These original prompts are fresh relative to the preceding lessons and do not repeat their source values. They are publicly accessible teaching resources, not secure exams; the teacher-targeted worked guide is also public on the SubjectNest library. If prior access matters, use an independently authored local parallel prompt before treating a response as new assessment evidence. Neither check alone proves a Year 10 achievement standard, reading independence, classroom outcome or future performance. Allow exact adult reading, enlarged/selectable text, Braille, AAC, typing, speech or directed scribing and record access separately from any interpretation hint. Preserve first response and revision. Store any actual learner evidence only in school-approved private storage; no identifying work belongs in this pack.
Check A Day 15 new paper route
New fictional source: an unbuilt display instruction comparison. A made-up design desk draws two possible instruction sets, R and S, for the same five paper lantern outlines. It counts how many diagram panels each set would show for each outline. No lantern was built, no person followed an instruction and no time or clarity was measured. The S drawing for outline 4 has no completed final panel, so that pair has no S count.
| Outline | R diagram panels | S diagram panels | Pair complete? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4 | 3 | Yes |
| 2 | 5 | 4 | Yes |
| 3 | 3 | 3 | Yes |
| 4 | 6 | missing finish | No |
| 5 | 4 | 2 | Yes |
Across the four complete pairs, R totals 16 panels and S totals 12, averages of 4 and 3 panels per outline. The pair for outline 3 is a tie. A fictional notice reads: “All five designs prove S builds faster for everyone; it saves one panel every time, so publish the instructions as tested.”
Response target, whichever learner route is chosen:
- State the question/method and the exact diagram-panel unit in a way another paper reviewer could understand.
- Use the four complete pairs and at least one exact source value to state a defensible comparison; do not turn the missing S entry into zero or claim a saving for every pair.
- Identify at least two notice overreaches: all five, every time, building speed, “tested” real use, or “everyone”; explain each with source evidence.
- Write, arrange with a rationale or speak/AAC a corrected two- or three-sentence lead with a visible limit and one appropriate next question.
Timing in Day 15: 2-minute frame, 5-minute exact source, 6-minute first marks, 6-minute response, 4-minute self-audit, 2-minute collection. The teacher does not demonstrate its counts in advance.
Check B Day 20 new category report
New fictional source: an unobserved map-card filing model. An imagined workshop lists 50 printed map cards, not people. A card has a recorded tray label, East or West, or an unreadable tray label. A separate field says whether its made-up catalogue status is complete or pending. Even when tray is unreadable, status is recorded. No actual workshop, catalogue process, person, cause or completion time was observed.
| Tray label | Complete | Pending | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| East | 16 | 4 | 20 |
| West | 14 | 6 | 20 |
| Tray unreadable | 2 | 8 | 10 |
| All cards | 32 | 18 | 50 |
Report H: “Three quarters of the cards are complete. East and West have 30 complete cards among their 40 named-tray cards, or 75%. The filing system is clearly working.” An end note says: “Ten cards with unreadable tray labels are outside this percentage.”
Report I: “Thirty-two of fifty invented cards are marked complete. This is 64% of all listed cards, including ten with unreadable tray labels. The 75% figure describes only the 40 East/West cards. The table cannot show what caused a status or whether a real filing system works.”
Response target, whichever learner route is chosen:
- Identify both correct reference groups, 30/40=75% and 32/50=64%, using the table to explain where the ten unreadable-tray cards sit.
- Analyse one text-structure or evaluative effect of H's title, first paragraph or end note compared with I's opening; do not invent an author's motive.
- Revise H's first sentence so a reader knows its chosen denominator before the claim, and write a short follow-up sentence that keeps the full-register result visible.
- State one limit: this is an invented card register, a status count is not a cause or real performance result, and unreadable tray is not an unreadable status or a judgement about people.
Timing in Day 20: 2-minute frame, 5-minute exact source, 6-minute first marks, 6-minute response, 4-minute self-audit, 2-minute collection. The source values are absent from the previous lessons.
Local evidence strip
Date | local learner code | check A/B | first response | visible revision | exact reading/support | interpretation hint | criterion next move | fresh recheck date. Keep this only in locally approved private storage. A polished final answer following a teacher's mathematical or interpretive sentence is not independent initial reasoning; transcribed learner speech/AAC is still their reasoning when the words are theirs.
Original resource rights: © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, SubjectNest, CC BY 4.0. Credit author, source, licence and changes.