# Twenty worked daily context swaps

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.