# Six original fictional practice case cards

Every name, figure, quote, offer and projected result is **invented for teaching**. No card reports a real business, customer survey, market condition, local law, government enterprise or financial return. Use a card's stated evidence; name what is unknown. A classification is a teaching interpretation, not legal advice. The [source ledger](SOURCE-AND-RIGHTS.md) identifies the official curriculum concepts; the stories and numbers are original.

## Card A · Harbour Repair Hub · community-based idea

Four volunteers have drafted a plan to run a **not-for-profit community repair session**. They have tested the paper booking form with each other but have not opened to the public. Their written purpose is to make basic repair help easier to find. One shared toolkit is ready; the volunteers' available times overlap on only one Saturday each month. A fictional venue manager has offered a room for **two trial Saturdays**. No participant demand, repair outcome, safety approval, budget or ongoing venue booking is known. In this model the team is in the **seed stage** because its activity is still being designed and tested; the label is given as part of the case, not inferred from an organisation's age. A possible objective is “run two accessible trial sessions,” but the group has not committed to a timeline or measured a result.

## Card B · Fold & Field · small profit-based print service

A fictional mobile print service has taken paid orders for three months and calls itself **start-up**. Two staff take bookings and finish jobs with one printer. In a model week, **40 orders** were due and **34 were finished on time**; the other six were late. Its draft goal is dependable fulfilment. A proposed measurable objective is at least **36 of 40 on time** next comparable week. A nearby imaginary competitor advertises next-day service, but no independent quality, price or customer-comparison data is supplied. The owners are considering a booking checklist; no evidence yet shows that this tactic would improve the outcome. The figures are classroom data, not a real enterprise's sales or service record.

## Card C · Route Board · hypothetical publicly owned enterprise

This case imagines a **government-owned business enterprise** that manages travel noticeboards. It is an invented organisation with no real jurisdiction, statute or legal status. Its twelve staff support noticeboards at five fictional sites; the case calls this an **established service**, not a proved stage in a real life-cycle assessment. The team states a service goal: make route notices easier to understand. Operations maintains screens, marketing/communication drafts notices, human resources coordinates staff training, and finance tracks a fictional approved budget. One fictional commuter writes that the timetable text is hard to read; that single comment is evidence of one concern, **not a population-wide satisfaction result**. No legal standard, accessibility audit, performance measure or change approval is provided.

## Card D · StageKit · event-equipment hire

A fictional profit-based event-equipment hire team completed **45 of 50 bookings on time** in its model month. Two staff know the equipment well, but one person alone handles maintenance and booking changes. A fictional venue coordinator asks whether StageKit can cover three extra events next month; this is an **external opportunity to investigate**, not confirmed demand. An imaginary competitor begins offering weekend collection; this is an external threat to consider, not proof StageKit will lose customers. Internal equipment knowledge is a possible strength; limited maintenance capacity is a possible weakness. No price, profit, compliance, safety record or customer-satisfaction dataset is given. A SWOT label must cite the precise case statement and the next decision needs more evidence.

## Card E · Raincheck Radio · community bulletin service

This fictional community bulletin team has two volunteers and an audio bulletin prototype. It has not yet released public episodes, so the case labels it **seed stage**. A library offers a meeting room for one planning session; a listener group has **not** been surveyed. The team wants notices to reach people who prefer audio, text or both. One volunteer can edit sound; another can proofread a transcript. The case has no data showing which format people use, whether the transcript is accessible with local tools, or whether the service meets a community need. A proposed action is to prepare both an audio sample and a plain-text sample, then seek consented feedback; the action remains a plan, not a demonstrated impact. No personal communication preference must be disclosed by learners.

## Card F · Pocket Gallery · fictional audience feedback choices

A small imaginary gallery service received **20 voluntary model feedback slips** after a pop-up. **12 slips were positive** about finding the booking desk and **8 were not positive**; no causes are known. Its draft objective is at least **18 positive of 20** on a later, comparable set. Option A adds one staffed welcome hour at a fictional cost of **$80** and has a *hypothetical forecast* of **16 positive of 20**. Option B changes printed signs at a fictional cost of **$30** and forecasts **15 positive of 20**. Neither option is tested, neither meets 18/20 in the forecast, and the sample cannot establish all visitors' views. No revenue, profit, competitor comparison, accessibility review or actual stakeholder outcome is available. A good recommendation may request a limited test and more feedback rather than promise success.

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