Again I will post many possible issues in one with this Beta training. Please check they are issues.
1. When constructing the hotel proxy application one is not (as far as I remember) previously briefed on why this is called hotel proxy; what the hotel proxy does. As a result the student is merely following steps until the penny drops about the fact that the hotel proxy is a "ruleset override" app or something like that to reuse hotel app and to create some web services to call and start cases in the hotel app. Oh .... I think that could have been said before. Moreover, since this is all about reuse (this is clear that you are teaching us about reuse) a block diagram depecting the applications and relationships among them would give the big picture/blueprint before we dive into details. I think it all lacks visuals. There is a diagram more or less like I suggest having where you say: "This example is built on PegaRULES. You can also build your application on Pega solutions, such as a vertical Finance framework built on a horizontal framework such as Customer Service.". But this existing diagram has little to do with our exercise and built application, it requires the person to know Pega finance to really assimilate and it just adds more complexity and concepts that are not on the core of what I understand you want to teach. So why not changing this diagram to the diagram of the application you are really going to build on the exercise and putting the currently existing financial services diagram as a sider note or extra material?
2. On exercise: "Constructing the Hotel application". More exactly on exercise step: "Complete the Confirm Rooms activity as shown in the following image.". The activity steps are not expanded to make it easy to understand it. It is not said how one arrived at this activity. Did he copy a generated activity from a rest client he created via a wizard and modify. This info could be helpful. Also the class name hinted on the first line of the activity step comments does not match the generated one and possibly this mismatch takes place again on the list.
3. The hole training up to its first 30% lacks testing guidance on the exercises results or exercise steps. Developing applications is dificult and many things can go wrong. A whole stack of code is built, but one is not guided on the interactive development cycle on how to test each component after it is made, which is the good practice before moving on. This will make support also dificult as one does not really know where exactly things did not go as expected. It seems there is not a single guided test scenario given to the student through until 30% of the training (where I am now) and possibly til further in the training. So the whole stack of components could be broken at any level and one would not know.