Use only after the first independent response is recorded. These are formative next-move guides, not marks, diagnosis, mastery certificates or claims of a classroom pilot. There is no fixed real-plant answer: an actual feature/result needs a school-approved known safe source, local date, comparable viewpoint, exact access and observation. A neutral ADULT REPORT supports participation but is not the child's direct sense. No paper/tactile model can establish a local plant feature or actual sensory investigation.
Day 65 · Case J
- Strong bounded paper response: ONE shows four pointed marks; TWO shows three visible marks because the striped flap covers the upper-right corner of the same page. The source says the author has not erased a mark. Therefore the fourth mark is hidden in this paper view, not proven absent from a real plant. Case J supplies no actual plant/date or change.
- Reasonable next question: “What external feature is genuinely visible on one school-approved plant from a safe marked place today?” Identify actual source/date/view/access and one feature or UNKNOWN. If a second real view is possible later, record its own date and any changed conditions. Do not force contact or assume a missing feature.
- Do not award: “A real leaf fell off”; a real species identification; Day 65 actual AC9SFU01 content or AC9SFI02 safe investigation from J alone; a prior prediction made after seeing the page.
- Next move: if hidden/absent is merged, repeat with broad fixed paper flap; if source category is weak, contrast paper/model with a genuine attributed dated school view; if clear, plan a safe second viewpoint without claiming the plant changed.
Day 70 · Case K
- Strong bounded paper response: EARLIER page shows two scalloped marks; LATER page shows three, and the second page is twice print size. The author labels both from the mark, but no real plant, actual date or method is supplied. We may compare paper marks and note scale; we cannot say a real leaf appeared or a plant grew. The same-view label is not a verified real observation.
- Reasonable next check: record two genuinely approved views of the same real plant from a stable position, on distinct actual local dates, attending to the same visible feature; record source, access and changed conditions. Write a prediction before the second view, then compare with its actual observation if both exist. “Same”, “different” or “unclear” may all be supported by the resulting evidence.
- Do not award: a biological growth claim from page size/count; AC9SFI04 actual prediction comparison from fictional pages; a grouping claim from one plant; content mastery of animals. If actual views exist but differ in angle, say INCOMPARABLE or limit the claim.
- Next move: if child focuses only on 2/3 marks, ask what source type the pages are; if scale is missed, show two broad fixed cards; if source discipline is strong, make a private cautious comparison of genuine local records.
Interpretation: AC9SFU01's full wording covers external features of plants and animals and grouping. This pack's genuine plant observations and two-plant grouping, when available, are partial evidence; neither check alone covers the whole row. AC9SFI02 requires an actual safe sensory investigation. AC9SFI04 requires a genuinely earlier prediction and later actual observation. A model-only answer can show source reasoning but never a real plant result. When absent, record REAL OBSERVATION NOT AVAILABLE and the next safe opportunity, not inability or measured growth.