Sample Course An illustrative course built inside CMP — a product walkthrough, not the marketing site.
Higher Education · Built in CMP
COUN101

Addiction Counseling

A complete, faculty-governed course — shown here with the accreditation evidence and approval trail it produces. CMP is governance infrastructure, not a course generator: the AI drafts to your standards; your faculty review, refine, and approve.

14+
Accreditor frameworks mapped
Every course
Produces its own evidence
The Governance Pipeline

The pipeline is the product.
Courses are what it produces.

Every course runs through a controlled workflow. Nothing advances without deliberate approval at each stage — so what comes out is a course with a complete institutional record already attached.

1
Configure

Faculty define the parameters — mission, standards, program outcomes. The AI builds to what your faculty give it, not a template.

2
Generate

The AI drafts the structure — outcomes, modules, assessments, rubrics — peer-benchmarked against comparable programs.

3
Review

Faculty of record revise and approve every outcome and assessment. Nothing advances without their sign-off.

4
Approve

The course routes through your existing curriculum committee. Every approval is timestamped and logged.

5
Deploy

One click from approved to your LMS — the course and its full record preserved together. No export.

Inside CMP

The governance record builds itself.

This is the COUN101 record as it appears in CMP — generated automatically as the course moved through the pipeline, owned by your institution.

cmp.lumnitek.com / coun101 / governance AI-verified
Design
Content
Governance
Change Log
Pipeline

Governance Record — COUN101

5 of 6 stages complete
Generated automatically · owned by your institution
Course design complete — 10 outcomes confirmed
Peer benchmarking, gap analysis, Bloom's mapping and workload verification complete. Faculty approved the design before content generation began.
Jun 3, 2026 · 9:44 AM · Cheryl H.
Content generated — 5 modules
Modules, assessments and rubrics produced from the faculty-approved spec. OER references assigned (SAMHSA, NIDA, OpenStax).
Jun 3, 2026 · 10:02 AM
Outcome 5 revised — Faculty of Record (LPC-S)
Person-centered language strengthened to specify stage-of-change and client-values framing. Version 1.1 auto-archived.
Jun 3, 2026 · 2:18 PM
Submitted to curriculum committee
“All outcomes reviewed. Peer benchmarking on file. OER citations verified.”
Jun 3, 2026 · 4:10 PM · Cheryl H.
Approved by curriculum committee
“Outcomes are rigorous, scaffolded across Bloom's levels, OER alignment confirmed.” — Program Chair
Jun 4, 2026 · 11:30 AM · Program Chair
Deploy to LMS
Pending — one click from live. No export, no manual upload.
The Distinction That Matters

What the AI does. What faculty do.

A course generator replaces faculty judgment. CMP deploys it. That is the difference between AI-generated content reviewed by faculty, and a faculty-authored course supported by AI infrastructure.

The AI's role

The structural work faculty shouldn't have to do.

  • Generate a complete course structure from stated parameters
  • Benchmark outcomes against comparable peer programs
  • Map every outcome to Bloom's taxonomy levels
  • Align assessments to outcomes and verify the mapping
  • Flag coverage gaps relative to peer programs
Faculty's role

Every decision that requires disciplinary expertise.

  • Judge whether the draft reflects their scholarly standards
  • Revise outcomes, assessments and content to their pedagogy
  • Accept or reject peer-benchmarking recommendations
  • Add gap-closing outcomes from their own judgment
  • Approve the final course — and own it entirely
The course that comes out is a faculty-authored course supported by AI infrastructure — not an AI-generated course reviewed by faculty. That distinction matters to your curriculum committee, your accreditor, and your students.
The Pipeline in Practice

COUN101 — peer analysis on the record.

Course Learning Outcomes (10)

Undergraduate · 5 modules · 5 credit hours · OER — zero textbook cost. 7 original outcomes · 3 added by faculty after peer analysis.
5Peer programs benchmarked
3Coverage gaps identified & added
1Define the biological, psychological, and social models of addiction using current DSM-5-TR criteria.
2Explain the stages of addiction development and recovery, including the neurological mechanisms of dependence.
3Apply evidence-based screening tools — CAGE, AUDIT, DAST — to identify individuals at risk.
4Analyze the ethical and legal responsibilities of addiction counselors, including federal confidentiality law.
5Develop a person-centered treatment plan integrating motivational interviewing and harm-reduction strategies.
6Evaluate CBT, 12-step facilitation, and medication-assisted treatment for diverse client populations.
7Compare cultural, racial, and socioeconomic factors that inform culturally responsive practice.
8Describe relapse-prevention strategies, including Marlatt's cognitive-behavioral model.Added after peer analysis
9Distinguish co-occurring disorders and explain integrated dual-diagnosis treatment.Added after peer analysis
10Apply family-systems theory, including codependency and family recovery support.Added after peer analysis
Outcomes 8–10 were added by faculty after the peer-benchmarking report: relapse prevention, co-occurring disorders, and family systems each appeared in most comparable programs but were absent from the AI's first draft. Three AI-included outcomes were retained as differentiators — federal confidentiality depth, harm reduction as a primary strategy, and neurological mechanisms of dependence.
Faculty Governance — On the Record

Every revision is logged. Every approval is timestamped.

A licensed professional counselor reviews an AI-drafted outcome and makes it reflect their clinical standards. The change is preserved; the rationale is on record.

AI's initial draft — Outcome 5
Develop a person-centered treatment plan that integrates motivational interviewing techniques and harm-reduction strategies for clients with substance use disorders.
After faculty revision
Develop a person-centered treatment plan integrating motivational interviewing and harm reduction — grounding clinical decisions in the client's expressed values, cultural context, and stage of change rather than in program requirements or counselor preference.
“The original was technically correct but clinically thin. — Faculty of Record, LPC-S”

See the pipeline run for your curriculum.

Bring a course code and your program's standards. We'll work through it live — your outcomes, your faculty's parameters, your governance process.

Request a Live Demo ← Back to lumnitek.com
Illustrative example: COUN101, June 2026. Content Manager Pro™ — LumniTEK.