Live Cohort Feedback Report
Criterion: refining the platform based on user input. Evidence required: live cohort feedback report.
Written feedback from the first cohort, collected through the cohort feedback form issued 24 October 2026 and closed after the 26 October assignment deadline. Seven open questions, no satisfaction score, and a required consent item setting whether an answer may be quoted.
Nine of fourteen enrolled learners responded, a 64% response rate. Consent recorded: two allow quotation by name, six anonymously, one for internal use only. Nothing here is attributed to a person, and the one internal-only response is counted in the findings but never quoted. Responses also come from the live sessions and the cohort channels; those are in platform adjustments.
What the cohort said
| Finding | Said by | Where it goes | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Wallet setup is the hardest part of the course and it comes first. Two respondents never got past it and could not do the practical work at all | 5 of 9 | ER 3 and ER 5 |
| 2 | Paying for an on-chain action on every submission reads as a recurring charge, not a deposit, and one respondent called it a reason to stop | 2 of 9 | ER 4 |
| 3 | A part-written assignment is not saved, so a learner cannot leave and come back | 1 of 9 | New, ER 6 |
| 4 | Where to submit an assignment is not discoverable; one learner needed to be shown | 1 of 9 | New, ER 7 |
| 5 | On a phone, some images are cut off and a video transcript will not load | 1 of 9 | New, ER 8 |
| 6 | Waiting on review was among the slowest parts of the course | 1 of 9 | ER 1 and ER 2 |
| 7 | Worked examples are missing: learners want to see a finished assignment and a finished playbook, so they know what good looks like | 4 of 9 | Ours, action plan item 13 |
| 8 | The early onboarding material is too long for what it delivers | 3 of 9 | Ours, action plan items 7 and 14 |
| 9 | The playbook is worth keeping. One respondent had already saved theirs to return to; another is building on it now | 4 of 9 | Confirms the Milestone 3 artifact design |
| 10 | Market Biome landed well and was recognised as more practical than the equivalent university material. Your Journey was not understood by the same respondent | 2 of 9 | Ours, action plan item 15 |
The live-against-self-paced question
The answers split three ways and the split is the finding. Three asked for more live teaching, one for less, and four for a mix: self-paced material as the spine, live sessions kept for questions, troubleshooting and walkthroughs, and every session recorded. Nobody argued for live-only. The action is to keep the asynchronous course as delivered, schedule live clinics around the points where people get stuck, and record all of them.
How learners describe the course
Asked how they would describe it to another developer, respondents reached for the same shape: practical, structured, no fluff, and honest about being early. One named respondent called it a solid, no-nonsense accelerator that helps structure a project properly. Another, anonymously, called it both developer and non-developer friendly. The least flattering read was also the most useful: it has potential, but a beginner needs more support with the setup and tools before getting value from it.
What this changes
- The web3 on-ramp, not the course material, is what loses learners. The structural fix is an optional custodial path with a normal login, which is the headline request to the Andamio team.
- Cost has to be explained where it is spent, as a returnable deposit, or it reads as a fee.
- Worked examples are the cheapest improvement available to us and four respondents asked for them.
- The artifact design works. The playbook is the part learners keep.
Each item is tracked with an owner and a date in the improvements and action plan.