Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Define curriculum outline and learning objectives
2–3 weeks
Before writing a single lesson or module, define what the curriculum is for, who it is for, and what a learner will be able to do after completing it. A curriculum without defined learning objectives is a collection of content, not a curriculum. The learning objectives must be specific and observable: not 'understand Python' but 'write a working Python function that processes a list and returns a filtered result.' The topic must be one you have genuine first-hand expertise in — the same GOVERNANCE standard as governance-teach-free-workshop.
Proof required
Share your curriculum outline: topic, intended audience (who is this for, what do they already know, what do they want to achieve), 3–5 specific learning objectives written as observable outcomes, and a module structure (list of sections or sessions with a one-sentence description of each). Write one sentence on what first-hand expertise qualifies you to design this curriculum.
What gets checked
- Learning objectives are written as observable outcomes — not 'understand X' but 'do Y given Z'.
- Intended audience is specific — not 'anyone who wants to learn' but a specific prior knowledge level and goal.
- Module structure covers the full curriculum — not just the first section.
Common mistakes
- Learning objectives written as knowledge states ('understand', 'know', 'be aware of') rather than observable actions ('write', 'build', 'explain to a non-expert', 'debug') — knowledge states cannot be verified.
- Designing a curriculum on a topic where you have researched but not practised — this outcome requires first-hand experience, not researched familiarity.
- A module structure that is really just a topic list — each module should explain what it teaches and why it is sequenced where it is.
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Check that every learning objective contains an observable action verb — 'understand' is not observable; 'explain to a peer without referring to notes' is.
- Ask how the submitter knows this topic — the first-hand expertise claim is the core GOVERNANCE requirement.
- The module structure should show why each section is sequenced where it is — 'section 1 introduces X because learners need X before they can do Y in section 2' is the level of sequencing justification expected.
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Full curriculum published publicly
4–6 weeks (content writing and publication)
Complete and publish the full curriculum at a publicly accessible URL. 'Published' means a complete stranger who finds the link can access all of the curriculum content without signing in, paying anything, or requesting access. Every module must be complete — a curriculum that says 'Module 4: coming soon' is not a published curriculum. The curriculum must be free, forever, for anyone who finds it.
Proof required
Share the public URL where the complete curriculum is published. Confirm that all modules are accessible without a login or payment. Share a brief overview of the publication format: where it is hosted (GitBook, Notion, a website, a Google Doc, etc.) and how a learner navigates it.
What gets checked
- The URL is publicly accessible without a login — verify by opening it in an incognito browser window.
- All modules listed in the M1 outline are present and complete — no 'coming soon' placeholders.
- The curriculum is free, with no payment required for any part of it.
Common mistakes
- Curriculum requires signing in to access — 'free with a Google Form sign-up' is not publicly accessible.
- Incomplete modules: publishing a partial curriculum as if it is complete undermines the 10-user milestone in M3.
- Content is a repackaging of existing free resources without original explanation or structure — a curriculum is more than a reading list.
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
Masteryfor the dedicated
What a verifier looks for
- Open the URL in an incognito window and confirm every module is accessible without a login.
- Check that the published curriculum matches the M1 outline — if modules were added, removed, or renamed, ask why.
- Confirm the curriculum contains original explanation, not only links to external resources — a curation list is not a curriculum.
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
10+ confirmed users — feedback collected
4–6 weeks (promotion, user engagement, feedback collection)
Get the curriculum in front of at least 10 real learners and collect structured feedback from them. 'Confirmed users' means people who have engaged with the curriculum — not just people who were given the link. Engagement evidence includes: a completed feedback form, a comment on the platform, a message to you, or attendance at a session where the curriculum was used. The 10-user bar tests whether the curriculum is actually useful to real people, not just published.
Proof required
Share evidence of 10+ distinct confirmed users: form responses, comments, messages, or attendance records. Share the structured feedback (even if informal) from at least 5 of the 10 users. Write 150 words on what the feedback revealed about the curriculum's usefulness: one thing users found most valuable and one thing users found most confusing or missing.
What gets checked
- 10 distinct confirmed users — not 10 unique views (which could be one person refreshing the page).
- Feedback from at least 5 of the 10 is substantive — not just 'good' or 'thanks'.
- The 150-word reflection addresses both what was valuable and what was confusing or missing — not only the positive.
Common mistakes
- Counting page views as users — analytics views are not confirmed engagement.
- 10 users from your personal network who were given the link directly and obligated to respond — voluntary use by people who found the curriculum independently is stronger evidence.
- Feedback that does not engage with the curriculum content — 'the formatting is nice' is not feedback on whether the curriculum teaches what it claims to teach.
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Ask how users were found — 10 users from the submitter's personal network who were given the link directly is weaker evidence than 10 users who discovered the curriculum independently.
- Confirm that feedback responses are from 5 distinct individuals — if all responses are similar in style and length, they may have been authored by the submitter.
- The 150-word reflection's honesty about what was confusing or missing is the credibility signal — a curriculum reflection that only reports praise is not a genuine evaluation of usefulness.
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.