The rule for every activity: one real case, all four gates, one signed artifact, one return — and two paths to the same artifact so that policy skill without code, or code without policy skill, both finish. The corpus already writes each gate in plain words (the gate field); Umbrella writes it in YAML. The plain-words path compiles the sentence to the rule; the code path renders the rule as the sentence. Same gate, same receipt, same mark (PRD v3 F14).

Every activity below exists in one of two states: live (the estate has it today) or P0/P1/P2 (the ninety days). Nothing is P3.

The shape of every activity

Step	Plain-words path (policy skill, no code)	Code path (code, no policy skill)	Both
1 · The case	Read today’s FailFest case: what happened, what it cost, the source	Same	2 min
2 · Declare	Write the gate as a sentence — “a face match is a lead, not evidence” — pick the action, the tier, the decision from three drop-downs; the page compiles the YAML	Write the three-line YAML; Lantern’s compliance lens renders the sentence	Policy gate: the rule validates or it does not run
3 · Decide	Press propose the action	beacon gate check intent.json	Pre-pend gate: allow · constrain · hold · deny, bound to the hash
4 · Prove	The receipt appears; the chain grows by one	Same, on disk	Operate gate: chain position, identity, budget
5 · Read	Pick your lens: engineer · compliance · auditor · regulator	lantern read	Audit gate: VERIFY.md says how a stranger checks it
6 · Return	Bring it Thursday — the hash goes on your Gate Card	beacon share	The mark is a receipt

Level 100 — Begin · owns the pre-pend gate · 10 minutes · nothing installed

Who	Anyone. If you have never opened a terminal, start at an NCW Camp mini-camp (Hint-Logs: keep the receipts), then come here
Warm-up (live)	The practitioner test in the Library: ten cases, pick the verdict
The case	VH-001 Air Canada — the chatbot promised a bereavement refund the policy did not allow; the tribunal held the airline to the chatbot’s word. Gate: the company stands behind every statement its AI makes and verifies policy answers against the source of truth. Alt: VH-010 Mata v. Avianca — a lawyer filed six cases the model invented
Activity	On the Gate Check page: write the gate (sentence or YAML); propose customer.reply carrying a policy claim; watch it hold (C2 external effect on a person, claim unverified) or constrain (allowed only with the verified source attached); download the bundle; read it as a compliance lead, then as an engineer
All four gates, felt once	Policy gate: the rule validated before it ran. Pre-pend: the decision. Operate: seq: 1, agent_id, authority. Audit: VERIFY.md
Artifact	bundle-<hash>.zip — verifies with the 400 tool
Return	First five minutes of Thursday: show the receipt to a person. A host marks you 100
State	Page P0; test live; Camp live

Level 200 — Retrofit · owns the policy gates · 30 minutes · one install

Who	A 100 with an agent, a script, a bot or a workflow of their own
The cases	VH-022 Chevrolet of Watsonville — the dealership bot agreed to sell a Tahoe for $1 “no takesies backsies”. Gate: system prompts are not security boundaries; consequential commitments require deterministic rules. VH-056 Knight Capital — a bad deploy lost $440M in 45 minutes. Gate: deploy gating, kill switches, rehearsed rollback
Activity A — your agent (Chevy)	beacon gate init scaffolds policy.yaml; you declare three real actions your agent takes with tiers; commitment.make is C3 hold or C4 deny. Wrap the tool calls with gate.check(); run; beacon gate check; lantern diff between the run before and after the rule. Plain-words path: the same on the Gate Check page in “my agent” mode with a pasted action log
Activity B — your pipeline (Knight)	Put umbrella-conformance check (or the Lantern GitHub Action) in CI on the repo that holds the policy; change a tier in a PR; watch the policy gate refuse the merge until a steward reviews; the merge emits a receipt
Worked example	The Global Inclusion Matchmaker retrofit — the README and reference implementation 2 are one artifact
Artifact	Your policy.yaml landed in the catalog by PR; one chain; one diff; one CI run that refused a downgrade
Return	Your story ships through the content pipeline; you pair with a 100 on Thursday. Mark: 200
State	P1 (SDK on PyPI, gate init, Action, catalog)

Level 300 — Hold · owns the operate gate · a week of real traffic

Who	A 200 whose agent touches people, money or rights
The cases	VH-015 Arup — HK$200M wired after a video call full of deepfaked colleagues. Gate: high-value transfers require out-of-band confirmation. VH-035 Cigna PXDX — 300,000 claims denied in two months, 1.2 seconds each. Gate: a human reviewer actually reviews. VH-011 UnitedHealth nH Predict — a model may inform but never replace clinical judgment in coverage decisions
Activity A — the hold (Arup)	Declare payment.transfer above a threshold as C3 with approver_role, an out-of-band channel and expiry; run traffic; a hold queues; release it through the named approver; the chain shows hold and release; an unreleased hold decays to deny
Activity B — aggregation (Cigna)	Declare claim.deny as C1 with budget: {per_hour: N}; replay a burst; watch the cumulative budget escalate to C3 and hold; beacon coverage reports the share of C2+ actions decided by the gate
Activity C — identity (Ghosts)	Run one action with no agent_id; watch the stop condition fire and the receipt record why
Adversarial	beacon gate test --adversarial — the nine attacks from v1 §12, each citing its case, all green
Procurement (live)	Score a vendor stack in the Vendor RFI advisor; export the self-audit receipt into your chain
Artifact	Gate coverage 9x% over 30 days with holds, releases and one aggregation escalation in the chain; the auditor and regulator lens renders
Return	Verify another practitioner’s bundle before Thursday and say what you found; mentor a 200. Mark: 300
State	P1 (broker, hold queue, coverage, adversarial suite)

Level 400 — Prove it to a stranger · owns the audit gate · ongoing

Who	A 300 ready to steward
The cases	VH-013 Robodebt — income averaging as a legal premise, 470,000 unlawful debts, a Royal Commission. Gate: the mathematical premise of an automated decision is independently validated as lawful before a single notice. VH-003 Toeslagenaffaire — 26,000–35,000 families, 2,000 children removed, a cabinet fallen. VH-088 Post Office Horizon — software outputs accusing people of crimes are independently verifiable; the system’s outputs are not legal evidence on their own
Activity A — verify a stranger (Horizon)	Take a bundle you did not make, from the catalog or from a stranger; beacon verify --offline on a machine with no network; publish the verification statement with your name
Activity B — the premise (Robodebt)	Write the policy gate that requires the decision rule’s premise to be validated and receipted before the first notice; export the evidence bundle with the UCID crosswalk to the Annex III category and to NIST RMF; hand it to a regulator lens reader who is not you
Activity C — upstream	File one issue against OVERT’s domains, or one incident to AIID / OECD AIM, with the case number and the gate
Activity D — teach	Host a Thursday; mark a 300’s step (practice.mark, you as approver); land a contributor’s PR
Artifact	A public offline verification with your name on it; a Thursday you hosted
Return	You are on the host rota. Mark: 400
State	P2 (offline verifier, bundle export, RFC process)

The credential, per level (PRD v3 D10)

Level	Passes when	Who marks	Minted as
100	The bundle verifies and was shown to a person	Any host	practice.mark receipt, tier C1, hash-only
200	The policy is in the catalog; the diff and the refused CI run are in the chain	A 300 or above	same
300	The coverage claim reproduces from the chain; a hold, a release, a decay and an aggregation are present; someone else’s bundle was verified	A 400	same
400	A public verification of another party’s bundle; a hosted Thursday	Two 400s or a founder	same

One attempt per scenario per day; server-side scored; free; no expiry, but the ledger shows the date. Nothing about a system is claimed by any mark.