For SpaceXAI's field team · one page · October 2026

Phase 0a: one semester of Grok Bot Team Bots in a 100-student Iowa State course

A controls-and-usage test on products and plans that exist today. No education pricing, no new features, no student data. The Cursor half goes through Cursor's own campus credits form, not through this request.

Term Spring 2027, late January to early MayCourse AI 2010, Introduction to Applied AI, about 100 non-major studentsPlan Grok Bot on Teams, one tenant, one course teamYour time my estimate, 15 to 25 hours

Commercial reality, stated up front

OptionWhat it meansWho signs at ISUVerdict
Purchase order at listISU buys about 100 Teams seats for one semester at published Teams pricing. Processed as an ordinary order.Department of Computer Science; college sign-off if over the departmental threshold. I will confirm the signer before the call.Preferred. Nothing to approve on your side beyond the order.
One-semester trialSpaceXAI extends a trial for the term as a marketing or field decision, with the same scope and reporting.Only a no-cost agreement through ISU Procurement.Your call, not mine to assume.

Scope, locked

  • One tenant, one team, one named ISU admin (ISU IT contact confirmed before the call).
  • Synthetic systems only: a sample CRM, a mailbox of synthetic tickets, a demo storefront. No LMS connector, no student email, no submissions, no grader bot. Phase 0a is not a FERPA test, so the registrar is informed, not asked to approve.
  • Team Bots published by the instructor: a Socratic tutor, a lab partner on the sandbox, and one weekly routine. Connector policy set at the team level.
  • Controls in scope on Teams: template sharing team-only, connector policy, per-bot Auto Review rules. Out of scope because Enterprise-only: audit logs, action recording, enforced team-wide rules.

Usage, so nobody is surprised in week 9

Plan of record: two bot sessions per student per week plus one shared weekly routine, 14 weeks. There is no separate Grok Bot spend cap and usage counts against each seat, so I will track consumption weekly from week 2 and report where a seat runs out. If a seat exhausts before term end, that section's remaining labs run instructor-side; the exhaustion point is itself a result.

Security review

ISU IT Security reviews vendor documentation before any class-wide tool. I will ask what SpaceXAI material is already on file; if none, expect the standard set: SOC 2 or equivalent, data processing terms, sub-processor list, and a HECVAT Lite. One call, then written answers.

What you get back

  • Usage per seat per week across a real 100-student section.
  • Whether Teams-tier controls are enough for a course, and exactly which Enterprise control a department would buy next.
  • The questions a public university's procurement and security offices ask.
  • A public write-up, with a factual review by SpaceXAI before release. Editorial judgment stays with me.
  • A case study for the higher-education session series, if you want one.

Timeline

WhenMilestone
Early November30-minute call: option, signer, admin and data scope confirmed; ISU Security call scheduled.
DecemberOrder or trial agreement in place; tenant and team created; instructor builds the three bots on the sandbox.
January to MayTerm runs; weekly usage tracking from week 2; mid-term note in March; draft write-up to you in May for factual review, published two weeks later.

Not on this call

The 25-educator phase, the classroom credit program, the nonprofit, Build with Grok and the five-year model are on the full page and are for other people to decide. This call is about one order, one tenant, one course. I can send the course outline and ISU's standard vendor questionnaire ahead of time.

Adisak Sukul · Teaching Professor of Computer Science, Iowa State University · adisaksukul.com · linkedin.com/in/adisaksukul · Full proposal and evidence: adisaksukul.com/spacexai-education. Independent; not affiliated with SpaceX, SpaceXAI or Cursor.