Build AI workflows
you can verify.
Build a grounded assistant, check a sales analysis, connect one customer workflow, and decide whether it is ready for a controlled pilot. Six modules combine worked tutorials, original practice files, knowledge checks, and an evidence-based capstone.
This is a self-study implementation path. It does not award an accredited qualification or independently assessed certificate.
A practical implementation path.
Owners and small teams in services, retail, ecommerce, and creative businesses who can use a browser and a basic spreadsheet.
Plan for roughly 7–13 hours of active practice, plus vendor setup and any real email delays. These are editorial planning estimates, not measured completion times.
Before you begin: requirements and how to use the path
What you need
- Choose one small, repeatable business task and identify the person responsible for its output.
- Be able to save a text file, open a CSV in a spreadsheet, and distinguish a draft from a sent message.
- Use the supplied fictional records for practice. For a real pilot, have permission to use the information and remove unnecessary personal or confidential data.
- Reading and downloading the materials requires no course account. Connected exercises need the vendor accounts and capabilities listed in each tutorial; check current limits before paying.
How to work through it
- Work through the modules in order. In module 3, choose the track that matches your business; you do not need to build both.
- Keep a project folder with a dated brief, source files, outputs, calculations, test log, and final decision. Store your own work there, not in a public comment or this site's progress controls.
- Try each knowledge check before opening its explanation. A wrong answer points to the part to revisit; you can retry.
- Mark a module complete only after its submission and pass criteria are satisfied. Label simulated practice separately from connected account tests.
- Complete the capstone on one workflow. A decision to revise or stop is a useful result when the evidence does not justify launch.
What this path establishes
- Create a business facts file that separates approved facts, assumptions, and questions requiring a human answer.
- Reconcile an AI-assisted sales analysis to an independent calculation, including duplicates, refunds, cancellations, and a missing cost.
- Build either a confirmed lead-magnet delivery sequence or a service-inquiry workflow that prepares a reviewed draft.
- Explain and test input validation, duplicate handling, failure recovery, source updates, and human escalation.
- Assemble a portfolio that supports a specific go, revise, or stop decision for one controlled business pilot.
Assessment boundaries
- A knowledge-check score shows how you answered these questions; it does not verify your live accounts or business results.
- The supplied examples are synthetic exercises. Vendor interface documentation and reference answers are distinguished from an observed run in your account.
- Instructor feedback, external qualification, measured learner outcomes, and guaranteed time savings or traffic are not included.
Progress marks and knowledge-check answers are saved in this browser. They are your own record, not proof that a vendor workflow has passed its tests. Keep the underlying evidence in your own project folder.
Choose one task and ground your assistant
Give the assistant reliable business facts and define what success would mean before asking it to produce work.
35–60 minutes of active practice; editorial estimate.
- Choose the first task to automate
- Build a ChatGPT Project business brief
- Compare assistant fit and account requirements
Outcomes, assignment, and self-check
What you will be able to do
- Define one task, its owner, its input, and the output a person will approve.
- Separate source-backed business facts from assumptions and missing information.
- Check a generated FAQ and reply against the approved facts.
Your assignment
- A one-page task brief: customer or colleague served, trigger, approved output, owner, excluded actions, and one quality measure.
- A dated business facts file with a source or owner for each policy, price, turnaround, and contact detail used in the exercise.
- One FAQ and one inquiry reply with a claim-check table: claim, source, supported or unsupported, and correction. Include one question that the sources cannot answer.
Verify your evidence
Check each statement only after your own work meets it. Configuration screenshots alone do not establish a successful run.
Read the answer explanations
- Replace it with the supported timing and record the unsupported claim in the check log. A second model is not a source for your policy. The approved business fact controls the wording. Recording the failure also gives you a useful case to test after the instructions change.
- Record comparable tasks before and during the pilot, including drafting, review, corrections, and final accuracy. A faster first draft may create extra review work. Count the whole task and a quality measure, state the sample size, and avoid claiming a general improvement from a small or mismatched sample.
Check AI analysis against the numbers
Use an intentionally messy fictional sales file to learn when a persuasive answer is numerically wrong.
60–90 minutes of active practice; editorial estimate.
- Analyze a sales CSV with ChatGPT and verify the result
- Compare your work with the independent answer key
Outcomes, assignment, and self-check
What you will be able to do
- Distinguish a duplicate event from a legitimate refund on the same order.
- Keep an unknown cost unresolved until the supplied owner confirmation supports a value.
- Reproduce the answer key and write a decision memo that stays within the data.
Exercise files
Your assignment
- A cleaning log listing which rows were removed, excluded, retained, or corrected, with the reason for each decision.
- A reconciled table of net sales and contribution using the tutorial's definitions, with spreadsheet formulas or the supplied independent verifier.
- A short owner memo with one supported finding, one proposed next action, and at least two limits on what the sample can establish.
Verify your evidence
Check each statement only after your own work meets it. Configuration screenshots alone do not establish a successful run.
Read the answer explanations
- Keep both events and apply the exercise's signed sale and refund rules. The file records events, not one row per order. Deduplicating on order ID would erase a real refund and overstate the result. Use the stable event ID and the documented event rules.
- Keep it unknown until the owner confirmation supplies the exercise value, and record the correction. An estimate is not an observed cost. This exercise provides a separate confirmation specifically so you can resolve the missing value with evidence. If a real business cannot resolve it, disclose the uncertainty instead of presenting a precise profit figure.
Build one customer workflow
Choose email resource delivery or service-inquiry follow-up. Both tracks join several tools and require evidence that the customer receives the intended result.
60–120 minutes of active practice for one track; editorial estimate. The email track also requires waiting through the configured delivery intervals.
- Track A: Canva resource and MailerLite welcome sequence
- Track B: Tally inquiry, Google Sheets record, and Gmail draft
Outcomes, assignment, and self-check
What you will be able to do
- Map a customer action through the connected tools to one useful output.
- Identify what can run automatically and what needs a person's approval.
- Test both the expected path and a meaningful exception with controlled records.
Track A — Deliver a useful resource by email
Stores, creators, and service businesses that already have a useful resource and a permission-based signup offer.
Keep this evidence
- The finished resource, signup page, three messages, and a simple field-and-trigger map.
- A dated test log using controlled addresses: confirmation, correct resource access while signed out, real delay timing, unsubscribe, and repeat signup.
Check the selected track
Track B — Prepare a service inquiry for review
Consultants, local services, and small teams that receive inquiries and want a reviewable reply with a reliable intake record.
Keep this evidence
- A form, intake-sheet field map, approved reply template, and an identified review owner.
- A dated log for a complete submission, an optional blank field, a repeated submission, and a paused or failed handoff.
Check the selected track
Your assignment
- Identify the chosen track and complete its submission requirements.
- Save the trigger-to-output map, dated results, and corrections in your portfolio. Mark any unperformed account test as pending.
Verify your evidence
Check each statement only after your own work meets it. Configuration screenshots alone do not establish a successful run.
Read the answer explanations
- Opening the delivered link as a controlled recipient while signed out of the creator account. The creator's access does not establish the recipient's access. Verify the whole delivery path with a controlled recipient and the same permissions a real subscriber will have.
- Create a draft, verify that no message was sent, and give the owner a way to find it. Review must happen before the external action. A draft action and an observed no-send check make that boundary testable. Confidence wording is not permission to contact a customer.
Make the workflow recoverable
Practice the parts that a successful first run does not prove: bad input, duplicate events, retries, and recovery.
45–90 minutes of active practice; editorial estimate. Connected setup depends on a trusted source that can send the required private header.
Outcomes, assignment, and self-check
What you will be able to do
- Validate the fields required to produce a useful queue record.
- Use a stable submission ID to recognize a retried event.
- Reconcile source records before retrying a paused or failed run.
Practice without a live account: If the trusted source or required account capability is unavailable, work through the sample payloads and write the expected record after each event. Label that as a simulation; connected recovery tests remain pending for the capstone.
Your assignment
- A field map with required fields, the source's stable submission ID, and the human review owner.
- A test log for a valid event, wrong authentication key, missing or blank required data, an identical retry, a conflicting retry with the same ID, and a second distinct event.
- A recovery note explaining how to find missing or duplicate records, pause safely, and replay only what is missing.
Verify your evidence
Check each statement only after your own work meets it. Configuration screenshots alone do not establish a successful run.
Read the answer explanations
- The original submission ID, preserved across retries. The destination needs a stable identity for the event. A new ID makes a retry appear new, while a first name can merge unrelated people. The ID rule must match the source and the guide's storage behavior.
- Compare source IDs with destination records, identify missing events, and retry with their original IDs. Reconciliation tells you what actually failed. Preserving identities and replaying missing records avoids creating duplicates or losing evidence of work that already succeeded.
Test support answers and human handoff
Build an approved support source, challenge the assistant with known and unknown questions, and prove that a person receives the handoff.
3–5 focused hours of active practice; editorial estimate. Live inbox and availability tests require the relevant Tidio account capabilities.
Outcomes, assignment, and self-check
What you will be able to do
- Resolve conflicting policy sources before loading a knowledge base.
- Score support answers for required facts, forbidden claims, and escalation behavior.
- Prove online handoff, offline contact, and a usable rollback route.
Exercise files
- Approved fictional FAQ source
- Support test cases
- Reference scoring and answer key
- Blank observed-results log
Practice without a live account: You can score the fictional cases and diagnose the stale-policy problem without a live bot. These reference answers are not evidence of Lyro's observed behavior. Mark live response, inbox, and rollback tests pending until you perform them.
Your assignment
- A source register with owner, effective date, active source, and the resolution of any stale or conflicting policy.
- The supplied test log with observed responses, source support, pass or fail, and a corrective action for every mandatory case.
- Evidence that a controlled handoff reaches the real destination, including offline handling and the manual contact path after rollback.
Verify your evidence
Check each statement only after your own work meets it. Configuration screenshots alone do not establish a successful run.
Read the answer explanations
- Confirm the current policy with its owner, remove or correct the stale active source, and rerun the affected tests. The business owns the policy decision. Prompt wording cannot reliably repair conflicting source material. Resolve the source conflict, record the decision, then test the answers that depend on it.
- No. Confirm the request and necessary context arrived at the actual destination, including the offline route. A handoff is an operational event, not a reassuring phrase. The test is whether the responsible person can find the request and act on it under the availability conditions you promise.
Present a pilot with evidence
Choose one workflow from your portfolio and produce a decision another person can inspect: what it does, what passed, what remains uncertain, and when it must stop.
45–90 minutes to assemble the evidence and decision; editorial estimate. Collecting a real business baseline and running a pilot takes additional time.
- Use the capstone rubric and evidence template below
- Review the site's evidence and editorial standards
Outcomes, assignment, and self-check
What you will be able to do
- Separate completed practice, connected tests, and live business outcomes.
- Evaluate a pilot against explicit quality, cost, and recovery criteria.
- Give an owner a repeatable procedure for using, reviewing, updating, and stopping the workflow.
Your assignment
- An evidence pack containing the task brief, current sources, input and output examples, independent checks, dated test log, and owner procedure.
- A measured baseline and pilot comparison for comparable tasks, or an explicit 'outcomes not yet measured' entry with the next measurement step.
- A one-page decision: controlled pilot, revise, or stop; the reasons; unresolved limitations; operating cost assumptions; and the next review date.
Verify your evidence
Check each statement only after your own work meets it. Configuration screenshots alone do not establish a successful run.
Read the answer explanations
- Fix the critical failure and repeat the affected and regression tests before a live pilot. A serious failure is not cancelled out by unrelated successful answers. The pilot needs a defined stop rule, a correction, and evidence that the change fixed the problem without breaking previously correct behavior.
- The exercise supports a limited next test; it does not establish business-wide savings or better customer outcomes. State what the sample actually measured. Synthetic practice can expose mistakes and justify a controlled trial, but it does not measure customer response, long-term costs, or revenue effects.
Capstone: one workflow another person can inspect
Score your evidence, not your intention. This is a self-review rubric created for this path, not an independently validated assessment. A colleague or owner can use the same rubric to challenge the decision.
At least 10/12, no zero, and no unresolved critical failure. A connected pilot also requires observed account tests. Record 'revise' if evidence is missing; do not convert a simulation into a live pass.
See a worked decision and the portfolio contents
Illustrative decision, not a measured business result
A service-inquiry exercise creates the correct draft from a controlled form submission, but the paused-integration recovery test has not been run.
Revise before a live pilot. The normal path has evidence, but missing-inquiry recovery is still pending. Run the pause, reconciliation, and replay test; record whether the correct draft appears without duplicates; then reassess the operating criterion. Do not claim time savings before measuring review and correction work.
Keep these eight sections
- 01 — Task, owner, customer need, and excluded actions
- 02 — Approved sources, effective dates, permissions, and unresolved questions
- 03 — Input and output examples with the chosen tools and configuration
- 04 — Independent calculation or claim checks and corrections
- 05 — Dated test cases: expected result, observed result, evidence, status, and retest
- 06 — Baseline, pilot sample, active work, review effort, tool costs, and limitations
- 07 — Operating procedure, fallback, stop conditions, and source-update owner
- 08 — Rubric scores, controlled-pilot/revise/stop decision, and next review date
Make one useful change, then measure it.
Finish a controlled workflow, preserve the test evidence, and review its actual quality and cost. Your portfolio should make a correction as easy to explain as a successful result.
Curriculum references and editorial method
The sequence and assessment are Seller Insider Hub’s original self-study design. These public references informed the learning structure; the providers do not endorse or accredit this path. Each tutorial carries its own technical sources.