Use after first capture. These are possible responses/evidence distinctions, not an aesthetic answer key. Record independent/support response, actual maker and process, source type/date, direct view/report, intent and audience status. Do not infer learning style, diagnosis or a term grade. Pauses/follow-up are valid; accuracy about evidence takes priority over speed.
Check AA
Fixed source: upper and lower broad horizontal bands; separate vertical strip at right; no source crossing result or intent. At a front crossing vertical strip covers the horizontal band. At a behind crossing horizontal band covers vertical strip. One of each is interlaced; front/front or behind/behind is a different chosen layer arrangement, with interlacing evidence not secure.
Possible response: “The bands go across. I want my strip front at the upper band and behind the lower, like a line diving.” Child draws/directs that source-aware original composition and names an actual drawing or physical panel/plan accurately. Lower-front/upper-behind is equally valid. Any personally chosen meaning is valid; no specified emotion, colour, neatness or universal symbol is correct.
Look for one source feature; coherent chosen front/behind relationships; original art intent/choice; truthful actual process. A dictated diagram counts as child-directed art when directions are theirs, with adult contribution recorded. PLAN ONLY supplies development evidence, not actual interlaced making. A paper snag/adult setup issue does not prove a child lacks the idea.
Next teaching: if front/behind insecure, isolate one crossing and read which piece covers which; child decides then verify actual occlusion. If choices all stacked, invite one behind decision in later practice without changing their first recorded response. If source/art blurred, sort “given two bands” versus “my hiding line”. If status blurred, show actual drawing and explain its pictured construction has not been made.
Check AB
Fixed source: invented dates 4/5/6 May 2026; 4 two vertical bands; 5 horizontal front-left/behind-right; 6 same crossings plus broad lower-right curve. The change 4→5 is added strip; 5→6 is added curve. Dates sequence the fictional source only. No actual durability, purpose, cultural tradition, willingness or delivery is shown.
Possible response: “A curve was added. I don’t know who really made it; these are pretend pictures. My card will show my own two strips, a big curve on the left, and keeping it for myself.” Three child-directed drawings with short labels can be actual completed maker-card artwork; their unmade interlaced panel remains PLAN ONLY. A child could instead choose plain art, another crossing order or a willing-recipient intention. The first selected design is not prescribed.
Look for bounded source change/unknown; own art decision distinguishable from source; three-picture communication or explicitly unmade card plan; correct actual/date/creator/use status. A willingness statement needs a real freely agreeing viewer and sharing record; self-review is not audience evidence. E01 remains partial/conditional on actual encountered work and maker purpose, not automatically proved by fictional stage chronology.
Next teaching: if chronology/change insecure, mask all but two exact source pictures and describe differences one at a time. If guide too dense, keep three broad pictures and one chosen crossing per prompt. If source labels treated as actual work dates, separate a fictional-source card from today’s actual response record. If imagined audience treated as actual, practise “chosen use” versus “agreement/delivery NOT OBSERVED”. A child’s private choice remains valid art practice.
Conservative evidence summary
D01: exploring choices and developing ideas, with process/status. C01: actual original drawing/collage/panel/card that communicates child intent; no made-work credit for unmade plan. P01: actual optional willing audience only. E01: actual encounter and particular maker purpose/importance, with child response; this pack alone does not provide community/cultural breadth. Teachers review current full curriculum/local assessment programme and actual evidence before any achievement judgement.