No prescriptions are issued. The Market-fit agent surfaced zero in-scope gaps (gaps: []). The course is an undergraduate TCP/IP networking-fundamentals survey, and every high-frequency DevOps/SRE demand in the postings — Docker (100%, post_061–post_072), Bash (100%, post_061–post_072), Python (92%), Git (92%), Linux/Kubernetes/Monitoring (83%), Terraform/CI-CD/AWS (75%), Prometheus/GitHub Actions/On-call/Go (67%), Helm/Datadog (58%), Jenkins/Grafana/SLOs/Ansible (50%), GitLab CI/ArgoCD/Vault/Incident Response (42%) — is a cross-domain tooling/operations skill with no partial coverage in any of the seven course weeks to extend. Under Rule 1 (extend-only) and Rule 2 (respect the conceptual depth bound of a top-down networking survey), none of these tools can be honestly grafted onto Weeks 1, 4/5, 6/7, 8/9, 10/11, 12/13/14, or 15 without inventing a wholly new topic or pushing the course past its stated depth.
These zero prescriptions close 0% of the DevOps/SRE market gap from within this course's scope — which is the correct answer, not a failure of the analysis. The course is doing its job (teaching the TCP/IP stack); the DevOps/SRE skills the market wants belong in separate courses on Linux systems administration, containers/orchestration, infrastructure-as-code, CI/CD, and SRE practice. Recommending that this networking course bolt on Docker, Kubernetes, Terraform, or Prometheus would violate the extend-only rule, the depth bound, and the course's pedagogical intent. The honest curricular recommendation is upstream of Topics: add dedicated DevOps/SRE coursework to the program, and keep this course focused on protocol mechanics. Note also that the Auditor's flagged VPN content (PPTP/L2TP as 'most common', IPsec mandatory in IPv6, RFC 7320/2822 citations, Java applets) should be corrected per the suggested replacements — but those are correctness fixes, not market-driven prescriptions, so they do not appear here.