.
- What you changed and what you would investigate next.
Integrity check
- Practice work is labeled as practice.
- Simulated numbers and fictional users are labeled.
- Employer/client material has appropriate permission and redaction.
- Team outcomes are distinguished from personal contribution.
- No invented metrics, credentials, research, or tool experience.
- Production readiness is not implied by a prototype.
Two-minute explanation
The user needed [ ]. I learned [ ] from [ ]. We chose [ ] instead of [ ] because [ ]. My contribution was [ ]. AI helped with [ ], and I corrected [ ]. The result was [observed outcome or learning]. Next I would [ ].