Keep first words, point/sign/AAC/drawing, source/date/access, support and prompt separate from feedback. A “cannot tell”, “not tested” or pass is not converted into an invented score. These checks choose a next teaching move, not a complete ACARA or achievement-standard judgment. There is no fixed real result: approved surfaces, ink, cloth and conditions differ.
Day 35
Actual sample: The “will not change” sentence is a claim/prediction until a safe real trial. Accept any exact genuine post-wipe description (unchanged, lighter, gone, smeared, partly changed, cannot tell, other), attributed as DIRECT or ADULT REPORT. If no safe wipe occurred, NOT TESTED is required. The result can support or contradict the claim for this surface/mark/one pass only, not every material. The adult verifies material or marks UNKNOWN. A prediction said after the wipe is labelled post-action and should not be retroactively scored as a prior prediction.
Paper board: Left square has two full bars; right square has one full and one short broken bar, joined by a drawn arrow. The board depicts a possible change but contains no real wipe/source/result. Today is a model-use date. A cautious child may say, “The drawing changed; I do not know what a real surface would do.” Do not credit the paper case as AC9SFU03 actual material-property or AC9SFI02 actual investigation evidence.
Next move: If child accepts printed claim as proof, place CLAIM and RESULT in separate boxes. If direct versus adult report is confused, label who saw the mark. If “always” persists after one try, ask about another approved source/condition. If the child accurately bounds a result, offer three safe repeat trials later.
Day 40
Actual three trials: Use the genuine Trial 1/2/3 records. No outcome is fixed by the key. If all three occurred under sufficiently comparable documented conditions, the child can describe “in these three tries, [actual pattern]”, including mixed results; it is not a universal surface rule. If fewer than three actual comparable rows or changed action/ink/drying/cloth conditions, INSUFFICIENT COMPARABLE OBSERVATIONS is an accurate response for a three-trial pattern. Compare prediction with each actual result only where the prediction preceded the action. Attribute neutral adult description as ADULT REPORT, not the child's own direct sight.
Fictional Z cards: Z1 and Z2 draw dotted after-hooks; Z3 draws a solid after-hook. Z2 says TWO passes while Z1/Z3 say ONE, so its written condition differs. All are invented and lack actual dated surface trials, so REAL OBSERVATION NOT AVAILABLE for a local pattern. The child may group drawn marks or point out condition differences, but must not claim physical erasing or compare a prediction with these invented after-words as though observed.
Next move: If child equates an AB decorative line sequence with repeated tests, lay out three source/date/action/result rows. If they fill a missing row, practise NOT TESTED. If they say “all materials”, ask which exact surface/ink/action was used. If they carefully explain an inconsistent actual set, invite another safe matched trial when locally appropriate.
Keep child records in school-approved private systems, never this public pack. Original key © 2026 NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd, CC BY 4.0.