¶ AIS: Phase 2 Training and Readiness (Track B)
|
|
| Owner |
Head of Development (HOD) |
| Status |
Active v1 |
| Last Updated |
July 2026 |
| Part of |
AIS Master Service Documentation |
| Companion documents |
AIS_Baseline_Gate_Content_v1.md (B2), AIS_Training_Project_Library_v1.md (B3), AIS_REMAP_Delivery_Method_v1.md (B4), AIS_Individual_Training_Plan_Template.md (B5), AIS_TrackB_Review_Templates.md (B6), AIS_Interview_Prep_Kit_v1.md (B7), and 01_Resource_Acquisition/AIS_Screening_Rubric_v5.md and AIS_Tier_Classification_v1.md (the scoring and tiering this phase is measured against) |
Phase 2 is the Track B Structured Readiness Programme. It takes a candidate who has passed screening but is not yet placement-ready, gives them a short, gap-targeted, project-based programme, and reassesses them against Rubric v5 so they either enter the pool market-ready or the arrangement lapses. It is how REMAP turns a promising candidate into a client-ready AI Specialist without guessing, because everything is measured against the same rubric used at screening.
Where the intake stands today. Most candidates REMAP sources are already generally ready and route straight to Track A (placement). Track B is for the smaller group who clear the fundamentals but need targeted work to reach market and client readiness at their evaluated tier. This SOP assumes that reality: Track B is a lift to readiness, not a from-scratch bootcamp.
A candidate enters Track B from Phase 1 screening, routed here on the Round 2 scoring sheet. Two conditions define a valid Track B entry:
- The Baseline Gate is already covered. The five compulsory gate items must be passed before Track B begins. Track B does not teach the baseline; a candidate who cannot clear the gate is not a Track B case. The baseline content is documented in the Baseline Gate Content document for reference and self-study, not as a training track.
- Tier is evaluated from demonstrated knowledge, and specific gaps are identified. The Round 2 Rubric v5 scoring gives the candidate a working tier and shows exactly which categories sit below that tier's floor or below the target set for the role. Those below-target categories are the gaps Track B exists to close.
Track B is only worth running where the gaps are realistically closable inside the programme's cap. Where they are not, the honest outcome is decline at screening, not a Track B that will lapse.
A project-based readiness programme. The candidate learns, practises, and demonstrates each targeted skill by completing real projects and drills, then shows the work for assessment. There is no lecture curriculum: capability is proven by building and defending, exactly as it will be in front of a client.
The project material is designed to be company and platform independent, so it can be reused across REMAP's programmes without being tied to any one client, stack, or brand. The library itself, with each project's brief, deliverables, skills covered, and assessment criteria, is the Training Project Library (B3). This SOP defines how a candidate moves through it; the library defines what they build.
Three things are trained on every project, not as separate modules:
- The technical skill the project targets, drawn from the candidate's rubric gaps.
- Communication and client readiness, as a presentation checkpoint on every project: the candidate presents what they built and answers follow-up questions, calibrated to their tier.
- Independent operation, trained by how the work is run: an ambiguous brief to scope, a kickoff check written back before building, written status updates, and feedback handled without friction.
Every Track B candidate gets an Individual Training Plan (template B5): rubric scores in, assigned projects out.
- The plan lists the candidate's below-target categories, and against each, the specific project or drill from the library that closes it.
- Only the projects needed to close the identified gaps are assigned. The plan is a gap-targeted subset, not the whole library, sequenced to fit the programme cap. A candidate with two weak categories runs a short plan; the plan is never padded with projects for skills they already hold.
- Where one project covers several related gaps at once, it is assigned once and credited against all of them.
- The plan states the target rubric score for each gap category (the floor for the tier, or the role target) so the exit bar is explicit from day one.
¶ Structure and Duration
- The programme is capped at 6 weeks. This is a firm ceiling, consistent with the Candidate Agreement and Phase 1.
- Two formal reviews: end of week 3 and end of week 6 (templates in B6).
- External candidates are unpaid during Track B; REMAP employees on Track B remain on salary. Candidates keep all pre-placement pool freedoms throughout: free to work elsewhere, free to leave at any time, no bond. Commercial terms are per the Candidate Agreement and are not restated here.
Each assigned project runs the same loop, which is the REMAP delivery method (B4) applied to training:
- Assign. The candidate takes the project brief and reads it.
- Kickoff check. Before building, the candidate writes back their understanding of scope, assumptions, and questions. Scoping is trained on every project, so the mentor answers as a client would, not by filling every gap.
- Build through the standard phases (requirements and planning, implementation and deployment, testing, demo and presentation), with a visible board and written status updates, and a learning log kept as skills are picked up.
- Submit in three forms: a written presentation, a recorded walkthrough, and a scheduled live review.
- Review and score. The mentor runs the project's gap-check questions, then rescores the covered categories against Rubric v5, with one line of evidence per change.
A progress checkpoint, not the exit. It answers one question: is the candidate on track to close their gaps by week 6? Outcomes:
- On track. Continue the plan.
- Behind but closable. The mentor adjusts the plan: a fresh practice variant on a stubborn skill, or a resequencing. The cap does not move.
- Not progressing. An honest conversation. If the gaps are clearly not going to close inside the cap, this is where that is named, rather than waiting for week 6.
The exit review. The candidate's covered categories are rescored against Rubric v5, and the outcome is one of:
- Market-ready: pass. Gaps closed to target. This triggers a full reassessment against Rubric v5 (Track B completion is a reassessment trigger in the Tier Classification document), the tier is confirmed, and the candidate enters the pool as Track A, available.
- Lapse. If the candidate is not placement-ready at the cap, the arrangement lapses per the Candidate Agreement. The HOD may, at discretion, note a candidate worth re-approaching later, but there is no automatic extension.
Juniors are developed in the pool and are not placed with clients; a Junior-tier exit from Track B enters the pool for continued development, not client placement.
A candidate leaves Track B by one of three doors:
| Outcome |
Condition |
Next |
| Placement-ready |
All targeted gap categories rescored to their tier floor or role target, presentation checkpoints passed |
Rubric v5 reassessment, tier confirmed, enter pool (Track A) |
| Continued development |
Reaches or holds Junior tier but not a placeable profile |
Enter pool for development; not placed with clients |
| Lapse |
Not ready at the 6-week cap |
Arrangement lapses per the Candidate Agreement |
- HOD: owns Track B, approves each Individual Training Plan, countersigns the exit reassessment, and decides lapse or continued development.
- Mentor (Senior Developer or HOD): assigns projects, answers kickoff checks as a client would, runs review calls and gap-check questions, and rescores against Rubric v5.
- Candidate: completes the assigned projects, keeps the board and learning log current, presents and defends each build.
- Mentor side: the candidate's record holds the Individual Training Plan, per-category rubric ratings, active project, review dates, and each review outcome. This is the source of truth for the pool-entry decision and feeds the Pool Register (Step G2) on exit.
- Candidate side: the candidate keeps their own progress current. A gap between what they report and what the reviews show is itself an independent-operation signal.
| Document |
Role in Track B |
| This SOP (B1) |
How a candidate moves through Track B end to end |
| Baseline Gate Content (B2) |
Reference and self-study for the five gate items; the prerequisite, not a training track |
| Training Project Library (B3) |
The company-independent projects and drills, each mapped to Rubric v5 categories |
| REMAP Delivery Method (B4) |
The delivery habits every project is run by, condensed for training |
| Individual Training Plan Template (B5) |
Per-candidate plan: rubric gaps in, assigned projects out |
| Track B Review Templates (B6) |
Week 3 and week 6 review and rescore forms |
| Interview Prep Kit (B7) |
Client interview preparation, feeding Phase 4 placement |
REMAP AI · Private AI LLC · Internal Use Only · Confidential