Use only after the first independent response is stored. The checks are formative source/method samples, not marks, diagnosis, efficacy evidence or a whole Foundation achievement decision. There is no fixed local material result: actual bending depends on safe materials, joins, grip and apparatus. The paper cases cannot establish a genuine property or route outcome. If no approved actual run occurred, write REAL OBSERVATION NOT AVAILABLE. An attributed ADULT REPORT is not the child's own direct sense; a raised paper diagram remains a model.
Day 105 · Case V
- Strong bounded response: ONE is paper; TWO has the same paper front plus card backing. TWO's far edge rested on a support ledge, while ONE was clear of the table. Thus the paper tip positions BELOW and ABOVE do not isolate backing as the cause, even within the made-up case. No actual material observation occurred.
- Fairer next source: adult-approved, pretested low tabletop setup with clean large secure pieces, same outline, grip line, hand height, angle, support/no support and reference band; only backing differs. Record local date, source/access, every raw tip position and interruption. A real result may match, differ or be unclear.
- Do not credit: actual AC9SFI02 investigation, a universal card-stiffness rule, height measured in units, a claim that TWO's backing caused its drawn position, or a classroom result from V.
- Next teaching move: if child misses the ledge, name the support on each strip; if they spot the confound, ask for a child-directed fair plan; if they call the case actual, restore FICTIONAL MODEL/source label.
Day 110 · Case W
- Strong bounded response: paper-only and paper-plus-card constructions are named. The valid model positions are AT/BELOW and BELOW/AT: each construction has one AT and one BELOW entry. SLEEVE SLIPPED remains on the raw sheet as INTERRUPTED and does not become a valid tip position. The page provides no prior prediction. It does not show one construction always stays higher, and the route sketch supplies no actual viewer response.
- Two different next sources: (1) a school-approved safe real material test with local date, same grip/support/action, prior prediction if actually recorded, and raw actual tip positions; (2) a separately approved supervised real route-marker/access check with named safe viewpoint, willing viewer, consent, date and exact response. The first cannot substitute for the second. If either is unavailable, mark that observation NOT AVAILABLE.
- Do not credit: actual AC9SFI02 material observation, measured stiffness, classroom wayfinding, “every visitor” access, or a prior-prediction comparison that was never recorded.
- Next teaching move: if child counts slipped entry, sort VALID/INTERRUPTED; if they assert a backed winner, pair the two identical sets of positions; if they infer visitor success, ask who actually viewed a sign and when.
Interpretation: AC9SFU03 asks about material composition and observable properties. Naming two materials in a fictional case is composition-source reasoning, but a genuine property judgment needs genuine approved observation. A material lift cannot certify design accessibility or a safe route. These two checks alone do not establish term/year mastery, growth, local authority approval or educator efficacy.