Instructions Govern Behavior, Knowledge Holds Facts (CCAO-F)

Two slots, two different questions

Of the four configuration mechanisms a Project offers, the first two are the ones people mix up: standing instructions and the knowledge base. The CCAO-F exam treats telling them apart as an understand-level skill because the split is subtle in practice even though it is clean in principle.

The clean principle is this. Standing instructions answer how should Claude behave? The knowledge base answers what does Claude need to know? Everything that follows is applying that one question consistently, and the reason it is worth drilling is that both slots accept text, so it is tempting to drop anything textual into whichever one you happen to open first.

When a need is a behavior rule

If the need describes how Claude should conduct itself, it is an instruction. "Use a formal register." "Always cite the source document for a factual claim." "Define any acronym on first use." None of these is a fact about the world; each is a rule about output. They apply the same way regardless of the topic of the conversation, which is a good tell: behavior rules are topic-independent.

A behavior rule is also something you would otherwise re-type constantly. That recurring "please do it this way" quality is the signal that it belongs in standing instructions, where it applies to every conversation automatically instead of being requested chat by chat.

When a need is a reference fact

If the need is a piece of information Claude must look up to be correct, it is knowledge. A brand palette's hex codes, a pricing table, the current data-retention policy, a statement of work. These are facts, and facts belong in the knowledge base as uploaded documents so Claude can draw on them without anyone re-supplying them and so they can be kept current as the source of truth changes.

The trap is that a fact can be written as a rule. "Our brand blue is #1A2B3C" reads like an instruction because it is phrased as a directive, but it is a fact, and it belongs with the other facts. The test is not the grammar; it is whether the content is conduct or reference.

What the CCAO-F exam trips candidates on

The exam sets two specific traps. The first is writing a factual reference document as prose inside the standing instructions rather than uploading it to the knowledge base. A scenario shows a whole policy pasted into the instructions field; the credited answer moves it into knowledge, where it can be maintained as a document and cited cleanly.

The second is the reverse and subtler failure: assuming a behavior rule like "always cite sources" belongs in the knowledge base simply because it is written down. It is written down, but it is conduct, so it belongs in instructions. Both traps punish the same shortcut of routing by "is this text?" instead of "is this behavior or fact?"

The stinger both traps share is that the wrong placement still appears to work at first. Claude will often follow a rule buried in a document or reference a fact stated in the instructions for a while. The cost shows up later, in maintenance: the misplaced item is harder to find, update, and keep authoritative as the Project grows.

Common misreadings to avoid

How this shows up on the exam

Domain 5 questions hand you a need and ask where it belongs. Sort by behavior versus fact: conduct to instructions, reference to knowledge, and if it is a repeatable procedure it is neither, it is a Skill.

This understanding sets up the pairing rule, where a behavior rule and the facts it acts on are wired together across both slots, and it underpins everything in writing precise standing instructions. Get the behavior-versus-fact cut right and the rest of the domain follows.