Try this before buying a course. Give yourself five minutes, a scrap of paper, and one rule: say only what the evidence supports.
This free, fictional exercise introduces a core habit taught in our Evidence Before Conclusions course. It is a standalone practice case created for this preview, not an excerpt from the paid Northbridge case. No purchase is needed.
Minute 1: Read the file
A fictional town is reviewing a $48,000 equipment purchase. You have four items:
Purchase record: the town bought equipment from Cedar Supply for $48,000 on May 12. The record contains no competing bids or ownership information.
Blog post: an unnamed source says Cedar Supply belongs to the mayor’s cousin. No supporting record is linked.
Second article: repeats the family-relationship claim and cites the blog post.
AI summary: says, “Multiple sources confirm that the mayor steered the contract to a relative.” It cites the two articles.
Minutes 2–3: Make the call
Write your answers before scrolling further:
Which statement is supported by the supplied record: a purchase occurred, the vendor is a relative, or the mayor improperly influenced the decision?
How many independent sources support the family-relationship allegation?
Write a one-sentence conclusion that does not turn suspicion into fact.
Which record would you seek next, and what question would it answer?
Pause here. Your answer matters more than your speed.
Minute 4: Compare your reasoning
1. A purchase occurred. The supplied record supports the vendor, amount and date. It does not establish ownership, a family relationship, or improper influence.
2. One unverified origin is described. The second article and AI summary repeat the blog’s allegation. They add no independent corroboration. The unnamed source’s basis of knowledge is unknown.
3. A proportionate conclusion: “The supplied record documents a $48,000 purchase from Cedar Supply; the alleged family connection and improper influence remain unverified.”
4. Choose a record for a specific question. Ownership filings may help identify owners, but do not automatically prove kinship or wrongdoing. Procurement rules, bids, scoring records and decision approvals can help examine how the purchase was selected. Missing material in this small file is not proof that required procedures were skipped.
Minute 5: Use the habit
Make four columns: claim / original source / what it establishes / what remains unknown. Try them on the next confident headline or AI answer you encounter. Repetition is not corroboration.
Teachers and team leaders: you may share this free page and use this exercise in discussion, with attribution to The Redemption Project. Do not include confidential records in public comments.
Want more practice?
Our course: Evidence Before Conclusions — US$50. Work through the Northbridge Procurement Review case while practicing source tracing, evidence limits and justified next actions. This is our own paid product.
See the course and what it covers →
Have a question about the course or using it with a group? Contact Silas at editor@projectforgebooks.com.