# Teacher-targeted public key and response moves · Days 15 and 20

**Public-key warning:** This key is **public by URL**. Both checks are fresh relative to the practice set, **not secure exams**. Gather child-controlled first responses before showing feedback; adapt a case if prior access matters. Credit supported pointing, drawing, AAC, speech, signing or child-directed adult card placement while recording the support. Fictional answers cannot satisfy K01 about the child's own family, K02 celebrations or K04 local First Nations Country/Place.

## Check A · Day 15 · New people source

**Exact source:** Vivi and Otis are **cousins**. Kio is **Otis's carer**. Kio was **born in Reed Town** and **raised in Lantern Town**. Sana **helps at a pretend book desk**. The source does not identify Sana as family; it does not state Vivi's or Otis's birthplace. All people/places are invented.

**Expected answers:** A stated family relation is Vivi–Otis, cousins. A room role is Sana, book-desk helper; Kio's carer role may also be cited if the child distinguishes it from a stated biological/legal relationship. The exact two-frame timeline is **BORN → Reed Town; RAISED → Lantern Town**. A respectful missing-detail question could be “Would Vivi like to tell us where they were born?” or “Does the source say whether Sana is family?” The evidence-bound conclusion can be “Vivi and Otis are cousins; the card does not tell us where either was born,” or equivalent. No invented answer for a missing town/relationship.

**Next moves:** If a child puts Lantern Town in both frames, reread the two different source terms with big cards. If they infer Sana is an aunt from helping, ask for the exact source words and model “unknown.” If they ask another child for private information, redirect to the fictional card and remind them that family sharing is optional/private. A child who can state an unknown is demonstrating source care, not incomplete work. Record no own-family K01 evidence from this page.

## Check B · Day 20 · Paper Nook change

**Exact source geometry:** EARLIER ENTRY bottom, BOX centre, BOOK SPACE right; LATER ENTRY bottom, BOX left, BOOK SPACE right, centre open in the **drawing**. Fictional **Mika** likes open centre; fictional **Lio** liked box in centre. These are attributed views, not an observed real visitor response.

**Expected answers:** BOX moved from centre earlier to left later. ENTRY stayed bottom; BOOK SPACE stayed right (either is acceptable). A two-frame narrative says earlier the box occupied centre; later it moved left while the named unchanged feature remained. Mika is attributed to the open-centre preference; Lio to the earlier box-in-centre preference. A supported conclusion is “The later drawing has an open centre,” or “The two speakers prefer different arrangements.” The source does **not** prove the later place is safer, more accessible, liked by all, visited by real people or more effective for reading. A good next question is “How would an actual visitor use a school-approved place?” with school privacy/access review; no child has to visit it.

**Next moves:** If left/right are reversed, anchor the printed ENTRY bottom and read page-relative columns together. If a child reports a physical change as witnessed, point out both frames are invented drawings. If they say a preference is everyone's opinion, count the two named speakers only and invite a new hypothetical question. If they treat an open path as a certified safety/access solution, require real local expertise and observation before such a claim. Record K03 only as partial fictional-place reasoning; authentic familiar-place evidence remains local.