# Teacher-only evidence checks, rubric and next moves

Keep this separate from [learner cards](LEARNER-CARDS.md) and print aids. All named people/rooms are **fictional**. A source-card statement, a child's prediction, and an actual class observation must remain separate in records. There is no fixed result for a real paper-material test, a real peer's feedback or an approved device demonstration. Record `exact child response | actual/paper/fictional source | independent/prompted/not yet observed | access mode | next move`. The Design and Digital Technologies descriptions are **Years 1–2 band** descriptions and this fortnight gives partial evidence only. Tool-specific codes require actual approved use, not a paper promise.

| Day | Look for in the chosen task | Accurate interpretation | If incomplete, exact next move |
|---:|---|---|---|
| 11 | Known user's words, an unanswered question and a testable stand need. | Mina asks for three visible ordered story cards and a separate number card; source does not state a diagnosis, exact card size or actual table behaviour. A class mat test is new local evidence. | Re-read Mina's sentence, underline/point to her own need, then put an **unknown** card beside any added assumption. Recheck with a new fictional user brief. |
| 12 | Safe comparison of card movement on two arrangements, actual log. | No published “best material” answer. Child can say one card stayed/slid/tipped **in this test**, noting material/shape and hand angle may vary. | If prediction is reported as observation, place before/after cards apart and replay an approved gentle test. If unsafe handling appears, stop and model safe adult operation. |
| 13 | Two ideas, reason, first/next/last and making sequence. | Story event order: signs drawn → moved → clipped/mapped. `64` is six tens/four ones **in the invented model**, a different-format card. Making sequence should include safe material choice, build, test and revision. | If both ideas are identical, offer a different fold/slot model without choosing for the learner. If sequence omits test, put a blank test card before the final-share card and ask what it would show. |
| 14 | Prototype, actual first result, one named change, actual retest. | Card 14's question is **fictional**; only class test tells what this stand did. A stable or unstable result can both support learning. | If “better” lacks evidence, ask where middle card was before/after. If two features changed, say the test cannot isolate one cause, then choose a single feature for the next trial. |
| 15 | Stand/plan meets a user brief, ordered story and separate number card, safe making/test evidence, transfer. | `68` is six tens/eight ones in **fictional** card content. Success means a tester can find order and distinguish the number card in this setup; the result can be partial. Transfer changes a design for two cards/no clip and names a still-needed test. | Use the [Week 3 rubric](#week-3-assignment-rubric). If the child can design but not safely build, preserve design evidence and schedule an adult-assisted making trial; if transfer is copied unchanged, reread new constraint and ask which component depended on the clip. |
| 16 | User need, actual device components if used, paper/system distinction, data question. | Kai asks for STORY/NUMBER choice and a clear output, but no diagnosis or actual location is known. On an actual device, input is choice/tap/key and output is changed display; paper can model that relation but cannot demonstrate digital operation. Some apps/sites store personal data online; check the **specific** tool. | If child calls paper a functioning digital system, trace a real approved device interaction later. If child says “every app stores everything,” replace with **some may** and ask how a trusted adult checks before use. |
| 17 | Both branches and `not clear` return path. | A valid trace is START → choose STORY or NUMBER → matching output → ask `clear?` → if no return and revise one cue; if yes END. `80` is invented number output, not stock. | If both branches converge to the same output, run STORY and NUMBER with two different tokens and move one output card. If loop is missing, trace `not clear` and add a return arrow. |
| 18 | Distinct output representations, actual creation mode, test revision. | STORY can show three ordered rectangles and word/symbol; NUMBER can show `84` and eight tens/four ones in **fictional** data. Paper mock shows a design; `AC9TDI2P04` requires actual common digital-tool creation/location/communication. | If a numeral alone confuses the tester, ask what second representation would help this known task. If device feature was only operated by teacher without child direction, collect child-directed operation later and record help honestly. |
| 19 | Guided actual user test, one revision, privacy sort. | Original symbol and fictional `84` can be used under today's no-personal-data rule; real child photo and real name are excluded. Fictional feedback is not actual peer feedback. `AC9TDI2P05` requires actual guided digital sharing/collaboration and agreed behaviour, not paper partner work alone. | If source types blend, label `fictional quote` vs `peer said/did today`. If photo/name chosen, revisit no-personal-data rule and ask a trusted adult about the specific tool and permission. |
| 20 | Two matching outputs, valid branch/retry, evidence-led revision, privacy, transfer. | The guide can be paper or approved offline digital. A paper guide is a valid algorithm/design product **without** observed digital-tool use. New user's screen/sound constraint prompts a paper, tactile or adult-read option and a user question; no universal access fix is claimed. | Use the [Week 4 rubric](#week-4-assignment-rubric). If the algorithm has no return, trace a failed cue and revise. If child claims tool skills from paper, schedule supervised device practice. |

## Week 3 assignment rubric

Score each criterion `2 independently observed / 1 after a limited cue / 0 not yet observed with access available`, and record the **actual evidence**. Do not add scores into a fixed ability rank; a missing making observation under an access barrier is `not yet observed`, then change access.

| Criterion | Evidence for 2 | Precise next teaching if 0/1 |
|---|---|---|
| User-centred plan | Identifies Mina's stated three-card order, keeps separate number card, chooses one of two ideas with a reason. | Revisit source word-for-word, use three physical cards and a distinct number card; ask which design choice solves which need. |
| Safe making sequence | Gives a safe material/step/test order and participates through an appropriate maker or child-directed adult route. | Model one fold/placement with adult pre-cut pieces; child sequences two steps, then adds test. Do not infer hand skill from design reasoning. |
| Test and revision | Reports what a reader actually saw or where a card moved; changes one feature and retests or names why a retest is needed. | Separate fictional feedback from class result; place first/second trial records side by side and ask which observation drove change. |
| Communication and transfer | Presents first/next/last and `68` separately, then adapts a design for two cards/no clip and names what needs testing. | Use first/next/last symbols, then reveal the new constraint and ask which old part no longer applies. Later recheck with a different card size. |

**Later unfamiliar recheck:** Give a new explicitly fictional user with **four** cards on a narrow tray and no stiff card; ask the learner to sketch one adaptation, select a safe test and identify what remains unknown. The new brief is a transfer of design reasoning, not a claim that the original stand already meets it. A second independent making sample is needed before judging making skill across materials.

## Week 4 assignment rubric

Use the same `2 / 1 / 0 or not yet observed` recording rule for each distinct element. **Mark the tool mode.** A paper-only route can earn strong algorithm and user-design evidence; it cannot be counted as observed use/sharing of a digital tool.

| Criterion | Evidence for 2 | Precise next teaching if 0/1 |
|---|---|---|
| Known user/problem | States Kai's STORY/NUMBER choice and a question before assuming a real user's needs. | Re-read only Kai's quoted words; place unknown cards under any invented personal trait. |
| Algorithm | Traces sequence, two different branches, `not clear` return and END. | Give one token for each choice, trace both, then add the missing return arrow with child direction. |
| Data and meaning | Uses two suitable data forms in outputs, differentiates STORY from fictional `84` NUMBER model, and explains one sentence boundary in a caption if written. | Match each icon to the selected station; if `84` is confused with actual stock, point to fictional label and maths model separately. English boundary evidence stays with English check. |
| Test, revision and transfer | Reports actual tester choice/output, changes a cue for a reason, adapts an output to a new no-screen/no-sound brief, asks user before assuming fit. | Run a fresh route trace, log one observed confusion and make one change; give a tactile/paper option as a **proposal** to test, not an automatic cure. |
| Responsible tool collaboration | Follows agreed turns and privacy; if actual approved digital tool used, creates/locates/shares content under trusted adult guidance with exact actions recorded. | Rehearse turn and no-personal-data rule; when approved, schedule one child-directed device operation. Do not award tool-use evidence from paper planning. |

**Later unfamiliar recheck:** Use a new imaginary guide with **ART** and **MUSIC** choices and a missing `not clear` return. Ask learner to show both branches, debug the loop and choose what personal data, if any, the guide should request. Expected: no personal data needed for this fictional choice task; a trusted adult checks any actual app. If a digital tool outcome is targeted, observe an approved device action in a separate later sample.

**Cross-subject boundary:** English adult-read captions, controlled phonics Route A/B, and maths numbers 52/64/68/80/84 are coordinated examples. Do not copy the Technologies rubric score into English decoding or mathematics place-value records. Their [English](../../english/term-1/weeks-03-04/teacher-key.md) and [mathematics](../../mathematics/term-1/weeks-03-04/teacher-key.md) checks remain separate.

**Reuse:** Original SubjectNest formative guidance © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Credit source and mark changes.