Reconcile study effort with curriculum coverage

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Study-time export

   Owner

   Learner

   Minimum scope

   Scoped time entries with dates, durations, subjects and descriptions

   Quality check

   Identify overlapping timers and entries outside the review period.

2. Name

   Curriculum checklist

   Owner

   Learner

   Minimum scope

   Current subjects, chapter identifiers and completion states

   Quality check

   Confirm what checked means and retain partially completed topics.

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Read selected time and checklist exports; prepare a private summary without changing completion states.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Unknown: Toggl/Notion connector access, time-zone handling and current field mappings.

External actions requiring approval

1. Editing logs, checking chapters, sharing study data or creating recurring reports.

Why use this

1. Time spent studying and curriculum progress answer different questions. A long session may revisit one difficult chapter, while a checked box may represent a quick skim; combining the two carelessly can imply mastery that neither record demonstrates.

2. This job could give the learner a clearer planning view of effort and coverage. Keeping completed, in-progress and unlogged topics distinct would help them choose what to revisit without turning an administrative summary into a judgment about ability or learning quality.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Map varied time-entry labels to subjects and explain mismatches against the curriculum checklist.

Simpler alternative

Use a spreadsheet summary when subject tags and chapter records are already consistent.

Unsuitable when

The user expects the summary to certify competence or substitute for assessment.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Subject-level effort and coverage view with unmapped entries, pending topics and interpretation caveats.

Critical checks

1. Time totals reconcile with the scoped export without double-counting overlap.

2. Completed chapters are reported as checklist states rather than proof of mastery.

Missing output evidence

No new workflow run or output inspection is performed for this editorial layer. The linked implementation evidence retains the original source-specific outcome and artifact limits.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

Synthetic logs include overlapping sessions and an old chapter label; the checklist marks that chapter only partially complete.

Acceptance checks

1. The overlap is flagged and the alias is proposed.

2. The chapter remains partial despite substantial logged time.

Stop conditions

1. Completion must be inferred or a real checklist entry changed without approval.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   An overlapping timer inflates one subject’s study hours.

   Why it matters

   The learner may misjudge how effort is distributed.

   Proposed response

   Flag the overlap and show totals before and after the unresolved adjustment.

2. Signal

   A chapter was renamed but its time entries retain the old label.

   Why it matters

   Coverage and effort may appear unrelated when they refer to the same topic.

   Proposed response

   Propose an alias mapping and ask the learner to confirm it.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Agree subject labels, completion meanings and the review period.

Ongoing review

1. Resolve unmapped entries and update curriculum aliases as material changes.

Unknowns

1. Unknown: connector costs, logging accuracy and summary-review effort.

Limits

1. This is a proposed planning aid; effort and checked boxes cannot establish retention, readiness or academic performance.