These original examples give a second and third life-domain doorway into each day's HASS source skill. They are practice, never compulsory homework or the held check sources. All places, accounts, signs and people below are invented. The example answer is worked, then a child can try a new one. No family/community practice, cultural motif, physical effect or classroom event is inferred.
| Day | Worked swap 1 | Worked swap 2 |
|---|---|---|
| 31 | Paper cinema: an invitation says “Tomorrow we plan a shadow-card show.” It answers what is planned; it cannot say whether anyone attended. | Toy train museum: a notice invites toys to see a cardboard carriage next day. It gives a future purpose, not an attendance count. |
| 32 | Fictional clinic poster: “Please come tomorrow” is an invitation; “we plan one large poster by desk” is a plan; whether it appeared is unknown. | Pretend market: a seller plans two broad paper labels above stall. The plan states intended labels, not that buyers saw them. |
| 33 | Paper theatre: Day 1 invitation and stage plan precede a Day 2 narrator's note. A two-stage story names the note's speaker. | Make-believe exhibition: Day 1 catalogue plan, Day 2 visitor note. The note goes later even if the visit date is fictional. |
| 34 | Toy library: a narrator says “I saw a blue shelf sign” but never mentions the planned return box. Conclude the sign was reported, box unknown. | Fictional garden sketch show: a note reports one drawn leaf card but not a planned table. Do not infer any living plant or physical garden. |
| 35 | After Check A only — paper hat show: a plan places hats on wall; a later voice reports a red hat there. What happened to a planned tray remains unknown. | After Check A only — puppet picture show: invitation, plan, attributed note are three different source types; one note does not prove every plan detail. |
| 36 | Invented book nook: Bo likes large lettering; Lee would prefer a table display. Attribute each to that speaker; other readers remain unknown. | Fictional sports display: Kim likes a big number card; Dev would rather see an action drawing. Two views are not a whole team's view. |
| 37 | Paper bakery logo: a note describes a wavy mark; a visitor likes it. Neither says why the maker drew it; ask the maker or an approved source. | Toy astronomy panel: a note names a dot card and a visitor's view, but neither establishes a scientist's explanation or cultural meaning. |
| 38 | Pretend museum: Al would prefer a large label at table. “Could consider a table label” is a proposal; “it helped every reader” needs real evidence. | Paper music corner: Jo wants a quieter cue card. A suggested cue is not a measured sensory effect or music-learning result. |
| 39 | Fictional plant-card show: source A invites, source C reports a drawn leaf card, source E prefers another display. Narrate each without claiming a real plant. | Toy repair exhibit: invitation planned a model, later note reports a cardboard wheel, visitor prefers a label. The three-source story still cannot prove actual ease of use. |
| 40 | After Check B only — pretend book rack: a drawing shows one broad label, a maker proposes another, a speaker wants it. No second label is shown. | After Check B only — paper games shelf: a plan suggests a wide box; a visitor wishes for it. Neither source proves a box was added or improved access. |
If a child transfers a practice answer to a check, redirect: “Which exact words on this new card say that?” Keep first responses and support notes separate from post-feedback retries.