This pack turns the six modules of BY-GX3 into hands-on micro-scenarios. Each sheet is one activity: the student handles practice emails, chooses values, rewrites syntax, resolves clashes and composes a real send — then checks their work against the answer key at the back (trainer only).
| Sheet | Activity | Format | Time |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Reference cards — six values, caveats, syntax (cut out and keep) | Cards | — |
| 2 | M1 · The unmarked thread — find what is wrong in five emails | Inbox sweep | 5 min |
| 3 | M2 · Mark to the highest thing inside — three variants, one value each | Value drill | 5 min |
| 4 | M3 · The syntax clinic — rewrite eight malformed lines | Rewrite drill | 6 min |
| 5 | M4 · The header that wins — resolve the clash | Triage | 6 min |
| 6 | M5 · Tool limits — who stays accountable | Triage | 5 min |
| 7 | M6 · Send it properly — compose the full email + self-check | Compose | 8 min |
| 8 | Answer key — trainer only | Key | — |
UNOFFICIAL → OFFICIAL → OFFICIAL:Sensitive → PROTECTED → SECRET → TOP-SECRET
There is no seventh word and no local variant. Mark to the highest sensitivity present in the whole message — body, attachments, anything else. The sender applies the marking; the sender stays accountable.
1 · Subject Field Marking — appended at the end of the subject line, after the human-readable text:
Joint program — remediation status [SEC=PROTECTED]
2 · Internet Message Header Extension — in the message header:
X-Protective-Marking: SEC=PROTECTED, ACCESS=Legal-Privilege
Where both forms appear, the header wins. Watch the trip-ups: no spaces inside the brackets, one space after the comma, correct case on SEC= and the values.
| Caveat type | What it marks |
|---|---|
| C — Codeword | A specific compartmented activity |
| FG — Foreign Government | Information originating with another government |
| SH — Special Handling | Handling beyond the classification alone |
| RI — Releasability Indicator | Who it may be released to — codes such as AGAO, AUSTEO, REL + country codes |
A caveat never travels alone — it is always marked alongside a classification. ACCESS= is not a caveat: it carries an Information Management Marker such as ACCESS=Legal-Privilege, and requires SEC=OFFICIAL:Sensitive or higher (the floor). The NATIONAL-CABINET caveat is retired — never apply it; refer historic material.
1 · Did I read every part — body, attachments, quoted content?
2 · Is the Subject Field Marking present, exact syntax, correct value?
3 · Is the X-Protective-Marking header present and matching?
4 · Is any caveat paired with a classification?
5 · Did the tool suggest, and did I — not it — decide?
Your findings:
1 · Email — problem:
2 · Email — problem:
3 · Email — problem:
4 · Email — problem:
5 · Email — status:
Version A value: driven by:
Version B value: driven by:
Version C value: driven by:
Reverse drill: an email carries the value [SEC=PROTECTED]. What must be inside it?
Who owns the choice?
| # | As it was sent | Your rewrite |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Subject: [sec=official] Quarterly meeting notes | |
| 2 | Subject: Q3 remediation status (body begins: "This email is OFFICIAL.") | |
| 3 | Subject: [OFFICIAL:Sensitive] Program update | |
| 4 | X-Protective-Marking: PROTECTED | |
| 5 | Subject: Grantee forum notes [SEC=OFFICIAL:Sensitive] | |
| 6 | Subject: [SEC=OFFICIAL : Sensitive] Reporting dates | |
| 7 | Subject: [SEC=PROTECTED,ACCESS=Legal-Privilege] Advice | |
| 8 | Subject: [ACCESS=Legal-Privilege] Settlement figures |
Then sort them — caveat type (C, FG, SH, RI) or Information Management Marker?
| Element | Caveat type or marker? (one line) |
|---|---|
| AUSTEO | |
| ACCESS=Legal-Privilege | |
| Material originating with another government | |
| REL followed by country codes | |
| NATIONAL-CABINET |
Which line was the correct one? Why is a machine-readable form important, not just a human-readable one?
Also on the desk: the records system shows the Information Management Marker was not recorded for this message. Your executive wants a two-paragraph summary of the advice by close of business.
1 · Standing of the email:
2 · Why (which form wins, and what the rule is):
3 · The Information Management Marker floor:
4 · What you record before replying:
5 · The summary you send — marking and recipients:
What does a clash between the two forms tell you about the message's journey?
The mail client suggested a marking of [SEC=OFFICIAL:Sensitive] for a draft. Before sending, the user overrode it to [SEC=OFFICIAL]. The draft quotes a marked OFFICIAL:Sensitive source document.
Classification:
Who stays accountable:
An officer replied to a PROTECTED email. The reply draft would not allow the marking to be set below [SEC=PROTECTED] because the quoted original was PROTECTED. The officer wants a workaround.
Classification:
Who stays accountable:
The mail server bounced an outbound message whose X-Protective-Marking header did not match the entity's policy for the recipient domain. The sender calls it "an outage".
Classification:
Who stays accountable:
Why is it desirable that the tool cannot mark for you?
To: Cc:
Subject:
X-Protective-Marking:
Attachment note:
Paragraph 1:
Paragraph 2 (with the quoted figure):
| Check | Tick |
|---|---|
| 1 · Read every part — body, attachment, quoted content — and marked to the highest sensitivity present? | |
| 2 · Subject Field Marking present, exact syntax, correct value? | |
| 3 · X-Protective-Marking header present and matching the subject? | |
| 4 · Any caveat paired with a classification? | |
| 5 · The tool suggested — I decided? |
What did composing the whole message surface that reading about it did not?
Email 1 (Okafor): wrong — no marking. "Internal mail doesn't need one" is false: the standard covers email
in and between entities (Email Req 0067).
Email 2 (Patel): wrong — a colour/flag is not a marking; it must be readable text (Email Req 0061).
Email 3 (Nguyen): wrong — a phone call is not a marking; sensitivity must be written as text on the message.
Email 4 (Whitfield): correct — subject marking + matching header, exact syntax.
Email 5 (Chen): wrong — the marking sits in the signature block, not in the subject/header where a person and a
machine both read it.
Message to land: if a marking is not written as text in the right place, it is not doing its job.
A → OFFICIAL (routine calendar note, no attachments). B → OFFICIAL:Sensitive (attachment carries it —
mark to the highest part). C → PROTECTED (attachment marked PROTECTED lifts the whole email).
Reverse drill: something inside the message is PROTECTED or higher (an attachment, quoted content) — the
recipient should be able to infer it. Who owns the choice: the sender, applying the marking (Email Req 0061;
ISM-0270).
1 → Quarterly meeting notes [SEC=OFFICIAL] (case — and the marking appended after the subject text).
2 → Q3 remediation status [SEC=OFFICIAL] (marking belongs in the subject, appended — not in the body).
3 → Program update [SEC=OFFICIAL:Sensitive] (the SEC= is part of the form).
4 → X-Protective-Marking: SEC=PROTECTED (header needs SEC=).
5 → correct as sent — the hidden good one: text first, marking appended at the end.
6 → Reporting dates [SEC=OFFICIAL:Sensitive] (no space before the colon).
7 → Advice [SEC=PROTECTED, ACCESS=Legal-Privilege] (one space after the comma).
8 → must pair the marker with a classification at or above the floor: Settlement figures
[SEC=PROTECTED, ACCESS=Legal-Privilege] — an Information Management Marker never travels alone, and requires
OFFICIAL:Sensitive or higher (EM-IMM.floor).
Every corrected subject puts the human-readable text first with the marking appended at the end —
a marking-first subject is malformed.
Sort drill: AUSTEO → RI caveat · ACCESS=Legal-Privilege → Information Management Marker, not a caveat ·
another government's material → FG caveat · REL + country codes → RI caveat · NATIONAL-CABINET → retired caveat —
never apply it; refer historic material.
Machine-readable form matters because systems route, filter and record on the header — not on human reading.
Where both forms appear, the header wins (EM-7.precedence): treat the message at SEC=PROTECTED, ACCESS=Legal-Privilege — not at the subject's OFFICIAL. The Information Management Marker floor (EM-IMM.floor) is satisfied — PROTECTED sits above the OFFICIAL:Sensitive minimum the marker requires — and it rules the subject's value out on its own: a message carrying Legal-Privilege cannot sit below OFFICIAL:Sensitive. The records gap is a separate finding: the classification carries onto the record as its property (Email Req 0068), so record the message with its full marking and raise the break in the chain. The executive's summary quoting the advice carries PROTECTED forward (and the Legal-Privilege marker if the summary conveys privileged content); recipients must be cleared for it. A clash between the forms is itself a flag — the message's journey did something unexpected; note it, don't paper over it.
1 — user error: the tool suggested; the user overrode to a lower value on quoted sensitive content. The
sender remains accountable (ISM-0271). 2 — tool doing its job: no quiet downgrades of replies below the quoted
original (ISM-1089); there is no workaround to want. 3 — tool doing its job: the server is the last calm check
(ISM-0565); a bounced send is the control working, not an outage.
Desirable that the tool can't mark for you: the marking decision stays human and honest.
Subject: Northern Regions Grants — status update [SEC=PROTECTED] · Header:
X-Protective-Marking: SEC=PROTECTED.
Attachment note names the partner report and its marking; the figure quoted from it holds the email at PROTECTED
regardless of how routine the prose reads. External counterpart is included only if the partner agency is cleared
for PROTECTED in this program's arrangements — otherwise hold and brief separately. Five-point self-check ticked
before send. One honest send is the whole outcome the course promises.