Week 4 Audit: When the pitch is true
An expert-work audit --- the hardest case for scepticism, where the pitch's numbers really do hold up
15 March 2027
Every audit so far has had at least one number in the pitch worth challenging. This week doesn’t. The published accuracy figures are real, so the audit skill under practice is different: arguing against a migration whose immediate case is true, on the strength of what it costs a profession over a decade.
Before the session#
Bring one reason the pitch’s accuracy numbers, even if fully accurate, don’t settle the question this notice is actually about.
In the session#
Debate format: half the room argues the pitch, half argues the audit, using only the text of this week’s notice. Notice which side has to reach further than the page in front of them.
Afterwards#
This is the week to update your Weekly Audit Log with a note on what a “true but insufficient” pitch looks like — you’ll need that distinction for weeks where the pitch is far less true.
The spec
What you bring to the session. Written so a reader can tell whether it has been met without asking you.
- you can state why "the pitch's accuracy numbers are true" doesn't settle whether the migration is a good idea
- you can name the training-pipeline mechanism this week's economic breaking-changes section relies on, without re-reading it
Teaching team
- Idris Fenn — tutor