These checks guide the next lesson; they do not grade a learner's identity, voice or willingness to speak publicly. All learners complete an exit, while the teacher observes a rotating 2–3 focus learners and uses a later quiet check for evidence hidden by pair work. Record exact wording, access support and independent / prompted / not yet observed. A defensible interpretation supported by the text may differ from the examples below.
| Day | Evidence to look for | Common gap and next move |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The narrative positions attention and accuracy in tension; a quoted line supports the judgement. | If only “Arin was wrong,” revisit his wish for readers to notice and ask how that affects the ethical choice. |
| 2 | Compares third-person scene/dialogue with the poem's questioning first person, using words from both. | If “poem is sad” has no text support, offer two line choices and ask what each makes the speaker do. |
| 3 | “Anyone who questions…” discourages scrutiny; 8.1/1.8 come from different net forces and no finish test. | If student repeats “proof,” find the missing comparison column and reframe the sentence. |
| 4 | B puts a command before limits; C gives scope/pattern and then explicit limits. | If response lists features only, ask what a reader is likely to notice first because of the order. |
| 5 | Check A below. | Separate technical-word accuracy from claim scope and paragraph/sequence feedback. |
| 6 | D supports four-month A price ($560 vs $680); E supports ten-month B ($980 vs $1,040), with stated limits. | If “one adviser lies,” align the two time horizons and recalculate. |
| 7 | Conditional sentence names horizon and valid $60 difference at ten months. | If “always cheaper,” test months 4, 8 and 10 to find the necessary condition. |
| 8 | Colon introduces a specific list or explanation; brackets add a visible qualification; questioning language welcomes scrutiny. | If punctuation merely decorates, read sentence without it and ask what relation it needs to show. |
| 9 | Two-paragraph claim for ten months cites B $980/A $1,040, treats A fairly for shorter need, and asks for a terms/access check. | If a real purchase is urged, restore fictional scope and missing conditions. |
| 10 | Check B below. | Identify whether the barrier is reading the figure, comparing horizons, implied value or making a scoped revision. |
Check A — Day 5 evidence caption
Prompt: Write 3–4 sentences for a viewer who has not seen the fictional cart table. Include what was simulated, one pattern with at least one number and unit, and what the table cannot show. Do not copy Text C whole.
Secure example: “Eight acceleration readings were invented for a 0.50 kg model cart at net forces from 1 to 4 N. The two simulated accelerations at 4 N were 7.8 and 8.1 m/s²; the readings generally rise as net force rises. This is an approximately linear association in the constructed set. No wheel finish was compared, so the table cannot support a finish claim.” Equivalent concise wording is valid. More than one number is useful but not required; the example shows how to anchor a claim.
Developing example: “The cart got faster because of silver wheels. It was 8.1.” Feedback: “The table gives acceleration, not speed, and no wheel-finish comparison. Which column names what changed?” Ask the learner to revise with net force, acceleration, m/s² and a limit. If the learner correctly explains orally but cannot access the print, provide the data as text/tactile pairs before judging comprehension.
Independent recheck (later): Supply this new invented statement: “Six fictional routes had listed durations that generally rose with distance.” Ask the learner to add a precise scope and a limitation using Table B. Secure: “In the six invented routes, duration generally increased with distance; this cannot predict a real trip without traffic and stop information.” Do not reuse the same cart caption as a recheck.
Check B — Day 10 fresh claim and response
Original fictional statement: “Plan A is the smart choice for everyone because its setup charge is $240 lower than B's. All households save with A, even after ten months. There is no need to read the terms.”
Tasks: Identify the claim; quote one figure that is valid; find an overstatement or missing condition; infer what priority the writer emphasises; revise in 3–4 sentences for the invented ten-month household using one alternative and one question to verify.
Key: A setup $240 vs B $480, so “$240 lower” is valid. The value emphasised is immediate upfront cost. “Everyone” and ten-month saving are unsupported; at ten months A=$1,040 and B=$980, so B is $60 lower within the simplified model and fits the fictional $1,000 cap. “No need to read the terms” is a poor decision premise because real terms/access/service were not supplied. A secure revision can recommend B within the stated ten-month price model, note A may be cheaper for shorter periods, and ask for actual contract terms or access/service equivalence. A justified “defer a real choice pending terms” response is also valid.
Possible feedback: If the student catches “everyone” but not the ten-month arithmetic, have them read A(10)/B(10) from the source sheet and explain the comparison. If they get the figures but omit values, ask “What is the writer asking a reader to care about?” If they use the qualifier “in this model” but still recommend a real purchase, ask what source is missing. If grammar is rough but reasoning clear through AAC/speech, preserve the content evidence and teach editing separately.
Independent recheck (later): Use the new fictional X/Y models from maths source sheet. Statement: “X starts $240 lower, therefore X costs less at every month.” Key: initial X $180, Y $420, so difference $240; they tie at month 8 ($900); at month 10 X $1,080 versus Y $1,020. The universal claim fails. The writer privileges setup cost; a fair repair names a horizon, arithmetic and model limits. This is separate from Day 10's original plan figures.
Teacher record
date | learner code (local only) | text/task | exact evidence | independent/prompted/not yet observed | access route | next move | recheck evidence. Keep identifiable records under school policy and do not send them to SubjectNest.
Reuse: Original SubjectNest keys and fictional stimuli © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, CC BY 4.0. Credit source/licence and mark changes.