Generative Media Studio · Capstone brief
GEN-09 · Client brief with constraints
Respond to a fictional client who forbids generative tools — deliver without them — then produce an AI-assisted alternate with full disclosure and a recommendation of which to ship.
The question
Respond to a fictional client who forbids generative tools — deliver without them — then produce an AI-assisted alternate with full disclosure and a recommendation of which to ship.
Studio / materials
Teacher-written client brief with non-negotiables (no generative tools; brand colors; deadline; audience). Manual deliverable first. AI-assisted alternate second, clearly labeled. Recommendation memo with criteria stated before comparing.
Expected failure modes
Starting with the AI version and reverse-engineering a “manual” fake. Hiding AI use in the alternate. Recommending the prettier one without criteria. Ignoring the client’s constraint as “unrealistic” instead of treating it as the assignment.
Done looks like
Manual deliverable; AI alternate with tooling statement; criteria sheet dated before comparison; recommendation memo naming what the client gains and loses with each; refusal to present the AI version as the constrained deliverable.
Five C's
CT: constraint as design brief. CR: fair comparison. CO: peer checks that the manual path is real. CM: client memo. CZ: the client’s audience under a mislabeled piece.
Mentor role
Design teacher or working designer reviews honesty of the manual path. School-supervised.
Rubric calibration
R1: one client, two versions. R2: process for manual path evidenced. R3: criteria pre-declared. R4: disclosure complete on AI path. R5: memo client-ready. R6: no smuggling AI into the constrained version.
Two ways this goes wrong
(a) Manual version is lightly edited AI. (b) Recommendation is “AI is always better.”
Credit lane fit
Lane A immediately. No verified credit claim.