You now have two substantial documents in your portfolio: the personal statement from Strand 1.1, and the career progression plan draft you built in the last lessons. Today you are reflecting by holding them against each other and asking one hard question: does the person in that statement plausibly do this plan?

If the answer is no, something changes before you leave: the plan, the statement, or both. That change is the work of ALT 2 alignment, and it is the second scheduled revisit of your personal statement. If both documents already point the same way, your job is to prove that with quotes and say so in the alignment note; do not invent a rewrite.

Four findings and one process idea run through today's test. Read them once, then use them as labels when you annotate. Orphan evidence and unsupported plan claims point in opposite directions: do not treat them as the same label.

Keep the two directions separate when you label: orphan is unused statement evidence; unsupported plan claim is a plan milestone with no statement backing.

First you practise the labels on Jamie's personal statement, read against Jamie's plan. Jamie's plan draft aims at a software or ICT apprenticeship route (earn while you learn), a summer coding course, and a junior tech-support role within five years. Keep that plan in your head while you annotate the statement.

Jamie practice (about 10 minutes). Pick a label, then click the phrase it fits. Stop when the model is revealed and notice where you differed. The useful disagreements are usually on orphan claims: things the statement is proud of that the plan never uses. After the reveal, your teacher will name two or three unsupported plan claims on Jamie's route (the inverse direction) before you switch.

Hard switch: open your own files. Do the real test on your own two documents. Open your personal statement and your ALT 2 Career Progression Plan Draft. In a new portfolio document called PS to CPP Alignment (Strand 1.2 folder), work through four passes:

1. Aligns: quote every sentence in your statement that the plan honestly supports.
2. Contradicts: quote every sentence the plan now pulls against.
3. Orphan evidence: quote every strong line in the statement that the plan never uses.
4. Unsupported plan claims: list every milestone or goal on the plan that your statement gives no evidence for at all. This fourth list is usually the one that forces a decision.

Before you write the eight-line note, answer:

• Which of your four lists was longest: aligns, contradicts, orphan evidence, or unsupported plan claims? What does that length tell you about how honest the draft you brought in still is?
• If a course tutor or an apprenticeship recruiter read your statement and your plan in the same sitting, where would they stop believing you first?

Then make the change today. A valid change can be one rewritten sentence or one cut milestone; quality of the decision matters more than volume of rewrite. Revise the plan, revise the statement, or revise both. Update the actual files, not just the alignment note. If both documents already align, do not invent a rewrite: defend full alignment with quoted evidence in the note.

At the bottom of PS to CPP Alignment, write what you changed and why in no more than eight lines. Use this stem if it helps:

• Path taken today: statement edit / plan edit / both / full-alignment defence
• One concrete edit (quote the old line and the new line, or the milestone cut)
• Why this edit (or defence) makes the two documents believable together

This feeds ALT 2 directly, and it is your second scheduled personal-statement revisit. The alignment note must show which path you took.

With the person beside you, share one quoted contradiction or one unsupported plan claim from your own lists (about three minutes). Keep it concrete: read the line, do not summarise the feeling.

Use any remaining time to finish the source-file edit and the eight-line note in PS to CPP Alignment before the summary. The decision checks already sit at the end of the annotation step; this block is for one spoken example and a clean save.

Today you reflected by testing whether the person in your personal statement plausibly does your career progression plan.

• You used four lenses: alignment, contradiction, orphan evidence, and unsupported plan claims
• You practised the labels on Jamie's statement against a software-route plan, then named unsupported claims on that plan
• You annotated your own statement against your own ALT 2 draft
• You changed the plan, the statement, or both (or defended full alignment with quotes), and recorded what moved and why
• You completed the second scheduled revisit of ALT 1 while strengthening ALT 2

Optional stretch: rewrite one orphan strength from your statement as a single plan milestone on the education or workplace row, dated inside twelve months, so the evidence has somewhere to go.