# Public teacher-targeted check keys and next moves

This key and all ten [formative prompts](ASSESSMENT.md) are **publicly accessible**. They are fresh relative to the 50 practice cards, **not secure exams**; replace them locally when prior access matters. For each check, record `0` absent/incorrect, `1` partial or achieved with a content hint, `2` source-anchored and appropriately bounded **in this small sample** for each of its three named dimensions: **source**, **reasoning/making**, **limit/next step**. Record response/access mode separately from content prompting. Do not add scores across subjects or infer a full Years 9–10 achievement standard. Distinguish planned from actually conducted/performed activity.

## Science Check A worked key

**Source:** The counted unit is **drawn direction changes**, not journey time or road safety. Only two complete A/B pairs exist: A3 versus B2 and A4 versus B3; both differ by one drawn turn. A's third count5 has no B counterpart. **Reasoning:** A labelled two-row table or paired tokens is enough; never impute the missing B count as zero. **Limit:** “Every journey” is unsupported because the third pair is incomplete and no trip or person was observed. A reproducible paper recheck would finish the third B arrow route, use the same counting rule, then compare all complete pairs.

**Next moves:** If unit wrong, ask “what is a drawn mark versus elapsed time?”; if pair count wrong, cover the incomplete third row and recount; if overclaim remains, place PAPER MAP and REAL JOURNEY cards apart.

## Science Check B worked key

**Source:** Keep all four arbitrary scores **5,6,5,14**, with card4 method note. **Reasoning:** The first three cluster at 5–6 and 14 is anomalous within this constructed set. The changed outline width is a plausible source of non-comparability, not proof 14 is false; rescore with width held equal and the same rule. **Limit:** Scores are paper assignments, not a vision, accessibility or device study. “Accessible” is unsupported.

**Next moves:** If 14 vanishes, restore it and ask why; if width is called cause, ask what repeated controlled scores would show; if accessibility is claimed, ask where actual users/tools were assessed (they were not).

## HASS Check A worked key

**Source:** P has stated fictional construction6 credits and Q4; both have **unknown route width**, while distance and shade/access are not measured. **Reasoning:** A valid geographical question could ask how route/access and environmental exposure differ between candidate placements in a real approved inquiry. A criteria grid marks cost P6/Q4 and environmental/social criteria unknown; it does not assign invented rankings. **Limit:** A conditional recommendation asks for real route, shade, demand, permit and maintenance evidence before any siting decision. The sketch is not a real map.

**Next moves:** If learner picks Q solely from cost, ask for a social or environmental criterion; if width is assumed, move it to UNKNOWN; if a real recommendation appears, rewrite as “if verified...”.

## HASS Check B worked key

**Source:** The fictional paper tally is **9 supportive, 5 uncertain, 4 opposed**, total **18**. “Unanimously” is false; “9 of 18 submitted fictional responses support Saturday” is a source-bound correction. **Reasoning:** An absent invitation/sampling method could exclude people; a better process might offer several accessible response formats and report all three categories before the group chooses. **Limit:** No actual community vote, public mandate or representative sample exists.

**Next moves:** If uncertain responses disappear, add their five cards; if 9 is called “everyone”, compare 9 with 18; if method is only “ask more”, specify who is invited and how a response is recorded without collecting real class views.

## HPE Check A worked key

**Source:** The fictional rule requires a partner and public speech; the fictional member asks for solo first work and a non-public way to show an idea. **Reasoning:** Examples of equally valued routes include independent planning followed by a chosen partner check, and a written/AAC/tabletop explanation accepted on the same criteria as a short oral presentation. A respectful response asks what works, accepts a decline and offers a no-penalty choice. **Limit:** No diagnosis or disclosure is needed; evaluate inclusion by whether meaningful role choices and feedback routes exist, not by guessing a person's needs.

**Next moves:** If an alternative role is just “watch”, ask how the learner can contribute to decisions; if disclosure is demanded, replace it with an opt-in feedback question; if a scripted response is scored as real club practice, relabel it rehearsal.

## HPE Check B worked key

**Source:** The obstruction and both suggestions are fictional; no hazard is present. **Reasoning:** A school-policy-aligned paper sequence is pause, do not enter/clear the blocked route, tell responsible staff, follow a locally approved alternative. The learner can rehearse a concise staff message or direct a paper figure; actual safety practice is not verified by the card. **Limit:** No universal emergency instruction is provided; local staff direction governs.

**Next moves:** If the response has the learner moving boxes, ask who is responsible under school policy; if it omits an alternative, ask what the teacher would confirm; if claimed as observed safety performance, mark it as a paper rehearsal.

## Technologies Check A worked key

**Source:** Required: **one paper sheet**, holds **three tickets**, labels visible. X meets holding three but hides one label. Y keeps labels visible but holds only two. Neither satisfies both functional criteria as described. **Reasoning:** A brief names audience/use, material and measurable function. A plausible next design adjusts X's lip or Y's pocket width, then tests **the same three printed tickets** under the same paper condition. **Limit:** The source supplies prototype ideas, not actual tested durability or a finished product.

**Next moves:** If learner chooses one as fully successful, mark each criterion separately; if proposed test changes ticket count, reset three equal tickets; if “safe for sale” appears, ask what real material, safety and user evidence exists (none).

## Technologies Check B worked key

**Source:** For known yes/no values, only YES/YES gives `OK` under **AND**; YES/NO, NO/YES and NO/NO do not. The faulty **OR** outputs `OK` for YES/NO and NO/YES, exposing discrepancies. **Reasoning:** Correct pseudocode: `if code is unknown or date is unknown: CHECK DATA; else if code readable and date confirmed: OK; else: NOT OK`. For unknown code + confirmed date, expected output is **CHECK DATA** under this explicit policy. **Limit:** It is a toy offline rule, not a real borrowing or security system; the [rule lab](interactive/rule-lab.html) uses “reviewed” as the second label, so the learner must map **date confirmed** to that second Boolean before checking.

**Next moves:** If `OR` remains, test YES/NO; if unknown becomes NO, add an early data-status branch; if only a truth table was drawn, credit algorithm design but not actual tool execution.

## Arts Check A worked key

**Source:** All three frames are original fictional elements: empty bench, folded paper note, departing silhouette. **Reasoning/making:** Two distinct full orders with captions can foreground absence, mystery or an action sequence differently. For example, `silhouette → note → empty bench` invites a “someone has left” inference, while `empty bench → note → silhouette` delays that inference. The learner must explain a *possible* audience effect, not claim a measured response or a true event. **Limit:** None of the frames establishes who the silhouette represents, why they left or what the note says. A storyboard is design evidence; a fully made mini-comic is produced-work evidence.

**Next moves:** If captions merely say “picture 1”, request complete alt description; if the story assigns a real identity/motive, return to fictional possibility; if both sequences match, change the opening frame and describe the effect.

## Arts Check B worked key

**Source:** The four abstract words are a prompt, not a borrowed tune/motif. **Reasoning/making:** A valid Music route notates four timed beats/marks with at least one rest and a changed dynamic or duration in version two; a valid Visual Arts route places four described marks/shapes and changes weight or position in version two. In either case the learner names the choice and intended “open/wait/turn/settle” effect. A tactile/directed composition can be a made work when actually arranged; a verbal proposal alone is a plan. **Limit:** No actual audience response, public performance or cultural meaning is inferred.

**Next moves:** If two versions differ only by label, ask for a visible/audible structural change; if the score cannot be re-created from notation, add timing or position; if the learner claims performance from a plan, separate creation from enactment.

**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.