Do not use as a spoken script during the held checks. This is a flexible formative interpretation, not a fixed high-stakes rubric. Preserve a child's defensible wording and note source/access evidence. The fictional cases cannot certify AC9SFI02 real investigation, actual local features, year mastery, growth or a universal biological rule. REAL OBSERVATION NOT AVAILABLE remains the truthful status for a paper-only check.
Day 145 · Case AF
Expected paper sort: F2 and F3 visibly have the invented three-tooth zigzag edge; F1 and F4 have the broad smooth edge. F2 is an author-labelled plant drawing and therefore defeats “every zigzag drawing is an animal mask drawing” inside this fictional page. A bounded repair is “On this page, a zigzag edge appears in one author-labelled plant drawing and one animal mask drawing; the edge alone does not tell the author's label.” The paper supplies no direct observation of an actual plant or animal and no species fact.
Look for separately: (1) the one visible rule is named; (2) both zigzag placements and a smooth placement are defensible; (3) F2 plus its author label are cited as counterexample; (4) the repair is restricted to the invented page; (5) real evidence is requested as distinct approved plant/animal views with source and date. A child may use “jagged” for zigzag if they point to the correct broad edge. If the child says F2 is really an animal, ask later who supplied that label; record the first response intact. Do not mark a motor or speech access route as lesser evidence.
Next move: If sorting works but source limit is missed, contrast drawing with a labelled rights-cleared real photo later. If the child sees F2 but retains “every,” revisit what one counterexample does to a broad word. No fixed local organism answer exists in this case.
Day 150 · Case AG
Expected paper record: V1 and V2 visibly show four large spots; V3's broad leaf drawing shows none in its supplied full view; V4 is unclear/not viewed for body spots because a flap covers them. V1 is an author-labelled plant drawing and defeats “every four-spotted drawing is an animal puppet drawing” in this invented source. A bounded repair is “Both V1 and V2 show four spots on this page; the spots alone do not decide the author's plant/animal drawing label. I cannot say whether V4 has spots under the flap.” Do not describe V4 as unspotted.
Look for separately: (1) visible spot rule; (2) two seen, one not seen in the full fictional view, one unclear; (3) V1 named counterexample; (4) source-bounded repair; (5) safe next real-source plan: two distinct approved real plants and two distinct actual animals or rights-cleared real-animal photos, with date, origin/view/access and no interference. A photo can support a feature visible in it, not a live local observation. An adult description is ADULT REPORT, not the child's own direct sensory observation. If the child offers one subject photographed twice, explain later that it remains one subject. A child's “I don't know under the flap” is accurate.
Next move: If V4 is forced into “no spots,” rehearse a full/hidden-view pair without exposing Case AG again. If the child repeats the author rule after seeing V1, use a new nonliving practice counterexample. Do not infer progress from the two paper checks alone; save the exact first-response and teacher supports.
Original interpretive key © 2026 NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd, SubjectNest, CC BY 4.0.