Teacher-targeted and publicly accessible by URL. Keep this page out of learner handouts until first responses are collected. The cases are fresh relative to lessons, not secure exams. If prior access matters, author a new parallel fiction. Pointing, speech/sign/AAC, drawing and adult-directed placement can show the same HASS target; record exact support. The author observed no real child/classroom outcome. Never score a child for declining personal/local disclosure.
Day 45 · Sage Room
- Drawing/location: Source 1 actually draws a long low shelf with two legs at left and round mat at right. A child may point to the pictured shapes or use full verbal alternatives; mere colour naming is unnecessary. No square label appears on the drawing.
- People/source types: Nell requests a square label above the shelf (Source 2). Ari plans to try a square label tomorrow (Source 3). These are distinct speakers and neither utterance reports installation.
- Unsupported result: No source shows a square label already above the shelf. The drawing lacks it; request and future plan do not add it. If a child marks the plan as a report, reread “will try” and ask for a later observation.
- Open question: Accept “Did Ari put the label up?”, “Was it square?”, “Could someone see/use it?” or a specific later-source question. A sound conclusion is “Source 1 draws shelf left and mat right; Nell requests and Ari plans a square label; whether a label was placed is unknown.” Even a new story note would still be fictional, not a real classroom result.
Next move: Sort a new fictional DRAWN / REQUESTED / PLANNED / REPORTED set on broad paper. For a child who has the distinction, ask what real approved source could show whether a feature actually helped someone. Never infer a real familiar-place or family-event outcome from this check.
Day 50 · Horizon Room
- Map and time: Source 1 draws WIDE DESK LEFT and TWO PAPER POCKETS RIGHT on Story Day 1. Source 2 is Lea's same-day plan to maybe move one. Source 3 is Noah's Story Day 2 note. The paper model is not a real map or safe route; do not force an order between the two Day 1 sources.
- Plan versus report: Lea says “might move,” an intention. Noah later writes “I saw one pocket beside the desk,” an attributed fictional report. It supports that one narrator reports a new position within this story; it does not show who moved it or whether another pocket stayed right. If a child says Lea certainly acted, ask where that is reported; it is not.
- Views: Jae likes that pocket by the desk; Mina prefers two together on the right. Mina's preference does not refute Noah's reported sighting. Different wishes can coexist with a report; neither view speaks for everybody or measures use.
- Conclusion/question: A is source-bound. B invents benefit to everyone. No real use or benefit is shown. Accept a question such as “Did anyone actually use the moved pocket?”, “Who moved it?”, “Where was the other pocket later?” or “Did a real approved change help different users?” A genuine real-world effect needs approved, dated observation and appropriately gathered views; these fictional cards cannot supply that.
Next move: For confusion, lay five whole source pages under DRAWING / PLAN / LATER REPORT / JAE VIEW / MINA VIEW. For strong evidence, ask which claim needs a second viewpoint or real observation and why. K03 remains partial; K01/K02/K04 remain open authentic-source work.
Private teacher recording line
Keep day, exact child first response/point, source named, route and adult support, one evidenced strength, one unresolved distinction and next teaching move under school privacy rules. Never upload completed child records to this public pack.