Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Prepare and deliver your first two talks with immediate self-reflection notes
1–4 weeks (talks 1–2)
A talk for this outcome is a prepared presentation of at least 5 minutes delivered to at least 3 people who are not your immediate household. The setting can be anything: a work team meeting, a community group, a local club, a meetup, a classroom, an online webinar, or a video to a live audience. One-on-one conversations and informal status updates do not count. Prepare and deliver your first two talks, then write your self-reflection notes within 24 hours of each — not days later. Each reflection should answer: what landed well, what did not, and what you would change.
Proof required
Share: (1) the setting and audience size for each of your first two talks, (2) a brief description of the topic of each, and (3) your self-reflection notes written within 24 hours of each talk, answering what landed well, what did not, and what you would change.
What gets checked
- Each talk was at least 5 minutes long and delivered to at least 3 people — talks shorter than 5 minutes or to fewer than 3 people do not meet the standard this outcome is designed to develop
- Self-reflection notes for each talk are timestamped within 24 hours of delivery — notes written days after the event are reconstructions from memory rather than immediate observation; the 24-hour window is the key anti-fabrication signal at M1
- The reflection notes for the two talks are specific and different from each other — two near-identical reflections suggest template-filling; the notes should vary because the talks, audiences, and outcomes differed
Common mistakes
- Choosing exclusively comfortable, familiar audiences for both talks — the discomfort of a new audience is precisely what builds the skill; at least one of the first two talks should be to an audience you do not know well
- Writing reflection notes after the M1 submission rather than within 24 hours of each talk — the 24-hour window produces accurate immediate observation; later notes are harder to verify and less useful for M2 preparation
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Check the reflection notes for both talks: are they specific and genuinely different from each other? Two near-identical reflections suggest neither was written with genuine observation
- Ask the submitter what the most uncomfortable moment of the two talks was — a speaker who genuinely experienced them will have a specific memory; a reconstructed account will tend toward vague generalities
- Confirm that at least one talk was delivered to an audience beyond immediate family or close friends — public speaking develops through the novelty of unfamiliar audiences
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Deliver talks 3–6 and collect one piece of specific feedback per talk
4–8 weeks (talks 3–6)
Deliver four more talks (total 6) and collect at least one piece of specific feedback per talk directly from an audience member immediately after the talk. The feedback must name something observable — not 'it was great' but a specific moment, habit, or pattern the audience member noticed. After talks 3–6, review the four pieces of feedback and identify one pattern: a theme that appears in at least two of them. The pattern is what to address in M3.
Proof required
Share: (1) the setting and audience size for each of talks 3–6, (2) one piece of specific feedback collected from an audience member immediately after each talk, and (3) the one pattern you identified across the four feedback items, naming the two or more that support it.
What gets checked
- Four talks are documented with settings and audience sizes — at least two of the four talks should be to audiences that differ from the M1 audiences; the same captive group for all six talks provides limited developmental signal
- Each feedback item is specific and names something observable — 'you were nervous' is not actionable; 'you looked at your slides rather than the audience for the first two minutes' is specific and actionable
- A named pattern is identified that is supported by at least two of the four feedback items — 'I need to improve' is not a pattern; 'three pieces of feedback mention pace — either too fast overall or losing the audience in the technical section' is a named pattern with evidence
Common mistakes
- Collecting feedback from the same person for all four talks — one person's perspective filters everything through their individual lens; different audience members provide more independent signals about genuine patterns in the delivery
- Identifying a pattern that simply restates an M1 self-observation without checking whether it improved — the M2 pattern should be confirmed by external feedback, not only by your own reflection; if you already knew about it, that confirmation is still valuable, but the feedback must support it
Resources
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Check that feedback items are specific — uniformly positive feedback from all four audience members with no critical observations is unlikely to be genuine; ask the submitter what the most critical piece of feedback was
- Verify that the identified pattern is traceable to at least two specific feedback items — ask the submitter to point to the two items that support it
- Ask whether any M1 self-reflection observations showed up as external feedback at M2 — alignment between self-observation and audience feedback is a signal that both are genuine
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Complete talks 7–10 with documented evidence and a reflection on what changed
4–8 weeks (talks 7–10)
Deliver your final four talks (total 10). In at least two of them, address the M2 pattern directly: make one specific preparation change targeting that pattern and apply it. Collect evidence of delivery for each of the final four talks — a photo at the front of the room, an event program or invitation, a host's or organiser's confirmation message, an attendance report, or a short video clip. At least one piece of evidence per talk. Write a 200-word reflection comparing your approach to talk 1 with your approach to talk 10: what specifically changed in how you prepare, how you deliver, or how you think about the audience?
Proof required
Share: (1) evidence of delivery for each of talks 7–10 (photo, program, confirmation, or video clip — at least one per talk), (2) the specific preparation change you made to address the M2 pattern and which two talks you applied it in, and (3) a 200-word reflection comparing your approach in talk 1 versus talk 10.
What gets checked
- At least one piece of evidence of delivery is provided for each of talks 7–10 — a claim of delivery without supporting evidence does not meet the standard for a performance outcome
- The preparation change directly addresses the M2 pattern — 'I tried to do better' is not a specific change; 'I scripted my opening two minutes to eliminate filler words because M2 feedback identified them as a pattern in the first minute' is specific and traceable to the M2 finding
- The 200-word reflection names something concrete that changed between talk 1 and talk 10 — 'I improved' is not concrete; 'in talk 1 I did not look at the audience during the first three minutes; in talk 10 I write three audience-facing questions in my notes and look up to ask them in the opening two minutes' is a concrete before-after comparison
Common mistakes
- Delivering talks 7–10 to the same comfortable audience as talks 1–2 to avoid the discomfort of unfamiliarity — at least one of the final four talks should be in a new setting or to a new audience; the progression across 10 talks is partly about increasing the novelty and stakes
- Writing the M3 reflection as a general review of the 10-talk journey rather than a specific before-and-after comparison of talk 1 versus talk 10 — the comparison structure forces specificity; a general review tends to remain vague
Resources
Masteryfor the dedicated
What a verifier looks for
- Check evidence of delivery for all four talks — at least one independently verifiable piece per talk; a self-described summary without any supporting evidence does not meet the standard
- Ask the submitter to name the M2 pattern and the specific preparation change they made — if they cannot name both together and connect them, the change was not deliberate
- Ask what specifically changed between talk 1 and talk 10 — the answer should name a concrete difference in preparation, delivery, or audience engagement; 'I got more comfortable' is not concrete enough
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.