# Portfolio III case study — learner template

Status: DRAFT. This document does not publish anything automatically.

## Problem and audience

In two sentences: who needs what decision, and what your scoped tool improves.
Avoid "production-ready", "secure" or "AI analyzed the video" unless evidence
actually supports those claims. This course's supplied service is local fixture-only.

## What I built

- Repository/source revision and reproducible setup:
- Your own modules versus reviewed helpers/reference/tutor assistance:
- Actual boundary diagram and three decisions with alternatives/tradeoffs:
- One changed-input run and one refusal, with local evidence locators:
- Actual test command/result and environment; do not invent coverage percentages:
- Original failure, root cause, repair and retained before/after evidence:
- What remains outside scope and what the next version would need:

## Three-minute demo plan

0:00–0:30: problem, runtime and explicit fixture scope.
0:30–1:30: actual new input, quarantine observation, distinct supplied metadata,
authored finding, current review and read-back.
1:30–2:15: actual refusal or not-ready state and repair.
2:15–3:00: architecture, your decisions, assistance and known limits.

Record only your own safe invented data and owned process. Show real outputs,
not pasted screenshots of reference answers. A recorded demo is self-reported
unless an independent reviewer actually observes and documents the defense.

## Sharing review

List what will be shared; check files/screenshots/audio for keys, private paths,
notes, raw exceptions and third-party media. Hash parity or no regex flags is
not privacy/rights approval. Keep the original private bundle and share only a
reviewed copy. A repository link, course tick or perfect quiz does not certify
independent work. Do not publicly deploy the classroom API as a demo endpoint.