# Teacher feedback and next moves · public key

This worked key is **public by URL**, not a secure marking guide. Keep the student's first response and access record before feedback. Credit historically defensible alternatives with a source chain and limits. Reading speed and spelling are not the construct here when text-to-speech, reading support, AAC or scribing is offered. **No QCAA unit result** follows from the checks.

## Day 5 · F, World Heritage Committee decision

**Defensible response:** F is a **2019** formal decision by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee. It inscribed the Budj Bim Cultural Landscape under criteria **(iii) and (v)**, describing Gunditjmara cultural knowledge and engineering. The committee did **not** discover or build the ancient waterworks. Inscription does not make UNESCO the owner; the decision describes Aboriginal ownership/management and Gunditjmara obligations. A listing record by itself cannot date every wall. Use **B**, the 2012 excavation report, to investigate the sampled Muldoons feature's phases; use **D** or the current Gunditjmara visitor page for access protocol. A concise corrected label could say: “In 2019 the World Heritage Committee inscribed Budj Bim for its Gunditjmara cultural landscape. Gunditjmara knowledge and water management continue. The decision recognises significance; dating individual features needs archaeological context and visitation follows Traditional Owner protocols.” This is our original example, not an approved museum label.

**Feedback moves:**

- If maker/date are absent, ask the learner to mark *Committee → 2019 → inscription*, then resubmit the same claim.
- If a learner says all walls date to 6,600 years, return to B's charcoal-in-infill and later-wall phases. Do not imply a single sampled complex dates the whole landscape.
- If the response treats recognition as ownership, compare F's management paragraph with D's present-day protocol. Do not invent a legal transfer.
- If wording speaks for Gunditjmara people without attribution, place “according to the public Gunditjmara page A” before the claim and invite real custodian review for any display.

## Day 10 · G and H, LiDAR and guided access

**Defensible response:** G is a **2026 coauthored research report** that processes airborne LiDAR data and finds *potential* features, but records false positives and misses some known features. The authors require field verification and Gunditjmara knowledge; digital detection is a research aid, not proof of every feature or a comprehensive site inventory. H is a **current Gunditjmara-led student-program page**: school visits have a Gunditjmara guide and Tyrendarra is available only by **special request**. H governs an offered visit; it cannot tell us the date of an ancient wall or guarantee a booking. A responsible next research step is checking a candidate through appropriate Traditional Owner-led field process, not crowdsourcing a map. A safe classroom action is comparing the *methods and limits* of G/H with text-only source records, or contacting the authorised program about a guided visit. Do not distribute coordinates or copy cultural site images.

**Feedback moves:**

- If “the computer discovered everything,” sort *potential*, *verified* and *not detected* statements from G.
- If a learner treats LiDAR as dating technology, return to B's separate dating method; G visualises surface shapes and needs checking.
- If an H visitor page is called an ancient primary source, identify it as primary evidence of a **present-day offer/protocol** only.
- If the response proposes publishing coordinates, ask who controls access and replace the plan with an authorised, location-free inquiry.

## Daily calibration and next instruction

| Day | Evidence of target reached | If missing, next move |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | A named as Gunditjmara-led; one bounded site question; no all-peoples claim. | Put maker and site in the sentence subject. |
| 2 | Ancient material distinguished from present-day A and 2012 B; uses and limits. | Sort source kinds before writing a claim. |
| 3 | Charcoal in channel infill about 6,600 cal BP; later walls 600–800 years. | Trace sample → context → inference on the phase clock. |
| 4 | C's three components named without locator map; D consulted for access. | Separate overview geography from access permission. |
| 5 | F's 2019 decision, Gunditjmara attribution, two non-claims and next sources. | Ask what a committee **decided**, then what a field team **dated**. |
| 6 | A and B matched to different questions; neither knowledge system dismissed. | State the question before judging usefulness. |
| 7 | D protocol controls access; E museum page does not grant image/location rights. | Sort reading a public page, reusing an image and visiting a place. |
| 8 | A/E makers named, attributed label plan and one review gap. | Put the source creator beside each proposed label sentence. |
| 9 | At least three IDs, method limit and cultural-authority limit. | Remove a universal claim, add an ID, then add custodial review note. |
| 10 | G potential/false positives/field check; H guide/special request; location-free action. | Separate digital clue from confirmed feature and public program from permission. |

**Next assessment decision:** These public checks diagnose source reasoning. The school still plans Topic 1 depth and conclusion, Topic 2, school instruments, academic-integrity process and any access/cultural review under the live syllabus. There has been no classroom pilot, external moderation or community endorsement of this pack.

Original SubjectNest feedback © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).