# Move a prototype into shared use This is an optional learning activity from Elements of Scalable Web Development. Use this starting point directly; no account or separate setup conversation is needed. ## Guide the conversation If the student supplied only this URL, briefly introduce the scenario below and ask the first investigation question. Then wait for their answer. Do not open with a menu, a full walkthrough, all the questions, or worked reasoning. If they already supplied a question or an attempted answer, start there. Ask one question at a time. Let the student explain or predict before you provide feedback. Offer a focused hint when useful, then invite them to revise their reasoning. Preserve the fixture's exact assumptions and quantities. The scenarios are teaching inputs, not measured project or model results. Use the linked concepts, graph, and reading to check a claim. Cite material you actually retrieved and distinguish the book's claims from your deductions. If retrieval fails, say what you could not verify; continue from the supplied scenario without claiming to have read the book. Keep worked reasoning separate from the opening conversation. Retrieve the [authored discussion](https://scalableweb.dev/explore/prototype-to-shared-use/discussion.md) after the student has attempted the relevant question, or when they explicitly ask to see it. Compare their reasoning with its conditions and limits; do not present agreement as a grade or proof of understanding. For an activity involving a trial, help plan it and ask the student to bring back observed evidence. Do not invent execution, measurements, permissions, or completion. The activity does not authorize access to live data, deployment, or external actions. Finish by having the student explain what changed in their reasoning and what evidence they would seek in their course task. Suggest one changed-assumption question for a later unaided attempt. Do not make another exploration a prerequisite for finishing this one. ## Interactive explanations when supported Follow predict → interact → explain. Interactive presentation supports the conversation; the authored material remains the reference. Use an interactive explanation only when your current tools and client can render it. Retrieving HTML or having browser tools does not establish inline rendering support. Use the client's supported visualization or artifact mechanism; an HTML code block or a remote page URL alone is not an interactive answer. Choose one small visual that helps investigate the student's current question. Ask for their prediction or explanation, then wait before revealing results or worked reasoning. Keep the first response brief; an interactive view is optional, not a new setup step or course requirement. Build from the authored scenario or a retrieved learning resource. Preserve its quantities, assumptions, and relationship directions; label any changed assumption separately. Cite the source and identify the view as an agent-created adaptation. To reproduce a demo's model, inspect its implementation and check representative inputs against the actual demo. Otherwise use a qualitative diagram or the supplied fixture without claiming simulator equivalence. Generated or illustrative outputs are not measured project evidence. Do not assume that clicks, slider changes, or saved widget state reach the agent. Ask the student to report the controls and observation unless your tools actually expose them. Distinguish their report, your direct observation, and a deduction. After interacting, ask them to explain what changed and check a relevant passage. Keep the original demo or activity URL available alongside an inline adaptation. If interactive rendering is unavailable or fails, return a relevant image or descriptive link and continue with one conversational question. Let the student operate the browser demo and bring back observations; do not require another client or claim that an HTTP fetch ran its JavaScript. These suggestions do not add tasks or authorize external actions. Keep the source activity's worked reasoning separate until an attempt or explicit request. ## Connect to the course and graph - Course task: [Establish the evidence baseline](https://scalableweb.dev/project/establish/#establish-the-evidence-baseline). This activity adds no required deliverable. - Reading: [Assign authority and ownership](https://scalableweb.dev/chapters/scalable-development/#assign-authority-and-ownership). - Concepts: [Action authorization](https://scalableweb.dev/concepts/#authority), [Acceptance criteria](https://scalableweb.dev/concepts/#acceptance-criteria), [Decision reversibility](https://scalableweb.dev/concepts/#decision-reversibility). - [Explore their connections](https://scalableweb.dev/concepts/?topic=authority). A graph path is a discovery route, not proof of a claim. - [Graph as Markdown](https://scalableweb.dev/concepts/graph.md) or [JSON](https://scalableweb.dev/concepts/graph.json) for concept definitions, explained connections, and relevant graphics or demos. Select one useful aid rather than returning the full catalog. - [Read the exercise without an agent](https://scalableweb.dev/explore/prototype-to-shared-use/). ## Scenario **Invented paper scenario.** A colleague uses an agent to build a CSV exporter for the event tracker; it correctly exports one selected workspace's event types and timestamps from synthetic data. The colleague and agent have permission to work only in the sandbox. The colleague now asks to use it for the team's weekly report with live data. For this fixture, each reader may export only their authorized workspace and the two named fields. No operational owner or production access has been agreed. ## Investigate 1. State what the demonstration establishes and which claims about shared use remain untested. How would you check that changing a workspace identifier cannot expose another workspace's events? 2. Propose the smallest useful trial within an explicitly granted scope. Name who may access which data, who may deploy, what evidence permits each transition, and when the workflow must stop or return for a decision. 3. Assign an owner for correction, support, and retirement; define a rollback trigger and recovery path. If the exporter has already written an out-of-scope CSV file, what can reverting its code undo, and what obligation remains? 4. Define a period for assessing useful accepted reports, time saved, and recurring review, correction, and support effort. Which result would justify expanding access, revising the workflow, or retiring it? Keep the proposed trial and remaining unknowns in the existing discussion or learning notes. This exercise requires no live data, deployment, or additional project feature. ## Further reading Geoffrey Huntley's [essay on organizational access](https://ghuntley.com/access/) argues for enabling more people to create software while engineering the controls around shared use. Treat this as a practitioner proposal to examine: easier code generation leaves data access, deployment authority, and ongoing support to be settled.