Twenty worked optional swaps · varied everyday contextsFoundation Science · T3 W27–28 · Optional Practice

Choose one only when it helps reteach or extend the day's same goal. Every outcome below is an explicitly FICTIONAL MODEL unless a genuinely approved local sample/source is separately logged; no printed story becomes classroom evidence. The fresh assessment cases stay unseen until first independent responses. No family job, possession, cultural object, disability, home material or purchase is assumed.

Day 131

1. Book-corner label drawing. A fictional label has a plain left block and dots at right, with no material source. Worked report: “I can name the two pictured regions; I cannot tell whether the sign is paper, fabric or something else.”
2. Community-hall poster drawing. A big square shows two colours separated by a line. Worked report: “Two drawn colours are not proof of two physical materials.”

Day 132

1. Tool-library sleeve model. An invented maker note says paper card is under a broad clear sheet; the hidden join is not named. Worked report: “In the fictional maker's note, two components are reported; I leave the join unknown.”
2. Art-room folder model. A pretend maker says a cloth patch is attached to a card folder; the drawing alone shows only a patch shape. Worked report: “Material identity comes from the fictional attributed note, not from colour.”

Day 133

1. Approved class sample if genuinely present. A school-approved broad material square is directly viewed after provenance and access checks; no result is supplied here. Worked report: “Write the real local date, exact visible feature and independently verified material label, or MATERIAL UNKNOWN.”
2. Museum-card paper model. A drawing has close stripes, but no one saw a physical surface. Worked report: “Drawn stripes can be described as marks, not tactile ridges or fabric.”

Day 134

1. Maker-table three-sample model. One drawn plain card, one reported ribbed cloth and one reported ribbed paper-based craft card are listed. Worked report: “The two reported ribbed samples share that feature but have different reported materials; ‘ribbed means cloth’ fails in this model.”
2. School-display model. One fictional swatch is covered, so its appearance cannot be checked. Worked report: “Keep it NOT VIEWED rather than forcing it into a ribbed/no-ribs bin.”

Day 135

1. After-check bus-stop notice model. A large invented notice shows a pale top and dark bottom; maker information is absent. Worked report: “The two colour regions are visible on paper; the physical material remains unverified.”
2. After-check garden-marker model. An invented sign diagram has a wavy border and a blank centre. Worked report: “A drawn border is a visible mark, not proof that a real edge feels wavy.”

Day 136

1. Bakery display model. A fictional maker is asked “Which part is card, and what source confirms that?” and answers only “I don't know.” Worked report: “Record the exact uncertainty; do not fill it with a picture guess.”
2. Clinic notice-board model. A pretend maker replies “I used a broad cloth panel,” but gives no backing information. Worked report: “Attribute cloth to the imagined maker and keep backing UNKNOWN.”

Day 137

1. Ferry terminal board model. A fictional note reports a clear plastic cover; a drawing shows parallel lines under it. Worked report: “Maker-reported cover material and drawn lines are different source fields; neither tells me the hidden join.”
2. Toy-stage backdrop model. A pretend maker says the backing is card; the observer note says the front appears striped. Worked report: “Keep the two reports attributed; do not state that the child directly felt either part.”

Day 138

1. Actual new sample only if supplied. A teacher offers a verified broad clean sample after approval; the child predicts a visible feature before viewing. Worked report: “Compare only the genuine earlier prediction with the genuine later recorded appearance; results are local, not supplied here.”
2. Archive-box paper model. An invented child points to lines first and writes “I predicted ribs” afterwards. Worked report: “That was after the picture; record NO PRIOR PREDICTION, not a successful prediction.”

Day 139

1. Community art-board model. A fictional caption says every dotted region is cloth after seeing one drawn dotted patch. Worked report: “A paper dot and one example cannot support a rule for every cloth or board.”
2. Library repair-folder model. A pretend source lists a card cover and a fabric hinge with one hidden attachment. Worked report: “In this invented source, name the reported visible components, keep the join unknown and share privately.”

Day 140

1. After-check sports-hall marker model. Two fictional maker-labelled surfaces look smooth in the picture but one is card and one is woven cloth. Worked report: “Same pictured smooth appearance does not require the same reported material.”
2. After-check post-office box model. A drawn box has a ribbed top and plain side, but no maker/packaging source. Worked report: “Sort the depicted regions by drawn lines only; leave material identity UNKNOWN and propose a safe source.”

Original worked models © 2026 NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd, SubjectNest, CC BY 4.0. A real sample or interview needs its own approval, provenance, date, consent and raw record.