# Fresh practice-transfer checks · Days 15 and 20

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](TEACHER-KEY.md) 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:**

1. State the question/method and the exact **diagram-panel** unit in a way another paper reviewer could understand.
2. 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.
3. Identify at least two notice overreaches: all five, every time, building speed, “tested” real use, or “everyone”; explain each with source evidence.
4. 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:**

1. Identify both correct reference groups, **30/40=75%** and **32/50=64%**, using the table to explain where the ten unreadable-tray cards sit.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Credit author, source, licence and changes.