Every context here is an original fictional paper case unless the teacher substitutes a locally approved, dated actual source and records its true result. Worked answers illustrate reasoning; they are not classroom findings. No child data, cleaning chemicals or actual safety signs are involved.
Day 31
- Art gallery label: A pretend card says “This ink never changes” beside a dark bar. Worked: the statement is a claim, not evidence; ask about one approved surface/mark after one adult dry wipe.
- Library display: A fictional sign says “Best surface!” with no test. Worked: “best” needs a job and an actual comparison; do not infer an observable property from advertising language.
Day 32
- Theatre board: Adult plans one dry pass on a broad approved practice panel. Worked: possible after local preflight; record mark, material, date, cloth and action before result.
- Exit corridor: A puppet proposes wiping the real exit sign. Worked: decline; preserve official sign and test only a teacher-made practice sample under school rules.
Day 33
- Craft display model: An artist draws a pale after-line. Worked: describe the drawing, but mark REAL OBSERVATION NOT AVAILABLE for this classroom surface.
- Quiet desk report: Adult says a real safe mark became smudged while child did not see it. Worked: record exact dated source/action and ADULT REPORT, not the child's direct sight.
Day 34
- Noticeboard idea: Two invented results differ, but one mark dried overnight and another for one minute. Worked: drying time differs; no material-only cause is established.
- Game card surface: Two approved real samples have unknown materials. Worked: actual after-marks may be compared if safely tested, but material stays UNKNOWN until verified.
Day 35
- Paper museum: An invented poster shows three bold stripes after a drawn wiping arrow. Worked: arrows and stripes are paper marks, not actual wipes or proof that a surface keeps ink.
- Class play: Ask whether a preflighted broad practice card would retain a dry mark after one adult pass. Worked: good specific question; prediction is allowed, actual result remains NOT TESTED.
Day 36
- Tile art: square-circle-square-circle repeats. Worked: this is a drawn design sequence; it contains no dated physical-test results.
- Sports score sheet: Three fictional after-mark rows show thin/thin/blank. Worked: two paper rows match, one differs; no real surface pattern is established.
Day 37
- Poster workshop: Teacher can safely wipe only two of three prepared marks. Worked: record two actual outcomes and Trial 3 NOT TESTED; do not fill a third from expectation.
- Music board: Three real marks are tested, but Trial 2 gets two passes. Worked: record each result and the changed action; they are not three comparable one-pass results.
Day 38
- Garden-label prototype: Three fictional cards have the same drawn after-mark. Worked: only the invented drawings repeat; no local material claim follows.
- Book-cover sample: Three actual dated trials with same setup each show a lighter mark. Worked: say “all three recorded marks looked lighter in these tries”; don't claim every book cover behaves so.
Day 39
- Bus-stop practice poster: Only a paper claim and no approved trial exist. Worked report: “The poster says the mark stays. We have not tested an actual surface. Next ask a teacher for a safe practice sample.”
- Puppet science talk: A real dated log has one wipe result and no repeats. Worked report: state that one result and condition; do not describe a three-trial pattern.
Day 40
- Mailroom label: A future trial mat has three empty rows. Worked: a plan is not data; mark each row NOT TESTED until an approved action and observation occur.
- Play shop: Three actual rows use different ink and cloths. Worked: describe exact outcomes if real, but changed conditions limit a single material-property explanation.
Original worked cases © 2026 NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd, CC BY 4.0.