# Twenty worked optional swaps · varied everyday contexts

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](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). A real sample or interview needs its own approval, provenance, date, consent and raw record.