LAB02 — Chapter 2 practical exercise

Read the chapter and complete its worked example first. Use a fresh copy of the named resource/checkpoint so the starting state is recoverable.

Run the with-reference request again in a fresh conversation, or compare the two saved illustrative answers in your course resources if access is unavailable. Use exactly the same original note. Record whether each response states the fault behavior, the unit, the valid boundary, and the unspecified recovery behavior accurately. Separate different wording from different claims.

Now ask a new question: “How many consecutive valid samples are required to recover from FAULT?” The correct judgment is that the supplied introductory note does not say. Your deliverable is a comparison worksheet plus a proposed follow-up question for the requirement owner. Do not fill the gap with a common design pattern merely to complete the table.

Expected observations include at least one grounded claim and one explicit unresolved item. If the model invents a recovery count, annotate it as unsupported and point to the absence of such a rule. You have succeeded by detecting that problem. If both answers are accurate, explain why that does not prove universal reliability: you tested a small set of requests against one supplied note.

Submission check

Submit the named artifact with actual/synthetic/illustrative evidence labels. Include a starting state, action, result, and remaining limitation. Compare with the separately distributed instructor key after your own attempt. The chapter's completion checklist and transfer task remain part of the learning activity.