Teacher-targeted and publicly accessible by URL. Keep this page out of learner handouts until first responses are collected. These checks are fresh compared with lesson cases, not secure exams. If prior access matters, author a new parallel fiction. Allow pointing, speech/sign/AAC, drawing and adult-directed placement as equivalent target evidence; record exact support. No real child/classroom outcome was observed by the author. Never score a child for declining a personal or local disclosure.
Day 35 · Cloud Room
- Source order/type: Sources 1 and 2 are both Story Day 1; Source 1 is invitation, Source 2 is plan. Source 3 is Story Day 2 and is an after-note. Do not force an unsupported order between the two Day 1 sources. If a child reverses days, use the printed Story Day labels and rebuild the broad two-stage timeline.
- Report and attribution: Fictional Sol writes that they saw one triangle card on the blue rail. It is Sol's attributed statement in a made-up case, not this class's direct observation. If the child says two cards or a table card, return to Sol's exact words.
- Table-box limit: Source 2 plans an empty broad box on the table; Source 3 does not mention the table box. Thus the note does not establish whether the box appeared. If the child says a plan proves an outcome, ask which later source states the box was there; none does.
- Question/conclusion: Accept “Was the box on the table?”, “How many cards were there altogether?” or “Did people come?” as missing-source questions. A valid conclusion can say “Sol reports one triangle card on blue rail; I cannot tell whether the planned table box was there.” Do not infer attendance or real event occurrence from the invitation.
Next move: If source types blur, sort a new invented invitation/plan/after-note with broad fields. If secure chronology is strong, ask which extra source could answer a remaining question. This does not evidence a real family celebration, local event, place belonging or Country/Place teaching.
Day 40 · Quiet Card Nook
- Source sort: Source 1 draws WIDE TABLE left and LABEL STRIP right, with no box. Source 2 proposes one broad card box. Source 3 gives Umi's preference for the label strip. Source 4 gives Dex's wish for a box on the table. Accept source-labelled pointing, not only spoken sentence forms.
- Careful message: A is a possible message consistent with Source 2's “could add.” B invents a completed box and benefit to every visitor, neither drawn nor reported. If the child chooses B because Dex wants a box, ask whether wanting is the same as a completed change or a measured effect.
- Wish versus drawing: Dex would like a card box on the table. Source 1 draws only the table and label strip. No box is drawn or reported as added. The plan/wish are not a result.
- Real-source question/conclusion: Accept “Was a box added?”, “Did a person use it?”, “Could everyone reach a real display?” or another specific question requiring school-approved observation and access review. A source-bound conclusion names a drawn feature, plan or attributed view and an unshown outcome. Do not credit a claimed real safety/access improvement without real evidence.
Next move: If plan/wish/result blur, create a fresh four-field DRAWN / PROPOSED / VIEW / OBSERVED sort. If strong, compare two attributed views while explicitly leaving others unknown. To address real K03, separately plan a school-approved familiar-place source; to address K04, use locally authoritative cultural review. No paper check fulfils either automatically.
Private recording line
Keep day, source, child's exact first response or pointing, route and assistance, one evidenced strength, one unresolved distinction and next teaching move under school privacy rules. Never upload completed child records to this public pack.