Portfolio, Departmental Alignment, and Continuous Revision

Assembly time: the portfolio separates a student-facing layer (redesigned assignment, syllabus AI policy, first-week touchpoint) from an instructor-facing layer (your Discipline Statement, audits, Stress Test, and six-month plan). The quality bar is the substitute-instructor test — could a capable colleague teach from this packet without calling you? — supported by a 100-word cover memo and four readiness checks: syllabus-ready, LMS-ready, grading-ready, student-ready. The one reflective act asked of you is rereading your Module One Skeptic's Charter and writing a paragraph on what the course honored, challenged, and left standing.

One student, three courses, three contradictory AI rules: this lecture treats unexplained contradiction (not difference) as the integrity failure. The resolution is a middle path — departments align on shared AIAS vocabulary, a minimum equity floor, and a documented integrity process, while each course keeps the level, posture, and evidence-form decisions that depend on its learning goals. A five-scenario anonymous poll surfaces where colleagues quietly disagree, and your move is small: one department-level question worth raising, one course-level decision you can make now.

Capability drift outpaces syllabus revision, so the answer is a small scheduled maintenance habit rather than perpetual redesign. Triage your materials into high-drift (tool names, capability claims, detection assumptions), moderate-drift (local vocabulary, contract-tied policy), and low-drift (the frameworks themselves); revisit when two trigger events occur, with an immediate override for policy, privacy, or accessibility changes. Vintage stamps on every capability claim make aging visible, and the budget is deliberately modest: one assignment, one Stress Test question, actions of thirty minutes, about ninety minutes per semester.