Sample report — illustrative data, prepared for demonstration purposes
PREPARED FOR THE SPONSOR

AI Literacy Bootcamp
Cohort Close-Out Report

What your teams found in their own work, what they built with it, and what it's worth going forward — not a completion record.

Acme Inc.Industrial components · 340 employees
AI Literacy BootcampCohort: Acme — Q3 2026
24 / 26enrolled participants reached close
WHAT IT ADDS UP TO
58hrs

reclaimed every month, self-reported by the people doing the work — up from a baseline of essentially zero five weeks ago.

0 30h 60h 58h/mo S0 S1 S2 S3 S4 — close
Self-reported monthly hours reclaimed, cohort aggregate same question, asked at each session
01 — WHERE THAT NUMBER CAME FROM

Two things had to happen for those hours to be real.

People had to name the work that was actually wasting their time, and then a meaningful share of them had to go build something about it — not just attend.

STEP ONE — NAMED THE WORK
31

distinct manual tasks identified across 7 functions, in participants' own words, before any AI instruction began.

STEP TWO — BUILT SOMETHING
9 / 31

of those tasks already have a working first version, built by a participant during the cohort — not a hypothetical use case.

02 — ORGANIZATIONAL AI READINESS

The group nearly doubled its readiness score in five weeks.

Measured the same way at intake and at close: a scored knowledge test, a graded prompting exercise, and self-reported usage — weighted so self-report alone can't move the number.

0 50 100 34 61 INTAKE CLOSE
TIER Experimenting Practicing
DELTA +27 points · 79% relative gain
SCALE 0–100 · four tiers: Unfamiliar (0–24) · Experimenting (25–49) · Practicing (50–74) · Building (75–100)
03 — THE WORK INVENTORY

The four biggest time drains your people named themselves.

Ranked by reported hours per person per week. Full inventory of 31 tasks available on request — this shows the highest-impact quarter of it.

Invoice / PO reconciliationFinance & Procurement · 5 people
14hper person / wk
Customer spec rewritingSales & Commercial · 4 people
9hper person / wk
Shift-handover reportingOperations & Plant Floor · 6 people
6hper person / wk
Internal document translationCross-functional · 3 people
4hper person / wk
04 — WHAT THEY BUILT WITH IT

Three of the nine, already spreading past their original owner.

FINANCE

Invoice-to-PO matching assistant

Cross-checks invoice lines against the PO and flags only mismatches.

~40 min → ~6 min per batch
SALES

Spec-rewrite template

Reformats the base technical spec per customer profile in one pass.

Adopted by the whole commercial team
OPERATIONS

Shift-note summarizer

Turns raw handover notes into the daily plant report automatically.

Spread to 2 shifts beyond the builder
05 — HOW THE COHORT ENGAGED

Depth of engagement, not attendance.

We don't report who attended or who's "behind" — that reads as a performance record of your own staff. What we track: how many people went past the required work into something optional.

9 OF 24
9 participants completed at least one optional applied exercise beyond the core curriculum
15 participants completed the required program only
the group we'd point you toward for the next track
06 — WHERE WE'D FOCUS NEXT

Three tasks are ready to scale beyond one person's use.

Ranked by hours saved and by how many people named the same problem independently.

01
Invoice-to-PO matching
5 people named this independently — one working version exists. Candidate for a shared tool, not five separate prompts.
70h/mopotential, cohort-wide
02
Shift-note summarization
Already spread to two shifts without any push from us — the clearest signal of something people actually want.
36h/mopotential, cohort-wide
03
Spec-rewrite template
Lower hours saved per person, but touches every account the commercial team manages.
27h/mopotential, cohort-wide

None of these three needs a developer to start. This is a validated starting list, not a finished business case.

07 — HOW THIS WAS MEASURED
24 active participants 2 intake + close assessments 31 tasks coded 0 individual scores disclosed

Task inventory and time-saved figures are self-reported and aggregated — directional, not accounting-grade. The readiness score blends a structured knowledge test and a graded applied exercise with self-reported usage, weighted so self-report can't move the score alone. No individual's score, completion status, or attendance appears anywhere in this report, or in anything shown to a participant's manager — this cohort's sponsor is also several participants' direct manager, and a completion metric under those conditions reads as staff evaluation, not a training outcome.