F5: Measuring Impact — Amanda Gill
← AI Leaders Portfolio
Foundations 5 · Measuring Impact · AI Leaders Micro-Credential

Prototype Progress Update
AI Scenario Training Platform

Amanda Gill  ·  April 1, 2026  ·  Practitioner Memo
About this artifact: This document demonstrates my understanding of KPI framework design for an early-stage prototype. The data included is illustrative and simulated — it is not drawn from real prototype testing. The purpose is to show I can identify meaningful indicators, define measurement methods, and set realistic targets for a project at concept/validation stage.
Companion Tool
↓ Download KPI Tracker (Excel)

Multi-tab Excel workbook — Dashboard, Tasks, Prototype Roadmap, Pulse Check

Develop an AI-powered scenario training platform that helps educators navigate potential child abuse disclosures through realistic simulations that build confidence, improve mandated reporting decisions, and strengthen student safety outcomes.

92%Pathway success rate
38Avg. completion (min)
4/5Users indicating professional value
3Warm collaborator leads

All current status data is simulated/projected for portfolio demonstration purposes. Actual measurement will occur during prototype testing phase.

Progress is being measured across five indicators: branching logic validity, time efficiency, impact/viability, safety and ethics, and collaboration pipeline growth. Prototype testing showed 92% of scenario pathways executed without error, with an expert review score of 4.2/5. Five pilot users completed the module in an average of 38 minutes compared to a 60-minute traditional training baseline. In follow-up surveys, 4 of 5 participants said they would use this type of training in a professional setting. Two expert reviewers completed ethics checklists, and three qualified collaborators have expressed interest in supporting future development.

KPI How Measured Target Current Status
Branching Logic Validity% execute without error + expert review score100% / one module92% / 4.2 of 5 (simulated)
Time EfficiencyAvg completion vs. 60-min baseline5 users timed38 min avg (simulated)
Impact / ViabilityPilot user intent + collaborator interest survey5 users surveyed4/5 indicated professional value (simulated)
Safety & EthicsExpert review checklistMin 2 experts reviewed2 completed (simulated)
Collaboration PipelineCount qualified leads2 warm leads3 warm leads (simulated)

The data indicates the project is making meaningful progress from concept to early-stage validation. A 92% pathway success rate suggests the branching logic is solid. The 38-minute average completion time shows scenario-based learning can be more efficient than traditional compliance training. User response was positive, with 80% of pilot participants indicating professional value.

The primary opportunities for improvement are refinement and scaling. Expert reviewers recommended minor wording adjustments to better align with trauma-informed best practices. Two branching paths did not execute as designed and require revision before wider rollout — expected and manageable issues at this stage.

Complete a second prototype iteration focused on improving branch reliability and refining trauma-informed language, then expand testing to 10–15 educators or administrators. This would strengthen the evidence base, generate actionable feedback, and position the project well for pilot partnerships and future funding.