---
id: M04-L05
title: "Challenge: repair conflicting context"
module: M04
chapters: "8–9"
checkpoint: CP02
---

# M04-L05 — Challenge: repair conflicting context

Repair a contradiction across current project documents and explain why the correction is justified. This module challenge combines readable Markdown, source identification, evidence classification, and bounded review. Use a new CP02 exercise copy so the deliberately wrong statement cannot contaminate your normal reference.

Seed this sentence in the exercise hardware note: “The selected Adafruit product 5477 has 8 MB flash.” In a separate exercise record, label the statement as an intentional fault. The challenge is to establish the correct claim from the applicable manufacturer source, then identify every current document that depends on it.

Open the exact product page and confirm the identifier. The documented example variant has 4 MB flash and 2 MB PSRAM. A family search can find an 8 MB/no-PSRAM sibling, which explains why a plausible stale note can be wrong. Resolve by identity and evidence, not by choosing whichever number appears most often in the repository.

Correct `docs/hardware.md`, then search the exercise documents for the product identifier and stale memory claim. Review each hit in context. An unrelated number or a dated historical result should not be globally replaced. Mark old guidance superseded when appropriate, and point it to the active hardware reference.

Follow the corrected links in the preview. Read the README and handoff as a new reader would. A correct central table is insufficient if the handoff still directs the next session to use the stale variant. Keep the correction small enough that the diff exposes the reasoning.

Write a short evidence note with the seeded claim, exact source and section, corrected claim, affected documents, and remaining unknowns. State that this is a documentation-based correction. It neither observes a physical board nor proves an upload. A screenshot of the diff can illustrate the repair, but the text and source should remain independently readable.

Use the module quiz after the challenge. A score of four out of five is the recommended self-check target; retry is encouraged. The quiz does not replace the practical evidence. Completion requires a coherent correction and an explanation that a reviewer can follow from claim to source to consequence.

## Resources and completion

Use the Sensor Monitor `CP02` download and its `README.md`; project paths in this lesson are relative to that root. Read Chapter 8–9 for the full lab and explanatory review answers. Figure IDs: SS09-04, SS08-03. Primary references: [Adafruit product 5477](https://www.adafruit.com/product/5477) and [GitHub Markdown tables](https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/writing-on-github/working-with-advanced-formatting/organizing-information-with-tables). Complete the [exercise](exercise.md), preserve actual evidence, and use the separate instructor answer key for self-check after attempting the task. Narration scripts are production sources; final transcripts must match the actual narrated edit.