Nursing Exam & Clinical Mentor Skill

If the user does not supply this, derive it from the topic and any provided scenario by:

1. Identifying the clinical decision the student must make
2. Naming the most likely wrong answer magnet and its appeal
3. Mapping it to 1–3 CJMM layers where students stumble
4. Determining whether exam strategy, clinical judgment, or both are implicated

Output Format

Produce a structured coaching article in Markdown — or, if inserting into a course file, a TypeScript CourseContentElement:

{
  type: "text",
  title: "Mentor Note" | "Exam Edge" | "Clinical Nuance" | "Priority Alert",
  value: `[markdown prose — mentor voice, no bullet lists]`,
  concordance: [
    "term one",
    "term two",
    // ... all key clinical/exam terms discussed
  ],
}

Use the title variant that best fits the coaching purpose:

• "Mentor Note" — broad clinical wisdom for a topic
• "Exam Edge" — targeted exam strategy with trap analysis
• "Clinical Nuance" — bedside pattern recognition, subtle signs, "soft" cues
• "Priority Alert" — ranking, triage, or escalation coaching

Procedure

Step 1 — Establish the Coaching Context

Derive or confirm all fields in the Coaching Context template. Read priority-frameworks.md to orient the response within the correct priority system (ABC, Maslow, acute/chronic, stable/unstable).

Step 2 — Identify the Wrong-Answer Magnet

Every coaching piece must name and dissect the most seductive wrong answer — the distractor students choose because it looks clinical, sounds compassionate, or uses the right words but reflects novice reasoning. Read exam-strategy.md for the taxonomy of wrong-answer magnets and how to reframe them.

Step 3 — Generate the 9-section coaching article

Follow the structure in clinical-nuances.md. Each section develops a different layer of expert judgment. Do not skip sections; order is deliberate.

The required sections, in order:

1. The Decision Moment — open with the real clinical fork in the road, not a definition
2. How Experts See It Differently — what advanced students notice that novices miss (pattern recognition, subtle cues, gut-check language)
3. The Wrong-Answer Magnet — name, explain, and dissect the most common trap with a realistic example
4. Priority Logic Walk-Through — step-by-step reasoning an expert uses to rank options or actions
5. Clinical Pattern Drill — 2–3 rapid "if you see X, think Y" recognition pairs in prose form
6. The Scenario Debrief — one realistic patient situation, annotated with mentor commentary explaining what to catch and when
7. Exam vs. Bedside Translation — how the exam tests this concept differently than the clinic presents it
8. The Checkpoint — 2–3 retrieval-practice questions posed in mentor voice ("Now pause — before you scroll, what would you do if..."), followed by expert reasoning, not just answers
9. What It Costs When You Miss It — the human stakes: what happens to the patient when a nurse misses this; why vigilance matters beyond the test

Step 4 — Apply voice and style standards

Follow all rules in exam-strategy.md and clinical-nuances.md. Key constraints:

• Mentor voice, not textbook voice — write as an expert peer who has been there, not as a lecturer
• No bullet lists in value — continuous prose only
• ### headings only (never ## or #)
• Bold key terms and traps on first use with **term**
• Include at least one realistic exam question stem (formatted in a fenced code block) with annotated expert reasoning
• Include at least one charting or SBAR example where clinically appropriate
• Target 1,000–1,800 words for exam strategy topics; 800–1,400 for clinical pattern topics

Step 5 — Generate the concordance array

After writing the value, extract all key clinical and exam terms into the concordance array.

What to include:

• Every term bolded with **term** on first use
• Named frameworks (e.g., "CJMM", "NCLEX-RN", "NGN", "SBAR", "Maslow's Hierarchy")
• Named clinical conditions, syndromes, and signs referenced in the coaching
• Named priority systems (e.g., "ABCs", "Airway-Breathing-Circulation", "Triage")
• Named drug classes or medications used as examples
• Named assessment scales or tools referenced
• High-yield clinical terms introduced or reframed in the coaching

What NOT to include:

• Common words ("patient", "nurse", "answer", "question")
• Generic process terms ("assessment", "documentation") unless specifically named or defined here
• Duplicate terms — each once, title-cased and alphabetically sorted
• Section heading words that are not standalone clinical terms

Format: Alphabetically sorted array of title-cased strings. Target 12–30 terms.

Step 6 — Validate and output

Check:

• Opens with a clinical decision moment, not a definition
• Wrong-answer magnet named, explained, and reframed
• Priority logic walk-through is stepwise and explicit
• Scenario debrief includes mentor annotation
• At least one exam question stem in a fenced code block
• Exam vs. bedside translation section present
• Checkpoint section poses at least 2 retrieval questions with expert reasoning
• Human stakes addressed in final section
• No bullet lists in value
• concordance array present, alphabetically sorted, title-cased, 12–30 terms
• Every **bolded** term appears in concordance
• Output is valid TypeScript ready to paste (if course file target)

Reference Files

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Starting with a definition — always open with the real decision the student must make
• Explaining the right answer without naming the trap — students learn more from understanding why they got it wrong than from knowing they got it right
• Generic priority advice ("ABCs always first") — every piece of priority coaching must be topic-specific and show why the rule applies differently here
• Skipping the exam-vs.-bedside translation — the same clinical concept is tested and presented very differently in each context; that gap is where students fail
• Making the checkpoint too easy — retrieval questions must cause productive struggle; they should not be obvious from the prose above them
• Treating human stakes as optional — the emotional reality of a missed assessment or wrong prioritization must be present; it is what makes the coaching memorable and motivating
• Missing concordance — the concordance array must always be present; omitting it breaks the site concordance index
• Concordance/bold mismatch — every **bolded** term must appear in concordance