Curriculum Anchor

Direction Defined. Coherence Preserved.

Technical writing is fundamentally about making thinking visible. It is not about prose beauty, it is about clarity, structure, audience awareness, and decision-making. This portfolio curriculum teaches the responsibility for all technical writers; your design guidance must work without your presence. You will design instructional artifacts, test them under real conditions, then revise those artifacts based on outcomes.

Aletheian Design Architecture: Orientation, Exploration, Synthesis, Application, Reflection, Mastery.

Identity Formation Experience Design Reflective Refinement

The Aletheian Design Theory of Learning

Orientation Phase

Learners are oriented into the design challenge and its purpose. The work must feel meaningful before it feels instructional. Context, role, and stakes are established so learners understand why the work exists and who they are becoming through it.

Exploration Phase

Learners examine examples, gather inputs, and test ideas safely. Observation, trial, and early evidence are collected without penalty. Confusion is expected and protected.

Synthesis Phase

Learners consolidate findings, name patterns, and form defensible understanding. Fragmented insights are shaped into a coherent model that can be explained and justified.

Application Phase

Learners transfer the model into a new context or challenge. Understanding is demonstrated through use, adaptation, and decision-making, not recall alone.

Reflection Phase

Learners evaluate decisions and outcomes, identify what improved clarity or meaning, and articulate revisions that would strengthen impact.

Mastery Phase

Learners demonstrate durable understanding by explaining, defending, and transferring their thinking with clarity, evidence, and design rationale.

Core rule: When a learner fails, the design owns the failure. There is no “user error” here, only unanticipated conditions.

Quick Navigation

Jump to a Portfolio Card

Each project contains two collapsible sections: the Project Brief and its Comparison Card. Use these buttons to move quickly.

Preface Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 Project 6 Project 7 Exit

Portfolio Preface Card

Before You Begin

Start here, then begin Project 1

This portfolio asks you to design content that must work for other people. Not impress, not persuade, work. You will design instruction that operates without you, and when something falls short, the responsibility of improving the design rests upon you.

View Preface Card

How to Move Through This Portfolio

Do the project first and finish it fully.
Only upon completion should you use the Comparison Card.
Moving ahead too early in the process weakens the work, even if it feels efficient.

What Counts as Progress

What you notice changing
What you stop assuming
What you revise without being asked

Your Relationship to Revision

You will revise often, some revisions will feel obvious, others will feel unnecessary.
Do not rank revisions by confidence, the resisted ones often matter most.

What to Do When You Feel Stuck

Do not add more explanation.
Do not make things louder.
Do not simplify prematurely.
Pause and look at structure, order, and emphasis.

How to Use Your Notes

Notes are fragments, not journals. Use short phrases. Do not organize them yet. Their meaning will emerge later.

When This Work Will Make Sense

Near the end, earlier decisions in your journey through this curriculum will suddenly feel connected. Do not hunt for that moment. If you do the work as it is designed, it arrives on its own.

Project 1

The Invisible Guide

Human-Facing Instructional Clarity

Design a set of instructions for a task you already know how to do, then test it without defending it. The difficulty is cognitive: making your thinking visible without explaining it directly.

View Project Brief (01-06)

01: Purpose and Orientation

You are designing for absence. The user cannot ask questions, watch you, or infer intent.

Design Log (right column): assumptions the learner already knows, where you want to skip, where you think “this is obvious.”

02: Task Selection and Decomposition

Choose a task you can do reliably, with a clear end state, under 15 minutes.
Do it once without writing, then again while stopping after every action to record what you do.
Rewrite steps so each depends only on what has already occurred.
Make judgment and sensory reliance visible (sight, sound, pressure, timing).

03: Structure as Guidance

Instructions must fit on a single page.
Use spacing, grouping, and sequencing to carry meaning.
Signal irreversible steps before they occur.
No decoration, every visual choice reduces decision-making.

04: Anticipating Failure

Predict at least three plausible misunderstandings.
Diagnose: missing info, poor sequencing, unclear language.
Revise to address at least one failure directly.

05: Testing Without Defense

Test with another person, or simulate by following your guide exactly.
No explaining, gesturing, or intervening.
Observe hesitation, confusion, confidence drops, then revise again.

06: Preparing for Comparison

Be able to explain what your instructions prioritize and ignore.
Be able to name where they fail under stress.
Capture trust boundaries: what you trust most, least, what you would test next.

View Comparison Card: The Invisible Guide

How to Use This Card

In this curriculum, comparison is a measurement of effectiveness. It is not presented for inspiration in the artistic sense. Review each Comparison Set and record what each artifact makes easy, difficult, and who struggles first when conditions change.

Comparison Set A: Speed Versus Comprehension

Compressed steps and assumed momentum
Separated steps and enforced pause
Apparent efficiency that hides a dependency

Comparison Set B: Assumptions Made Visible

Assumptions stated explicitly
Assumptions embedded invisibly
Over-specification that creates friction

Comparison Set C: Failure and Recovery

Anticipates failure and offers recovery paths
Prevents failure through rigid sequencing
Relies on the learner to self-correct

Positioning Your Work

Use your Design Log and Comparison Log to write three statements: one design choice to keep, one to change, one risk you missed before comparison.

Revision Commitment

Make one structural revision (order, grouping, emphasis, omission). Do not add length unless it reduces decision-making. Record what changed, why, and what you expect to improve.

Project 2

Audience Under the Microscope

Clarity collapses when audiences are treated as interchangeable

Redesign your Project 1 instructions for two plausible audiences with different constraints. This is not about tone, it is structural alignment.

View Project Brief (01-06)

01: Orientation and Continuity

Return to Project 1, do not revise yet. Examine how it behaves when the reader changes.

Design Log: who the instructions favored, who they excluded, who they assumed by default.

02: Defining Audience Boundaries

Select two audiences who differ in at least two of these: prior knowledge, emotional state, stakes of failure, environmental context.

List what Audience A notices first (max 5 items)
List what Audience B notices first (max 5 items)

03: Structural Redesign, Not Tone Shift

Redesign for Audience A, then for Audience B. Do not reuse structure blindly.

Where does each audience hesitate?
Where do they need reassurance, where do they need restraint?
If versions look similar at a glance, revise again.

04: Failure Through the Audience Lens

Identify one likely failure for each audience, revise each version to address that failure directly.

05: Internal Comparison

Place both versions side by side and record trade-offs: gains and losses for each audience.

06: Preparing for External Comparison

Be ready to articulate how audience assumptions shaped structure, where it protected, where it constrained.

View Comparison Card: Audience Under the Microscope

How to Use This Card

Diagnose miscalibration that is almost right. Record who the artifact thinks it is for, who it actually serves, and where the first crack appears.

Set A: Overestimating the Learner

Assumes confidence where uncertainty exists
Supports beginners but removes agency
Appears neutral but embeds expert shortcuts

Set B: Underestimating the Learner

Explanation becomes noise
Optional depth paths exist but are not signaled
Autonomy is mistaken for clarity

Set C: Misreading Context

Assumes calm attention
Assumes high stakes and designs for caution
Assumes learner will self-adjust

Revision Intent

Choose one audience version, make one structural change (pacing, branching, emphasis, omission), then record the corrected assumption, the change, and the signal you expect to improve.

Project 3

Failure Is the Curriculum

Design for miscalibration under stress

Stress reveals weaknesses that never appear during calm use. You will design a recovery intervention that restores forward motion with minimal decision-making.

View Project Brief (01-06)

01: Stress as a Condition

Return to one audience version from Project 2. Audience stays the same, condition changes.

List realistic stressors
How stress changes attention or behavior
Which part of your design is most vulnerable

02: Stress-Induced Failure

Identify a failure likely only under stress (skipping a step, misreading emphasis, abandoning prematurely). Locate where your design lets it pass unnoticed.

03: Mis-calibrated Responses

Overloading with explanation
Withdrawing guidance entirely
Repeating information without reframing

04: Designing for Recovery

Insert one recovery moment exactly where failure is likely.
Use calmer, simpler language than main flow.
Reduce choices rather than add them.

05: Testing Under Simulated Stress

Simulate time limits, distraction, or “perform after a mistake.” Follow instructions exactly, observe whether recovery is noticed and effective.

06: Preparing for Comparison

Be able to explain what your design assumes about stress, where it supports, where it would still fail.

View Comparison Card: Audience Miscalibration Under Stress

How to Use This Card

Compare failure behavior. Ask which design fails first under stress.

Set A: Overestimating Composure

Assumes learner can slow themselves down
Enforces pacing through structure
Assumes rereading when confused (rare under stress)

Set B: Excessive Protection

Heavy guidance that overwhelms
Narrowed options that help or harm
Avoids panic directly

Set C: Delayed Recovery

Recovery appears too late
Recovery appears too early
Recovery embedded invisibly into flow

Revision Commitment

Make one final structural revision focused on stress response, record what changed, why, and what stress behavior it targets.

Project 4

Visual Meaning, Not Decoration

Hierarchy is behavior under pressure

Visual hierarchy makes promises about attention, pacing, and re-entry. You will redesign hierarchy without changing content, so the eye obeys what the learner needs first.

View Project Brief (01-06)

01: Hierarchy as a Claim

Return to revised Project 3 artifact and observe what the page appears to value at first glance.

02: Locating Visual Mis-calibration

Important steps minimized
Secondary info dominates
Groupings imply false equivalence

03: Redesigning Hierarchy With Intent

Adjust spacing, grouping, order, emphasis. No decoration. Design for glance before action.

04: Hierarchy Under Interruption

Pause mid-task, return after a delay. If page does not guide re-entry, revise for resumption without rereading.

05: Aligning Hierarchy to Audience

Re-examine Project 2 assumptions, ask what the layout assumes: confidence or caution, scanning or careful reading, panic protection or amplification.

06: Preparing for Comparison

Be able to articulate what hierarchy optimizes for, what it sacrifices, where it still fails under pressure.

View Comparison Card: Visual Hierarchy and Miscalibration

How to Use This Card

Examine sets without reading text first. Record first attention, second attention, and critical element delayed.

Set A: False Emphasis

Reassurance elevated over action
Action elevated but context hidden
Balance achieved but recovery cues delayed

Set B: Crowded Priority

Multiple elements treated as equally important
Single dominant priority enforced
Priority staggered across time

Set C: Hierarchy Under Stress

Assumes calm scanning
Assumes panic-driven fixation
Assumes interruption and return

Revision Commitment

Make one final hierarchy adjustment. Do not add content. Change only what the eye obeys, then record what moved, why, and what behavior it supports.

Project 5

Instruction as a System

Design coherence across multiple artifacts

Instruction does not live alone. You will design a coordinated set of artifacts where handoffs, hierarchy, and responsibility remain coherent across the system.

View Project Brief (01-06)

01: Systems Create Behavior

Work with three artifacts for the same task (setup, usage, troubleshooting or reminder). Examine how they function together.

02: Mapping the Instructional Journey

Map the learner journey including interruptions and returns. Mark where they must remember, locate info, decide what matters.

03: Locating System-Level Mis-calibration

Conflicting hierarchy between artifacts
Repeated explanations that erode trust
Missing handoffs where no artifact takes responsibility

04: Redesigning Hierarchy Across Artifacts

Move responsibilities, remove info from one to strengthen another, re-sequence exposure rather than rewrite content.

05: Stress-Testing the System

Simulate: user skips first artifact, returns days later, enters from wrong point. Observe what breaks first and whether recovery is possible.

06: Positioning Your System

State what the system optimizes for, what it sacrifices, who it fails first and why. Treat this as an ethical declaration.

View Comparison Card: Hierarchy Across Systems

How to Use This Card

Review each system as a whole before reading linearly. Jump between artifacts, navigation confusion is the signal.

Set A: Conflicting Hierarchies

Safety dominates
Speed dominates
Both assumed simultaneously, learner forced to choose without guidance

Set B: Redundant Authority

Each artifact over-explains
No artifact trusts the others
Redundancy creates fatigue and disengagement

Set C: Broken Handoffs

Artifact A ends without preparing for B
B assumes preparation that never occurred
C tries to compensate and fails

Revision Commitment

Make one system-level change, even if it weakens one artifact to strengthen the whole. Record what shifted, why, and what behavior improves.

Project 6

Instructional Continuity and Memory

Design for return, resumption, recognition

Most instruction is used later. You will redesign your system so it survives time, memory decay, interruption, and partial recall, without shame or restart pressure.

View Project Brief (01-06)

01: Designing for Absence

Assume the learner will leave, time will pass, and they will remember fragments, not sequences. Design for re-entry, not repetition.

02: Identifying Memory Dependencies

References to prior steps without anchors
Concepts named once and reused later
Visual cues that disappear between artifacts

03: Designing for Recognition

Replace memory with recognition by repeating structural cues, maintaining visual anchors, and using predictable phrasing patterns.

04: Return Without Shame

Simulate return after absence without rereading earlier artifacts. Revise to support resumption, not evaluation.

05: Memory Under Stress

Combine time and stress. Identify what must be instantly visible, what can be optional, what should never be hidden.

06: Continuity Snapshot

State how instruction behaves after delay, what it forgives, what it demands. Continuity is an ethical stance.

View Comparison Card: Continuity and Memory

How to Use This Card

Review each system twice: first-time use, then returning after one week. Do not reread between passes.

Set A: Memory Load

Sequential recall demanded
Recognition supports action
Mixed inconsistently (confusion emerges)

Set B: False Familiarity

Return assumed to equal mastery
Return treated as restart
Partial recall supported

Set C: Anchor Drift

Visual anchors change across artifacts
Anchors maintained rigidly
Anchors adapt without losing identity

Revision Commitment

Make one continuity adjustment that improves return behavior without increasing explanation. Record what now persists, why it matters, and what behavior improves.

Project 7

Professional Design Justification

Defend design as reasoning, not taste

Professional environments ask why something is structured the way it is, why alternatives were rejected, and how decisions align to audience needs, risk, and ethical responsibility.

View Project Brief (01-06)

01: Design Is a Claim

Surface the claims embedded in your instruction: who the learner is, what they need, what matters most, what can fail safely.

Three claims about learners
Two claims about context
One claim about acceptable failure

02: Tracing Decisions to Evidence

Select one language decision, one hierarchy decision, one system or continuity decision. Trace each to observed behavior, accepted constraint, and risk mitigated.

03: Anticipating Critique

Select two reasonable critiques (too simple, too cautious, could be shorter, assumes too much). Prepare responses without defensiveness.

04: Defending Trade-Offs

Write defenses that name trade-offs, explain who benefits, accept who does not. Use cause and effect, avoid adjectives.

05: Ethical Positioning

Identify one ethical dimension (reducing harm under stress, preventing misuse, avoiding false confidence, supporting dignity on return) and explain the design response and protected behavior.

06: Professional Statement

Write a one-paragraph justification statement that is intelligible to someone who has not seen your work: approach to clarity, audience, responsibility.

View Comparison Card: Design Justification Under Scrutiny

How to Use This Card

Read each justification before seeing the artifact. Decide whether you trust the designer’s reasoning, then examine the artifact.

Set A: Post-Hoc Rationalization

Explains what was done, cannot explain why alternatives were rejected
Confident language, thin reasoning

Set B: Defensive Justification

Treats critique as attack
Trade-offs denied or minimized

Set C: Grounded Professional Defense

Names constraints, trade-offs, ethical considerations
Acknowledges imperfection, trust increases

Final Commitment

Revise your justification statement once to improve reasoning clarity, strengthen ethical grounding, and increase professional trust. Record what changed and why it matters.

Exit Reflection Card

After the Work

Do not rush this, do not reread earlier materials yet

This card is not here to evaluate what you produced. It exists to help you notice how you now think, and what responsibility you now carry as a designer of instruction.

View Exit Reflection Card

01: Returning to the Beginning

Read your earliest notes without judgment. Itemize one belief you no longer hold fully, and one assumption that now feels incomplete (no explanation).

02: What You Now Notice First

Think about ordinary instructions you encountered recently. List three things you now notice immediately, and one you rarely notice anymore.

03: Revision Without Prompt

Identify changes you made without being instructed to. Itemize what changed and when you realized it needed to change (avoid justification).

04: Responsibility You Now Carry

At some point you stopped asking “Is this clear enough?” Name the new question exactly as it now appears in your mind.

05: Seeing the System

Write one sentence that begins with: “I didn’t realize until now that…”, then stop when complete.

06: What You Can Now Defend

Finish: “When someone challenges my instructional choices, I can now respond by…”.

Closing note: If this portfolio worked as intended, the most important thing you gained is not a set of techniques. It is a way of noticing responsibility before problems appear.