Agenda
| Time | Module | 201 Skills Targeted |
|---|---|---|
| 0:00 – 0:15 | Why 80% Quit (and How You Won’t) | Frontier Recognition |
| 0:15 – 0:40 | The Six Skills That Actually Matter | All six — overview |
| 0:40 – 0:55 | The Delegation Equation | Task Decomposition, Context Assembly |
| 0:55 – 1:05 | Break | |
| 1:05 – 1:30 | The Trust Problem: Quality Judgment | Quality Judgment, Frontier Recognition |
| 1:30 – 1:45 | Your Workflow: Centaur, Cyborg, or Neither | Workflow Integration |
| 1:45 – 2:00 | Frontier Mapping and Your Assignment | Frontier Recognition, all six |
Before Starting
Verify all students have access to an AI chat tool. Use GenAI.mil (preferred) if CAC-enabled workstations are available. Commercial tools (ChatGPT, Gemini) are approved for unclassified exercises. Note: ChatGPT, Gemini, and Grok are also available on GenAI.mil. If using a classroom computer lab, test the AI tool on 2-3 machines before students arrive.
Tool Selection Note
If the classroom has CAC-enabled workstations on a DoD network, use GenAI.mil or CamoGPT (Army-managed) for all exercises. These tools operate within the DoD security boundary and are authorized for prompts containing CUI. PII (real names, SSNs, contact information) must still be anonymized unless a Privacy Impact Assessment authorizes its use. If using commercial tools, remind students to use fictional names and units in all prompts.
Timing Breakdown
| Module | Duration |
|---|---|
| Module 1: Why AI Fluency Matters | 10 min |
| Module 2: The Six 201-Level Skills | 30 min |
| Module 3: The Jagged Frontier | 15 min |
| Module 4: Hands-On — Red Pen Review | 25 min |
| Module 5: Workflow Mapping | 20 min |
| Module 6: The Delegation Equation & Wrap-Up | 15 min |
| Buffer | 5 min |
Contingency: If AI Tools Are Unavailable
If students cannot access AI tools during the session, all exercises still work — the naval message, iterative refinement example, and Red Pen Review documents are all provided inline. The workflow mapping exercise becomes a planning exercise (students map what they would delegate when access is available).
Module 1: Why 80% Quit
Duration: 15 minutes
Opening Hook
Microsoft tracked hundreds of thousands of employees using AI tools. Excitement peaked for about three weeks. Then came a crater of disappointment. The vast majority quietly stopped. The 20% who survived didn’t write better prompts — they learned to manage AI like a capable but inexperienced team member.
Why People Fail
- They type “help me with this report” and get something generic.
- They try again and get something confident and wrong.
- They try a third time and decide it’s faster to do it themselves.
- They never come back.
The Punchline
The UK government gave AI tools to 20,000 workers across 12 departments with proper training and support. After three months, over 80% didn’t want to give them up. Workers reported saving 25 minutes a day — nearly two weeks a year. Nine of twelve departments kept their licenses. The difference wasn’t the tool. It was the training.
Why This Training Is Different
We’re not teaching you how to use a tool. We’re teaching you how to manage one. The same skills that make you a good leader — breaking work into pieces, knowing what good looks like, giving constructive feedback, verifying quality — are the skills that make you effective with AI.
The primary AI tool you’ll use throughout this course is GenAI.mil (genai.mil), the DoD’s enterprise AI platform authorized for all Marines per MARADMIN 018/26. Over 1.1 million unique users (service members, civilians, and contractors) are already using it. If you haven’t logged in yet, you will today.
Approved Tools for This Course
Exercises in this course work with any approved AI assistant. If you have CAC access, use GenAI.mil or CamoGPT (Army-managed) for the safest option. Commercial tools are approved for unclassified prompts only. Note: ChatGPT, Gemini, and Grok are also available on GenAI.mil. See the Approved Tools page for full details.
Data Handling Boundaries
GenAI.mil / CamoGPT (Army-managed, IL5): Authorized for CUI.
PII and PHI must be anonymized unless a PIA authorizes it.
Classified data is never authorized (except CamoGPT on SIPR/IL6).
Commercial tools (ChatGPT, Gemini via web):
Unclassified, non-sensitive data only. Treat every prompt as public disclosure.
The Management Framing
Would you hand a 100-page RFP to a brand new Marine and say “handle this”? No. You’d break it into pieces. You’d tell them which parts to tackle first. You’d explain what good looks like. You’d review their work and give feedback. That’s how you should work with AI.
Instructor Note
Cite the exact numbers but keep the energy conversational. This is not a PowerPoint lecture. It’s a wake-up call. The point is: most people fail at AI not because they’re dumb, but because nobody taught them the right skills.
Module 2: The Six Skills That Actually Matter
Duration: 25 minutes
Walk through all six 201 skills with military examples. For each, show the 101 behavior and the 201 behavior.
Skill 1 — Context Assembly
101 Behavior
Write me a counseling statement.201 Behavior
Open GenAI.mil. Start a new conversation.
Write a counseling statement for a Lance Corporal who was late to
formation twice this month. The tone should be corrective but not
adversarial. The Marine has otherwise been a solid performer. Use
the format from NAVMC 10274. This is a page 11 entry, not an
adverse 6105.Key Teaching Point
AI is extremely sensitive to context quality. The difference between mediocre and useful output is usually the information you provide.
Skill 2 — Quality Judgment
Show students the same prompt fed to AI twice, producing two different outputs. Ask: “Which one gets approved by the awards board?” Then reveal why.
Facilitation Tip
Display both outputs simultaneously. Give students 2 minutes to read silently, then ask for a show of hands: “Who picks A? Who picks B?” Cold-call one student from each side to defend their choice before revealing the analysis. The goal is to surface why one is better — not just which.
The prompt given to AI (identical for both outputs):
Write a summary action paragraph for an end-of-tour Navy and
Marine Corps Achievement Medal for a Staff Sergeant who led a
maintenance team of 4, managed a $2.1M equipment account with
zero discrepancies, and trained 12 new Marines over 18 months.Output A
Output B
Reveal Analysis (Instructor Answer Key)
Output A — Returned by Awards Board
Zero verifiable facts. “Exceptional,” “unparalleled,” “tremendous” are filler words that say nothing specific. “Multi-million dollar” instead of the actual figure. “Numerous Marines” instead of 12. This paragraph describes every Staff Sergeant who ever lived — it distinguishes no one. Any awards board would return it for rewrite.
Output B — Gets Approved
Every claim is specific and verifiable: 87 end items, $2.1M, 98% readiness, zero discrepancies across three inspections, 40-hour syllabus, 12 Marines qualified, 22% reduction in completion time, perfect SMI score. Actions are tied directly to measurable outcomes. Written in proper award narrative style.
Why This Matters
Both outputs came from the same AI with the same prompt. Output A is what AI produces when no one pushes back. Output B is what you get when an expert reviews the draft and demands specifics. The AI had the information — the prompt included the numbers — but it defaulted to generic praise language because that pattern dominates its training data. The expert’s job is to reject “sounds good” and demand “is accurate.”
Key Teaching Point
AI defaults to language that sounds impressive over language that is accurate. The Brynjolfsson study found AI helped novice workers improve by 34% — but only because experts caught what the novices missed. Your domain knowledge is the filter. “Would this survive review?” is the only question that matters.
Skill 3 — Task Decomposition
101 Behavior
Write me a training plan for the platoon.201 Behavior
First, list the required annual training events for FY26. Then map
them against the calendar, avoiding known conflicts. Then identify
which events need range time and put those first.Key Teaching Point
Mollick calls this the Equation of Agentic Work. Breaking tasks into smaller pieces improves AI’s success probability on each piece.
Skill 4 — Iterative Refinement
Show a first draft from AI (70% there). Walk through three passes to get to 95%.
Facilitation Tip
Ask “Who has used AI and accepted the first output without editing?” — expect most hands up. This exercise shows why that’s a problem.
First Draft — AI Output (70% There)
Weekend Safety Brief
All personnel are reminded to exercise caution and good judgment
during the upcoming liberty period. The forecast calls for variable
weather conditions in the local area. All Marines and Sailors should
plan accordingly and ensure they have appropriate clothing and
supplies for any outdoor activities.
Personnel are expected to adhere to all applicable regulations
regarding alcohol consumption, vehicle operation, and personal
conduct. Designated drivers should be arranged in advance for any
social gatherings involving alcohol. Report any incidents to the
chain of command immediately.
All hands are reminded to maintain situational awareness at all
times. Avoid high-risk activities that could result in injury or
harm. Take care of your fellow Marines and do not allow them to
make poor decisions.
The chain of command remains available throughout the weekend for
any issues that arise. Enjoy the time off and return to duty
prepared for the training week ahead.What’s Wrong With This?
- Too generic — could be any unit, any weekend, anywhere
- No specific weather, dates, or local hazards
- Missing POC and emergency contact information
- Overly formal tone — no one talks like this at a formation
- No liberty radius or boundary information
Pass 1 — Fix Tone and Add Weather
The tone is too formal. Make it sound like a Gunny talking to his
Marines. Add this weekend's weather: high of 62, rain Saturday,
clear Sunday.Weekend Safety Brief
Listen up. We made it through another week. Before I cut you
loose, here's what you need to know.
Weather this weekend: Saturday is going to be wet — rain most of
the day, high of 62. Sunday clears up and should be decent. Plan
accordingly. If you're doing anything outdoors Saturday, bring rain
gear and don't be the guy who ends up hypothermic because he wanted
to tough it out in a t-shirt.
If you're drinking, have a plan. I don't care if it's two beers
or ten — you are not driving. Set up a designated driver before
you go out, not after your fourth round. Ride shares exist. Use
them.
Look out for each other. If your buddy is about to do something
stupid, stop him. That's not being soft — that's being a Marine.
If something goes sideways this weekend, do not try to hide it.
Call up the chain immediately. We can deal with almost anything
if we know about it early. What we can't deal with is finding
out Monday morning that something happened Friday night.
Enjoy the weekend. Come back ready to work.Pass 2 — Add POC, Liberty Radius, Remove Redundancy
Add the duty officer contact info: Capt Rodriguez, (831) 555-0147.
Add the liberty radius: 250 miles. Remove the third paragraph, it
repeats the first.Weekend Safety Brief
Listen up. We made it through another week. Before I cut you
loose, here's what you need to know.
Weather this weekend: Saturday is going to be wet — rain most of
the day, high of 62. Sunday clears up and should be decent. Plan
accordingly. If you're doing anything outdoors Saturday, bring rain
gear and don't be the guy who ends up hypothermic because he wanted
to tough it out in a t-shirt.
If you're drinking, have a plan. I don't care if it's two beers
or ten — you are not driving. Set up a designated driver before
you go out, not after your fourth round. Ride shares exist. Use
them.
Liberty radius is 250 miles. If you need to go beyond that, you
come see me before you leave. No exceptions.
If something goes sideways this weekend, do not try to hide it.
Call up the chain immediately. Duty officer this weekend is Capt
Rodriguez: (831) 555-0147. Save that number in your phone right
now. We can deal with almost anything if we know about it early.
Enjoy the weekend. Come back ready to work.Pass 3 — Tighten and Add Local Hazards
Tighten to one page. Add: no swimming at Point Lobos due to rip
current advisory. Remind them about the Monday 0630 formation.Final Version — Pass 3 (95%)
Weekend Safety Brief
Listen up. Before I cut you loose — weather: Saturday is rain all
day, high of 62. Sunday clears up. Bring rain gear if you're going
out Saturday.
Drinking — have a plan before you go out. Designated driver or ride
share, set it up in advance. You are not driving.
Liberty radius is 250 miles. Beyond that, see me first. No
exceptions.
Local hazard: Point Lobos has a rip current advisory this weekend.
No swimming there. I don't care how good a swimmer you think you
are.
Duty officer this weekend is Capt Rodriguez: (831) 555-0147. Save
it in your phone right now. If something happens, call immediately.
Don't wait until Monday.
Monday formation is 0630. Not 0631. Be there, be ready, be sober.
Enjoy the weekend. Take care of each other.Instructor Note
Walk through each pass and ask the class: “What changed? What got better?” The key insight is that each refinement prompt was specific — not “make it better” but exact instructions on what to fix. Three passes. Now it’s 95%.
Key Teaching Point
The first output is never the final product. The GDPval study found simple improvements to prompts could boost AI win rates by another five percentage points.
Skill 5 — Workflow Integration
101 Behavior
"I'll try using AI for this one thing later."201 Behavior
"Every Friday, the duty NCO uses AI to draft the weekend safety
brief from the current weather, liberty boundaries, and recent
incidents."Key Teaching Point
Microsoft research shows it takes up to 11 weeks to build the AI habit.
Skill 6 — Frontier Recognition
Tasks AI handles well vs. poorly in the military domain. The jagged frontier: the capability boundary is not intuitive and changes as models improve.
Key Teaching Point
The BCG-Harvard study found that untrained users working outside the frontier performed 19 percentage points worse than those without AI at all.
The Full 201 Skills Reference
| # | Skill | What It Means | 101 Behavior | 201 Behavior |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Context Assembly | Giving AI the right information to produce useful output | “Write me a counseling statement.” | Provides rank, situation, tone, format, and regulatory reference |
| 2 | Quality Judgment | Knowing whether AI output is correct, complete, and appropriate | Accepts first output without review | Red-pens every output; verifies facts, format, and references |
| 3 | Task Decomposition | Breaking large tasks into AI-appropriate subtasks | “Write me a training plan.” | Breaks into sequential subtasks with clear inputs and outputs |
| 4 | Iterative Refinement | Improving AI output through structured feedback loops | Accepts or rejects first draft | Three revision passes with specific feedback each time |
| 5 | Workflow Integration | Embedding AI into recurring processes, not one-off experiments | “I’ll try AI sometime.” | AI is a standing step in a weekly or daily workflow |
| 6 | Frontier Recognition | Knowing what AI can and cannot do — and when that boundary shifts | Assumes AI can do everything or nothing | Maintains a personal map of AI strengths, weaknesses, and moving edges |
Module 3: The Delegation Equation
Duration: 15 minutes
Mollick’s Framework
Before delegating any task to AI, ask three questions:
- Human Baseline Time — How long would this take me?
- Probability of Success — How likely is AI to produce acceptable output?
- AI Process Time — How long to request, wait, and evaluate?
Example 1: Writing a 5-Paragraph Order
- Human baseline: 4 hours
- AI drafts: minutes
- Review time: 45 minutes
- Probability AI gets it right: ~70%
- Verdict: Delegate
Example 2: Calculating TIS/TIG
- Human baseline: 5 minutes
- AI process: checking takes as long as doing it yourself
- Verdict: Don’t delegate
Example 3: Quarterly Training Schedule
- Human baseline: 6 hours
- AI produces: good first-draft structure
- Review time: 30 minutes
- Verdict: Delegate the structure, fill in the specifics yourself
Key Teaching Point
The more expertise you have, the better you are at all three variables. AI doesn’t replace expertise — it rewards it.
Module 4: The Trust Problem — Quality Judgment
Duration: 25 minutes
The Red Pen Review Exercise
This is the highest-value activity in the entire course. You will review three AI-generated documents — not documents with a single planted “gotcha,” but realistic first drafts with the kinds of problems AI actually produces. These documents are polished, professional, and wrong in ways that matter.
Tool-Specific Caution
The documents below were generated using commercial AI tools. Output from GenAI.mil and CamoGPT can contain the same types of errors — fabricated references, inflated statistics, and confident inaccuracies. No AI tool is exempt from quality review.
Facilitation Tip
This is the most important exercise in the course. Have students work individually first (10–15 min), then discuss in pairs (5 min), then reveal the answer key. The goal is not to find one hidden error — it is to build the habit of systematic review. Students who find 3–4 issues per document are doing well. Students who find 1 or fewer have just learned why this exercise exists.
Key teaching point: These are not “trick” documents. They represent what AI actually produces when you prompt it for military writing. The errors are organic — inflated language, fabricated references, invented statistics, and procedural gaps that only someone with domain experience would catch.
Before You Start: The Review Checklist
Use this checklist as you review each document. Professional editors and quality reviewers do not rely on gut feeling — they use a systematic process.
AI Document Review Checklist
- References & Citations. Does every order number, publication, regulation, or directive actually exist? Can you look it up?
- Facts & Statistics. Are the numbers, dates, percentages, and claims verifiable? Do they match reality, or do they just sound good?
- Internal Consistency. Do all parts of the document agree with each other? Does the timeline work? Do names, units, and details stay consistent?
- Procedural Accuracy. Does the described process match how things actually work in your experience? Are critical steps missing?
- Substance vs. Style. Strip away the professional formatting and confident tone. Is there real, specific content underneath, or just polished filler?
- Would You Sign It? If your name goes on this document, are you confident in every claim it makes?
Setup
Using GenAI.mil, generate three documents relevant to your unit’s work. Alternatively, the instructor can pre-generate these and distribute them. The point is that these are AI-generated outputs from the same tool students will use daily.
The three documents below were produced by prompting an AI to generate realistic military administrative writing for 1st Bn, 99th Marines. They were not edited after generation. Red pen each one: mark everything you would change, question, or verify before signing.
Document 1: Award Recommendation Narrative (NAM)
RECOMMENDATION NARRATIVE
Corporal David R. Hernandez, USMC
Weapons Company, 1st Battalion, 99th Marines
Period of Service: March 2025 to January 2026
Corporal Hernandez demonstrated exceptional initiative and unwavering dedication to duty while serving as the Readiness Clerk for Weapons Company, 1st Battalion, 99th Marines. Through his unparalleled commitment to organizational excellence, he single-handedly transformed the company’s readiness reporting process, resulting in a 47% reduction in reporting errors and saving the command an estimated 156 man-hours per quarter.
Upon identifying critical inefficiencies in the company’s legacy readiness tracking system, Corporal Hernandez took it upon himself to design and implement a comprehensive digital solution utilizing the Microsoft Power Platform. His innovative tool streamlined the consolidation of training data from four subordinate sections, automating what had previously been a tedious manual process requiring extensive cross-referencing of multiple spreadsheets and paper records.
Corporal Hernandez’s tool was directly responsible for Weapons Company achieving a 98.7% readiness reporting accuracy rate during the Battalion’s Annual Training Assessment, the highest mark in the regiment. His system was subsequently adopted by two additional companies within the battalion, demonstrating the scalability and robustness of his solution. The Regimental Commander personally recognized his contribution during the quarterly awards ceremony, per MARADMIN 045/26.
Corporal Hernandez’s exceptional performance, tireless work ethic, and selfless dedication to mission accomplishment reflect great credit upon himself, Weapons Company, 1st Battalion, 99th Marines, and the United States Marine Corps.
Document 2: Unit SOP Excerpt (Check-in/Check-out Procedures)
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (EXTRACT)
Chapter 4, Section 3: Personnel Check-in / Check-out Procedures
Effective Date: 01 January 2026
References: (a) MCO 1000.6A Personnel Assignment Policy
(b) MCO 1320.11H Permanent Change of Station
(c) BnO 1000.1 Personnel Administration Procedures
1. PURPOSE. To establish standardized procedures for the check-in and check-out of all personnel assigned to or departing from Weapons Company.
2. CHECK-IN PROCEDURES. All newly reporting personnel shall complete the following within 72 hours of reporting:
a. Report to the Company Office (Bldg 1284) with original orders, service record book, and three copies of PCS orders.
b. Complete Company Check-in Sheet (Appendix 4-3A).
c. Receive section assignment from the Company First Sergeant.
d. Report to assigned Section Leader within 24 hours of company check-in.
e. Complete gear inventory with Section Leader using CMC Form 4790/142.
f. Attend Company Indoctrination Brief, held every Monday at 0800 in the Company Classroom (Bldg 1284, Rm 203).
g. Complete initial counseling with Section Leader within 14 calendar days.
3. CHECK-OUT PROCEDURES. Personnel departing the company shall initiate checkout NLT 10 working days prior to departure date:
a. Obtain Company Check-out Sheet from the Company Office.
b. Clear all issued gear through the Section Leader and Company Armory.
c. Return all company-specific access badges and keys to the Company Gunnery Sergeant.
d. Complete a transfer of duties brief with the identified relief, if applicable.
e. Obtain Company Commander’s signature on checkout sheet.
f. Forward completed checkout sheet to Battalion S-1 NLT 5 working days prior to departure.
4. EXCEPTIONS. Personnel departing on emergency leave are exempt from the 10-working-day requirement but must complete telephonic checkout with the Company First Sergeant within 48 hours of departure. Checkout sheet will be completed by the Marine’s Section Leader in their absence and forwarded to Battalion S-1 per reference (b).
5. RESPONSIBILITIES. The Company First Sergeant is responsible for maintaining the check-in/check-out tracker and providing a monthly report to the Company Commander. Section Leaders will report any check-in discrepancies to the First Sergeant within 24 hours per reference (a).
Document 3: Information Paper
Subject: Feasibility of Implementing Digital Training Tracker for 1st Battalion, 99th Marines
1. PURPOSE. To provide the Commanding Officer with an assessment of implementing a digital training tracker using the Microsoft Power Platform to replace the current spreadsheet-based system.
2. BACKGROUND. 1st Battalion currently tracks individual and collective training completion using a combination of Excel spreadsheets maintained at the company level and manual reports consolidated by the S-3. This process requires approximately 12 hours per week of staff time across the battalion. According to a 2024 Marine Corps Training and Education Command (TECOM) study, units using digital tracking systems reported a 34% improvement in training visibility and a 28% reduction in lapsed individual training requirements.
3. CURRENT SITUATION.
a. The S-3 section consolidates training data from four companies weekly. Average turnaround time from company submission to battalion roll-up is 3.2 working days.
b. Common errors include duplicate entries, outdated completion dates, and missing course identifiers. An internal audit in November 2025 found a 23% error rate in the consolidated tracker.
c. Three Marines in the S-3 shop hold Power Platform development experience. MSgt K. R. Odom completed the Microsoft PL-900 certification in October 2025.
4. ANALYSIS.
a. A Power Apps-based tracker would provide real-time visibility at all echelons, eliminating the weekly consolidation cycle.
b. Estimated development time: 60–80 hours using AI-assisted development methods per MARADMIN 612/24, which authorizes the use of AI tools for administrative process improvement across the Marine Corps.
c. Recurring cost: $0. Power Apps is included in the battalion’s existing M365 E3 licensing. No additional licenses or procurement actions required.
d. Risk: Low. The Power Platform operates within the DoD M365 security boundary and has been granted an Authority to Operate (ATO) at the DoD enterprise level.
5. RECOMMENDATION. Approve development of a Power Apps training tracker as a 90-day pilot program within Headquarters Company. Success criteria: reduction in consolidation time to same-day, error rate below 5%, and positive user feedback from a minimum of 10 users.
Prepared by: Capt M. J. Sullivan, S-3A
Date: 03 February 2026
Exercise (15 min)
Use the Review Checklist above. Go through each document systematically. Write down every issue you find — not just errors, but anything you would question, verify, or rewrite before putting your name on it.
Answer Key — Document Review Findings (Instructor Use)
Document 1: Award Recommendation — 5 Issues Found
Issue 1 (Fabricated Statistics — HIGH): “47% reduction in reporting errors” and “156 man-hours per quarter.” These are suspiciously precise figures with no supporting data. Where did these numbers come from? An award narrative must be backed by verifiable accomplishments. If the CO asks “where did you get 47%?” there is no answer.
Issue 2 (Fabricated Reference — HIGH): “per MARADMIN 045/26” — this MARADMIN does not exist. MARADMINs do not typically direct individual recognition at quarterly award ceremonies. AI fabricated a plausible-looking reference number to add authority to the claim.
Issue 3 (Inflated Language — MEDIUM): “Unparalleled commitment,” “single-handedly transformed,” “tireless work ethic.” These are generic superlatives that could describe anyone. Strong award narratives use specific accomplishments, not adjective stacking. What did the Marine actually do?
Issue 4 (Unverifiable Claim — MEDIUM): “98.7% readiness reporting accuracy rate” and “highest mark in the regiment.” The percentage is suspiciously precise, and claiming the highest mark in the regiment requires regimental-level data that a company clerk would not normally have access to.
Issue 5 (Style Over Substance — LOW): The narrative is heavy on adjectives and light on specifics. How many sections used the tool? What was the actual before/after workflow? How was it tested? The writing is polished but hollow. A strong award narrative replaces “unwavering dedication” with “volunteered 40 off-duty hours over 6 weeks.”
Document 2: Unit SOP — 5 Issues Found
Issue 1 (Fabricated References — HIGH): “MCO 1000.6A Personnel Assignment Policy” and “MCO 1320.11H Permanent Change of Station” do not exist. AI generates plausible MCO numbers and titles. Every reference in an AI-generated document must be verified. If you cannot find it in the MCO library, it is fabricated.
Issue 2 (Fabricated Form Number — HIGH): “CMC Form 4790/142” is not a real form. The 4790 series relates to equipment maintenance (MIMMS/GCSS-MC), not personnel gear inventories. AI mixed up form number series.
Issue 3 (Missing Critical Step — HIGH): No mention of medical/dental records check-in. Every Marine who has ever checked into a unit knows that medical and dental are on the checklist. This is a glaring omission that reveals the document was not written by someone who has actually processed a check-in.
Issue 4 (Procedural Gap — MEDIUM): Section 4 addresses emergency leave telephonic checkout but does not address gear accountability. The Marine departed with issued gear. Who inventories it? Who signs for it? The First Sergeant’s biggest concern is property accountability, and this SOP has no procedure for it.
Issue 5 (Timeline Gap — LOW): Section 2.d requires reporting to Section Leader “within 24 hours” but 2.g allows “14 calendar days” for initial counseling. In practice, a Section Leader conducts initial counseling at the same time as the first meeting. The 14-day window is unrealistically long and suggests the author did not understand the actual workflow.
Document 3: Information Paper — 5 Issues Found
Issue 1 (Fabricated Study — HIGH): “According to a 2024 Marine Corps Training and Education Command (TECOM) study” with specific statistics (34% improvement, 28% reduction). This study almost certainly does not exist. AI invents authoritative-sounding studies with precise statistics to support its recommendations. If you cannot find the study, do not cite it.
Issue 2 (Fabricated MARADMIN — HIGH): “MARADMIN 612/24, which authorizes the use of AI tools for administrative process improvement across the Marine Corps.” This MARADMIN does not exist. Even if a similar policy existed, AI fabricated both the number and the characterization of its content. Citing a nonexistent directive in a paper for the CO is a career-level error.
Issue 3 (Misleading Claim — MEDIUM): “Recurring cost: $0.” This ignores ongoing maintenance hours, the developer’s time investment (60–80 hours is not free), and the possibility that premium connectors may be needed. Technically true about licensing, but misleading about total cost of ownership.
Issue 4 (Unverifiable Internal Data — MEDIUM): “3.2 working days” turnaround and “23% error rate” from “an internal audit in November 2025.” These figures sound authoritative but were generated by the AI. If the CO asks “who conducted this audit?” there is no answer because no audit occurred.
Issue 5 (Oversimplified Authority Claim — LOW): “Granted an Authority to Operate (ATO) at the DoD enterprise level” oversimplifies the ATO process. While Power Platform operates within DoD M365, characterizing it as having a blanket enterprise ATO may not be accurate for all use cases and data types. The CO’s information assurance officer would flag this.
Debrief (10 min)
Key debrief questions:
- “How many of you caught the fabricated references?” — Most students miss at least one. This is the number one AI error in military writing.
- “How many of you questioned the statistics?” — AI-generated numbers sound precise and authoritative but have no source data behind them.
- “Document 2: who noticed the missing medical/dental step?” — This is the domain expertise test. Only someone who has actually checked into a unit would catch it.
- “Which document would cause the most damage if sent as-is?” — Document 3, because it puts fabricated data and fake directives in front of a commanding officer for a decision.
Key Teaching Point
The single most important takeaway: AI does not know what it does not know. It will never say “I made up this MCO number” or “this statistic has no source.” It will present fabricated information with the same confidence as verified facts. That is why the review checklist exists — you cannot rely on the AI to flag its own errors. Your domain expertise is the quality gate.
The Verification Hierarchy
| Stakes Level | Examples | Review Method | Mode |
|---|---|---|---|
| High | Legal, personnel, financial documents | Line-by-line verification | Centaur mode |
| Medium | Correspondence, reports, briefings | Spot-check key facts and references | Mixed mode |
| Low | First drafts, brainstorming, formatting | Quick review for obvious errors | Cyborg mode |
Instructor Note
This exercise is NOT optional. This is where the training pays for itself. The documents above are effective because the errors are organic — they represent how AI actually fails, not how a human would plant a trick error. If time is short, do Document 1 and Document 3 as the minimum set. Document 2 (SOP) is highest value for students who write procedures and policy.
Module 5: Your Workflow — Centaur, Cyborg, or Neither
Duration: 15 minutes
Two Patterns for Human-AI Work
- Centaur: Clear division of labor. Human does Phase 1, AI does Phase 2, human reviews Phase 3. Best for high-stakes work where you need a clean handoff and thorough review.
- Cyborg: Continuous integration. Fluid boundary between human and AI contributions. Best for creative and iterative work where you refine together in real time.
Exercise: Workflow Mapping (10 min)
Each participant picks one recurring task and completes the following:
- Break the task into 3–5 subtasks
- Mark each subtask:
- Human Only — requires judgment, context, or authority AI cannot provide
- AI Could Help — AI drafts, human refines
- AI Should Do This — routine, repeatable, low-stakes
- Identify the pattern: Is this a centaur workflow or a cyborg workflow?
- Estimate time savings per iteration
- For each subtask you marked “AI Could Help” or “AI Should Do This,” identify which tool you’d use:
- GenAI.mil (primary) for drafting, analysis, code generation, file upload, and deep research
- CamoGPT (Army-managed) for API-driven workflows, SIPR tasks, or collaborative workspaces
- M365 Copilot for document editing within Office apps
- Power Platform for building applications
Mapping Your Tools
When labeling subtasks, consider which approved tool is best suited for each. Use GenAI.mil or CamoGPT (Army-managed) for tasks involving sensitive data. Use commercial tools for unclassified brainstorming and drafting.
Facilitation Tip
Walk the room during this exercise. Common mistakes: mapping too many tasks (aim for 5-7), skipping the “verification needed” column, being unrealistic about AI capabilities.
Module 6: Frontier Mapping and Your Assignment
Duration: 15 minutes
Your Personal Frontier Map
The jagged frontier is different for every role. Build your own map with three columns:
| AI Handles Well | AI Handles Poorly | Moving Frontier (Check Periodically) |
|---|---|---|
| Drafting correspondence | Regulatory interpretation | Data analysis and summarization |
| Formatting documents | Classified information handling | Technical writing for specialized fields |
| Brainstorming and outlining | Real-time operational decisions | Complex planning and scheduling |
Tools Move the Frontier
The frontier shifts as new tools become available. GenAI.mil and CamoGPT expand what is possible inside the DoD security boundary. Revisit your frontier map when your organization gains access to new tools. See the Approved Tools page for current options.
Your Assignment
Before Your Next Session
- Pick one recurring task from your workflow map
- Log into GenAI.mil (genai.mil) with your CAC and start a new conversation
- Apply the Context Assembly and Task Decomposition skills from today
- Note what worked and what didn’t — especially your failure cases
- Bring your results to share with your section
For Those Continuing to Builder Orientation
Bring a specific problem you want to solve. Be ready to decompose it into subtasks. The Builder Orientation course assumes you can already apply all six 201 skills — there we put them to work building actual tools.
Exit Ticket — Assessment
Before leaving, all students must complete the following three questions. This is a quick-check to ensure the core concepts landed.
Exit Ticket — AI Fluency Fundamentals
Name: _______________________________
Date: _______________________________
1. Name 3 of the six 201-level skills:
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
2. Give one example of a task inside the frontier and one outside:
Inside the frontier: _________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Outside the frontier: ________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
3. What is the first step before using AI output in any official product?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Assessment Protocol
Collect exit tickets. Students who miss 2+ questions should be flagged for follow-up.
Closing
You are now equipped with the same judgment framework that separates sustained AI adopters from the 80% who quit. The skills you practiced today — Context Assembly, Quality Judgment, Task Decomposition, Iterative Refinement, Workflow Integration, and Frontier Recognition — are not about any particular tool. They are about how you think. That is what makes them durable.