C17 · A boundary needs a rule
Complete source: Original fiction. A paper card rests with its edge touching a drawn goal boundary. Reporter Lee says “The edge touches the boundary”; reporter Mo says “It is not wholly inside.” They describe the same card and same view. The game rule says “Reach the goal” but does not say whether touching its boundary counts. No winner, score, player preference or later rule is supplied.
Own invitation: Can both position reports fit? What rule question would help?
Worked possibility and a different next teaching invitation
Source-supported possibility: Both position descriptions fit the supplied touching/not-wholly-inside position. Whether that earns a point is a rule question left undecided; it is not proof one observer is wrong. A proposal about boundary counting can be sensible but must be marked new, not a source fact.
Unknown/limits: Keep every missing force, path, future attempt, actual child operation and player response within this source’s stated limits. A complete fictional record is source evidence, not performed-investigation evidence.
Full next teaching: Use C09’s explicit wholly-inside rule and recorded inside result. Ask how the clearer rule changes what can be concluded in that different story. Listen for observation versus rule, not a demanded winner or preference.