Lead a Study Group From Zero to Sustained

Proof required

Submit the recruitment message or post you used (the actual text, not a summary), and a list of the 4+ people who committed (first names or initials, with how you knew them — friend, online community, classmate, stranger). Write 200 words on what made people say yes versus what made people you asked say no — name at least one specific objection you heard and how you responded to it.

What gets checked

• The recruitment message clearly states the goal and commitment level upfront — not a vague 'who wants to study together sometime' that leaves the actual ask undefined
• At least one of the 4+ recruits is someone the organizer did NOT already know well — recruiting only close friends who'd join anything you ask is a different and easier skill than recruiting people who need to be genuinely convinced
• The objection-and-response account is specific and real — names an actual reason someone hesitated or declined, not a generic 'everyone was busy'

Common mistakes

• Recruiting only people who would have said yes to almost anything you asked — close friends, family, people who already owe you a favor — which doesn't test the actual leadership skill being built here
• Leaving the commitment vague to make recruitment easier ('we'll figure out the schedule later') — this defers a hard conversation rather than having it upfront, and tends to produce a group that quietly dissolves within weeks

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Check that the recruitment message states a clear goal and commitment level — ask the submitter: 'If someone asked you right then what exactly they were signing up for, could you answer in one sentence?' If the original message couldn't, that is a real gap.
• Ask which of the 4+ recruits was the hardest to convince and why. A submitter who can name a specific person and a specific objection is showing real recruitment effort, not just listing names of people who said yes easily.
• Read the objection-and-response account. Is the objection something a real person would actually say, or does it read as invented to satisfy the requirement? Ask a clarifying follow-up if uncertain.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit a description of the first session's format (agenda or structure used) and the feedback you gathered at the end (at least 2 distinct pieces of feedback from different members, in their own words if possible). Describe what you changed for session 2 based on that feedback. Write 100 words on what surprised you about running the first session.

What gets checked

• The first session had a real structure that was followed, not an unstructured hangout with no plan — even a simple structure counts, as long as it was deliberate
• At least one genuine change was made for session 2 based on member feedback — not feedback that was gathered and then ignored
• Feedback quoted is plausibly from real members, not generic placeholder feedback that could apply to any group

Common mistakes

• Running an unstructured first session with no format at all, hoping things will naturally organize themselves — voluntary groups with no structure tend to fizzle quickly because no one knows what to expect or prepare for next time
• Asking for feedback but not actually changing anything based on it — feedback theater erodes trust with members faster than not asking at all

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask: 'What exactly changed between session 1 and session 2?' A vague answer ('it felt better') suggests feedback wasn't actually acted on. A specific answer ('we moved from 90 minutes to 60 because two people said it ran too long') confirms real iteration.
• Check that the feedback quoted sounds like it came from distinct people with different concerns, rather than one generic sentiment restated twice.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Describe what happened — who disengaged and how (stopped responding, explicitly quit, missed multiple sessions), what you did to reach out, and what the outcome was (they returned, they confirmed they were leaving, or no response). Submit evidence you kept the group running afterward — attendance or activity from at least one session after the attrition event. Write 150 words on whether you take this personally and how you've adjusted your approach, if at all.

What gets checked

• A real attrition event occurred — this cannot be hypothetical; if no one has yet disengaged, this milestone should wait until it genuinely happens rather than being satisfied by a near-miss or a minor scheduling conflict
• The leader made a real attempt to reach out to the disengaged person — not assuming silence means disinterest without checking, but also not excessive pressure that ignores a clear 'no'
• The group continued meeting after the attrition event — evidence of at least one subsequent session with remaining members, showing the group didn't simply dissolve

Common mistakes

• Letting a disengaged member silently disappear without any outreach at all — even a single message checking in shows real leadership; total silence in both directions is a missed opportunity
• Taking one person's departure as a signal to let the whole group's momentum die — the test here is specifically whether the group survives attrition, not just whether the leader notices it happened

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm a real attrition event occurred — ask for a rough date and what specifically happened. A vague or overly convenient-sounding account is worth a follow-up question.
• Ask: 'What did you actually say when you reached out?' If the leader can't recall or describe the outreach specifically, it may not have happened as described, or may have been too generic to count as a real attempt.
• Check the evidence of a session after the attrition event — confirm the group genuinely continued, not just that the leader claims it did.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Describe what you delegated and to whom. Submit evidence the delegated session or task actually happened with that person leading it (a session note, schedule, or message confirming it ran). Write 200 words on how it went compared to when you ran that same type of task yourself — what was better, what was worse, and whether you intervened or let it run as the other person designed it.

What gets checked

• The delegated responsibility is genuinely substantial — choosing and preparing a session topic, or fully running a session, not a trivial task like 'send the reminder message'
• Evidence confirms the delegated task actually happened under the other person's leadership, not just that it was assigned and then quietly taken back
• The comparison reflection is honest about what was different, including any ways it was actually better than the leader's own approach — not defensively framed to prove the leader is still essential

Common mistakes

• Delegating in name only and then closely supervising or correcting every decision, which defeats the purpose — the test is whether the group can function with someone else genuinely driving, not whether the leader can delegate while still controlling everything
• Choosing a trivial, low-stakes task to delegate specifically so there's nothing real to lose if it goes wrong — this avoids testing the actual skill, which is tolerating real uncertainty about how someone else will run something that matters

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask: 'What did you do differently than you would have done it yourself?' If the leader cannot name anything, ask whether they actually let go of control or just assigned a task while still directing every decision.
• Confirm independently (if possible) with the delegated person, or ask for their account of how much autonomy they actually had, since the leader's self-report alone may understate how much intervention occurred.
• Check whether the comparison reflection includes anything genuinely positive about the other person's approach — a reflection that only describes what went wrong without it suggests the leader may be subtly undermining the delegation to stay essential.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Describe the original goal (from Milestone 1) and confirm it was reached. List who was actively participating at the final session (first names or initials) and compare to the original recruits. Submit evidence of the final session (notes, a photo if appropriate, a message thread). Write 300 words on the full arc: what you'd do differently starting a group again, and whether you'd describe yourself as the reason this group succeeded, or whether it would have worked with anyone leading it.

What gets checked

• The original goal, as defined in Milestone 1, was genuinely reached — not redefined partway through to something easier to claim success on
• At least 3 people were actively participating at the end, with an honest accounting of the difference between the original 4+ recruits and who remained or replaced them
• The final reflection honestly engages with the question of personal contribution versus replaceability — a leader who can articulate specifically what their leadership added, without either falsely taking all the credit or falsely disclaiming any role, is showing real self-awareness about leadership without authority

Common mistakes

• Quietly redefining the original goal to something easier once it becomes clear the original target won't be reached on time — if the goal genuinely needs to change, that should be reported honestly as a change, not retroactively presented as the plan all along
• Claiming full personal credit for the group's success without genuine reflection on how much was the group members' own motivation versus the leader's specific contribution — or the opposite failure, disclaiming any real role, which avoids honestly assessing what leadership actually added

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm the original goal (cross-reference against Milestone 1's submission) matches what's being claimed as achieved here — flag any quiet redefinition of success.
• Count the actively participating members at the end against the original 4+ recruited. If the number dropped below 3, this milestone's bar has not been met regardless of whether the stated goal was technically reached.
• Read the final reflection on personal contribution versus replaceability carefully — this is the hardest and most revealing question in the whole outcome. A thoughtful, specific, non-defensive answer is the strongest signal of genuine governance-level self-awareness.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.