Use: This key is public by URL. Both checks are first-response formative tasks, not secure exams. Accept design reasoning by speech, sign, AAC, drawing, pointing, exact scribing or child-directed adult action. Log content prompts, actual material handler and exact willing listener action separately. A plan-only response may show strong design reasoning without physical making or user testing.
Check A · Day 95 · Label Reader Guide
Held source: Fictional TRY 1 with a large CIRCLE label is COMPLETE, and its pretend reader selected CIRCLE CARD. Fictional TRY 2 with a SQUARE label is INTERRUPTED because the pretend reader left before a choice; NO CARD SELECTED is supplied. None is a classroom reading assessment or a real user trial of the child's proposed service.
Expected reasoning: Two distinguishable services, such as all prompts on one large card versus ASK → CHECK STATUS → TELL in sequence, or a word-and-shape source/status cue versus spoken questioning. Choice must connect to the named new listener, not a universal preference. From this source only, the completed pretend try supports the fictional CIRCLE CARD selection. TRY 2 cannot support a SQUARE CARD selection or any other selection. A real willing listener would have to use an approved cue service and respond for a user-effect claim. No prior service result is printed.
Next moves: If the child fills TRY 2 with SQUARE because of its label, revisit the separate words label and selected after saving first work. If two ideas only differ in colour, ask for a changed prompt order, status wording, source cue or access route. If the child says everyone will understand, ask whose actual response was recorded. Adult-supplied ideas remain prompts, not independent child designs.
Check B · Day 100 · Pattern Sample Guide
Held source: Fictional SAMPLE A — DAY 1 has TWO CIRCLES. Fictional SAMPLE B — DATE UNKNOWN has TWO CIRCLES AND ONE TRIANGLE. The child may describe the shapes in B and the printed difference, but there is no real learner, comparable two-date series or evidence of improvement. No consented real portfolio or reader result is supplied.
Expected design evidence: Two genuinely different ASK/CHECK/TELL arrangements for a named listener, user-linked choice, adult-approved clean broad blunt paper and access gate, optional child marking/positioning only under adult supervision or accurate adult-directed/plan route, and a source/date warning before any learning-over-time statement. If no actual material action or willing reader try occurred, mark physical making and reader effect NOT TRIED. One real listener's exact response could support only that interaction.
Conditional truth key: It is supported to say “This fictional Sample B drawing shows two circles and one triangle” and “The date of B is unknown.” It is not supported to say that a real child improved from Day 1 to B, that the drawings were made by the same real child, or that a listener learned from the designed cues. Genuine dated, permission-cleared and comparable samples plus an actual child's explanation would be needed for a local portfolio claim. A Design cue alone does not establish Mathematics, English, Arts or Science achievement. No prior reader result is printed.
Next moves: If the child claims improvement, ask which real learner, sample date and comparable task are verified; none are here. If the source labels are hard for a particular real listener, let that listener choose spoken, larger word/shape or tactile-description access and record their exact response if tried. A content prompt supplied by an adult is logged. Keep any real child work private under school policy.
Compact evidence note: record user/purpose; two distinct service ideas; choice/reason; source/status reading; adult safety/material preparation; actual cue maker/holder; exact willing listener response or NOT TRIED; revision/unknown; access route and content prompts. Do not score a fictional record as an observed classroom result.