# Integrated Week 2: a decision depends on horizon and evidence

**Five 35-minute Economics and Business, mathematics and English sessions.** Partial Year 10 ACARA v9 links: `AC9HE10K03`, `AC9HE10S01`, `AC9HE10S02`, `AC9HE10S03`, `AC9HE10S04`, `AC9HE10S05`; mathematics `AC9M10A02`, `AC9M10A04`; English `AC9E10LA02`, `AC9E10LY06`. The [adult household device-hire brief](../english/MATERIALS.md) and all figures are invented. This is **consumer-decision reasoning**, not financial advice, a real offer, or complete coverage of rights or Year 10 economics. ACARA notes that Years 9–10 Economics and Business access is decided by school authorities or schools; teach this block only after local selection is confirmed. No student is asked for family income, debt, credit, access needs or purchasing plans.

**Prepare:** two [cost models](../mathematics/MATERIALS.md), [cost comparison board](../print/cost-comparison.svg), [claim-check aid](../print/claim-check.svg), pencil and optional counters. Both fictional plans are assumed to meet minimum access, safety and service conditions **only for the exercise**; in life those claims and full contract terms must be verified with current authoritative sources and appropriate adult support. No real purchase or student survey follows from this sequence. Plain-text and tactile alternatives are [provided](../print/TEXT-ALTERNATIVES.md).

## Day 1 — Name what the decision has to satisfy

**Question:** Which factors matter besides a single advertised payment? **Evidence:** criteria list with distinction between given facts and assumptions.

1. **Invite · 3 min.** Say: “An adult fictional household needs a device for study and creative work. We will inspect a model, not anyone's own finances.”
2. **Read · 5 min.** Read both plan rules and the $1,000 ten-month practice cap. Ask which payments happen once and which recur.
3. **Model · 8 min.** Make columns: **given invented price rule**, **assumed minimum**, **unknown real condition**. Place $240/$480 setup in the first, access/safety/service equivalence in the second, actual contract/repair support in the third.
4. **Set criteria · 10 min.** Pairs propose at least three criteria: total at a chosen horizon, ability to pay upfront, verified service/access and exit conditions. Each learner ranks criteria for the fictional decision-maker and explains the ranking; different priorities are possible.
5. **Source question · 6 min.** Ask which factor our sheet actually answers. It calculates modelled price; it does not document real terms or outcomes. Keep “assumed” visible.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** Everyone writes one given fact, one assumption and one question to investigate.

**Access:** three textured or labelled columns, large print, oral/AAC ranking. Learners may decline to explain personal reasons for their fictional ranking.

## Day 2 — Follow the cost through time

**Question:** Why can two good-faith notes disagree on “cheaper”? **Evidence:** four- and ten-month comparison with units.

1. **Retrieve · 3 min.** Ask: “What does a horizon mean here?” It is the number of complete months in the comparison.
2. **Model · 5 min.** At four months A=$560, B=$680; A is $120 lower. Separate setup from recurrent total.
3. **Calculate · 8 min.** At ten months A=$1,040, B=$980; B is $60 lower and alone fits the invented $1,000 cap. Check by substitution.
4. **Compare texts · 10 min.** Read [D and E](../english/MATERIALS.md). Pairs match each conclusion to its horizon and identify a qualification the author supplies. No one may quote “A is cheaper” or “B is cheaper” without the month count.
5. **Connect · 6 min.** Place equality at month 8, $880, on the board. Ask whether equal price means equal performance. No; performance is assumed/unknown.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** Everyone completes “At __ months, plan __ has lower modelled cost by $__; this comparison omits __.”

**Access:** month-value table or tactile lines; calculator after set-up if needed, with equation explanation retained.

## Day 3 — Ask a question that could change the choice

**Question:** What evidence would a responsible decision-maker need next? **Evidence:** ranked source-check questions with purpose.

1. **Prompt · 3 min.** “Imagine the plan sheet is an advert. What is absent that a reader would need before signing?”
2. **Model · 5 min.** Turn “Is B good?” into “What do the full written terms say about repair support and exit costs during months 1–10?” Explain why a current, attributable primary contract source would matter.
3. **Question workshop · 8 min.** Students write two investigable questions: one about cost/terms, one about access/service. State what answer might reverse a price-only preference.
4. **Compare source roles · 10 min.** Give the three [learner source cards](STUDENT-SOURCE-CARDS.md): a limited provider summary, an unattributed comment and a limited tryout note. Learners rank usefulness for a specific question, name possible interests/limits and avoid treating any card as verified evidence. The [teacher source notes](SOURCE-CARDS.md) give the scope key.
5. **Ethical check · 6 min.** Ask whether gathering classmates' household finances would help. No, it is unnecessary personal data for this fictional exercise. Keep the question to documents and adult review.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** Everyone submits a question, intended source and why it could change the recommendation.

**Access:** source labels in text and read aloud; AAC choice with reason; no internet required or real account creation.

## Day 4 — Use criteria, not a slogan

**Question:** Can a proposed response be evaluated against the stated constraints? **Evidence:** decision board with cost, benefit, risk and unknown.

1. **Set case · 3 min.** “The fictional adult expects ten complete months. The $1,000 cap remains. What does the price model permit?”
2. **Model · 5 min.** B's $980 is within cap by $20; A's $1,040 exceeds cap by $40. This is a **model conclusion**, conditional on the invented rules.
3. **Board · 8 min.** Students fill [cost board](../print/cost-comparison.svg): horizon, both totals, cap, comparison, missing conditions. Then add upfront cost as a separate criterion.
4. **Evaluate · 10 min.** In pairs, test two responses: “choose B now” and “provisionally prefer B on price, verify terms/access first.” Identify benefits, costs and uncertainty for each. A learner may prefer no commitment pending evidence.
5. **Challenge · 6 min.** Change expected duration to four months. A becomes price-only lower; ask which sentence in yesterday's conclusion must change. Do not silently change the original case.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** Everyone writes a provisional conclusion and a specific condition that would prompt reconsideration.

**Access:** numbers as aligned text, counters, large board or dictated response. No public disclosure of actual needs.

## Day 5 — Present a conditional recommendation

**Question:** Can a learner justify a decision while showing what remains unverified? **Evidence:** individual response and answer to a fair question.

1. **Frame · 3 min.** “You are advising only the fictional case. No actual contract is recommended.”
2. **Rehearse · 5 min.** Learners prepare a 45-second spoken statement, private written paragraph, AAC sequence or equivalent. Include horizon, computed price, criterion and next source check.
3. **Share · 8 min.** In small groups, each learner gives their response. A peer asks one evidence question. Teacher observes 2–3 focus learners; arrange later checks for the rest.
4. **Revise · 10 min.** Learner answers, changes wording or defers the decision, then writes one revision explaining why. Use the [claim-check aid](../print/claim-check.svg).
5. **Independent check · 6 min.** Give the [learner Week 2 check](STUDENT-CHECKS.md). All respond without peer assistance; collect before feedback.
6. **Close · 3 min.** Name the difference between a conditional calculation and a real consumer recommendation. Store no identifiable work outside school policy.

**Key prompt:** “The invented household expects 10 complete months under $1,000. What can the price model show, and what must be verified before any real choice?” Secure: B(10)=$980 fits by $20; A(10)=$1,040 exceeds by $40; B is lower by $60. These findings assume the invented fees, no exit charge and equal minimum service; full current terms/access/repair support and the person's needs remain unverified. A learner may say **defer**, provided they state the model result and why missing evidence matters. If they compare four months to ten, return to a common horizon. If they assert real rights or a vendor fact from the fictional sheet, ask for a current authoritative source.

**Later independent recheck:** New invented X/Y model from [maths](../mathematics/MATERIALS.md), ten months, $1,000 cap. X=$1,080 and Y=$1,020; **neither** fits, despite Y being lower. A sound response may reconsider duration or seek an actually verified alternative, without claiming one exists. Ask which contract/service information would be required; do not direct a purchase.

**Teacher record:** `day | local learner code | exact cost/source/criterion evidence | independent/prompted/not yet observed | access support | next move | later recheck`. Keep under school policy; SubjectNest collects no child data.