Build a study routine and check progress honestly

Pick two priorities

Use the baseline from E01. Choose one comprehension priority and one production priority. A fictional pair is “distinguish a writer's conclusion from a qualification” and “explain an exception when making a recommendation.” Avoid ten simultaneous goals. Keep vocabulary attached to the ideas you want to express.

Ask the assistant:

Use my two priorities and available time to propose a study week.

Include independent first attempts, short feedback, repair and a fresh task.

Do not promise a CEFR level or a completion date for C1.

Do not count an AI-written response as my performance.

Keep one session for reviewing evidence and changing the next week's plan.

Check that the schedule fits your actual week. If it does not, reduce volume rather than invent time.

A concrete week you can adapt

This is an Academy-designed example, not a research-backed optimal dose:

- Monday, 30 minutes: read an unfamiliar short text, summarize without looking, answer evidence questions and check two expressions.

- Tuesday, 30 minutes: attempt one listening segment, check against its official key, inspect difficult passages and listen again.

- Wednesday, 30 minutes: complete a four-exchange role-play, repair one response, then answer a changed question without a script.

- Thursday, 30 minutes: write independently, check task coverage, repair two points and save both versions.

- Friday, 20 minutes: recall the week's expressions, produce a fresh short response and review the log.

The total is 140 minutes. If you have only three sessions, keep reading/listening, production and review rather than compressing five sessions into a claim that they happened. Ordinary conversations with people remain useful practice; the assistant need not mediate everything.

Keep a small evidence log

For each session record the date, task, assistance allowed, original response, selected correction, your repair and the next fresh attempt. For external practice tests, keep the source, version and conditions. Never mix a no-help result with an assisted result in the same comparison.

A useful note is: “I answered the literal questions but missed the writer's reservation; next time I will underline the contrast.” A weak note is: “AI says I improved to C1.” If feedback conflicts with a trusted reference or a teacher's explanation, preserve the disagreement until resolved.

Check transfer, not memorization

At the end of a week, use a new topic with similar demands. If you practised meeting policies, discuss a library's booking rules. Give a recommendation, an exception and a response to a challenge. Do not reuse your corrected paragraph. Compare whether you can make the distinction independently.

At the end of the four-week cycle, collect a fresh writing sample, a fresh spoken sample and unfamiliar reading/listening material under conditions comparable to your baseline. Ask for specific comparisons, with quotations, rather than an unsupported level label. Bring samples to a qualified teacher if a more reliable judgment would change your plan. For certification, use a recognized assessment route; self-study evidence and AI feedback are not certificates.

Decide what to change

If comprehension improves but spontaneous speech stalls, adjust the next cycle toward interaction. If you can recognize corrections but cannot use them on a new task, add recall and another independent attempt. If a text is so difficult that the session becomes translation of every sentence, select more accessible material and keep one small challenge. If everything is effortless, increase the task demand before merely adding more volume.

The CEFR descriptors are a reference for activities and abilities, not a guarantee that this timetable yields a level. Official Cambridge preparation resources provide external practice and guidance. Use their material under their instructions; our schedule remains an original planning proposal.