# Public teacher key · worked first-response checks and next moves

This key is **public by URL** and is for teaching, not secure school assessment. Do not treat a correct response as proof of independent reading if the text was read aloud. Record content prompts distinctly from access support. A learner can explain a sound alternative *conditional* recommendation when it cites case evidence and its criterion. Never infer a QCAA Unit 1 grade from these short tasks.

## Daily quick keys

| Day | Worked idea and immediate next move |
| --- | --- |
| 1 | B has eight staff-hours for competing tasks; D has crew capacity for one project. “Limited relative to uses” is correct; “zero resources” is not. If confused, move eight counters between two full-word task headings. |
| 2 | B's final two hours move to digital help, forgoing the stated next-best **24 catalogued books**. This is output opportunity cost, not $24. If all alternatives are added, ask which *one* is next best. |
| 3 | D: what/how much = one of two projects; how = method/inputs need detail; for whom = access to which people/places unknown. Full crew use could be technically efficient; resource ownership/control and access equity are unresolved. Ask for a user/access and ownership map. |
| 4 | C: site space→land/rent category; typesetters→labour/wages; produced printer→capital/interest; coordinator's organisation/risk→entrepreneurial ability/profit. Paper stock is manufactured, not the land example. No payment is reported. If “cash” is named as printer capital, show the produced equipment. |
| 5 | File G below: 6 hours, 2-hour choice, **15 signs forgone**, four factors and an unresolved allocation question. If learner gives $15, revisit units. |
| 6 | A ordered pairs: (0,12),(1,11),(2,9),(3,6),(4,0), axes workshops then circles. At 2, max 9. If a point is treated as observed demand, repeat fixed-input model assumption. |
| 7 | F1=(2,9), F2=(3,6) both frontier; (2,6) inside. F1→F2 costs 9−6=**3 circles** for one added workshop. 3→4 costs 6−0=**6 circles**. Inside shows modeled underuse, not its cause. |
| 8 | E's proposed (4,6) is beyond A's old maximum (4,0). It is one possible new point if repeatable; does not establish every new frontier point or national growth. Ask what trial evidence/costs are missing. |
| 9 | F1 and F2 are both technically efficient in A's model; F2 adds **1 workshop** but forgoes **3 circles**. A conditional choice needs a declared objective, resource-ownership and distribution data before equity judgement. Ask whose access is counted. |
| 10 | File H below: X/Y frontier, (2,5) inside, (3,7) beyond; X→Y costs **3 repair sets**. Preference/access evidence is absent. If “fair” follows from “on frontier”, separate output from distribution. |

## Day 5 File G · worked check

1. The organiser/team chooses how to use **six volunteer-hours**. Competing uses are preparing large-print signs and a tool-use demonstration. The team has resources, but these hours cannot serve both uses in full: *relative scarcity*.
2. In the stated model, using the final two hours for the demonstration forgoes the **next-best 15 directional signs**. Opportunity cost = **15 signs**, not $15. Monetary expense, value of the signs and value of the demonstration are not given.
3. Site space → land/natural-resource category; helpers → labour; reusable tool kit → produced capital; organiser combining inputs and accepting planning risk → entrepreneurial ability. Pairing those abstract categories with rent/wages/interest/profit does **not** establish an actual payment or profit.
4. For example: *for whom* should signs or the demonstration be available? Missing evidence includes visitors' access needs and relevant, consented feedback. “The demonstration is more valuable” or “everyone can attend” is unsupported.

**If ready:** require a second plausible answer to the allocation question without pretending one is factual. **If not ready:** rehearse the physical two-hour strip and ask which stated alternative is displaced. For factor confusion, use the full-word factors mat.

## Day 10 File H · worked check

1. Horizontal axis: **pop-up reading sessions**. Vertical axis: **book-repair sets**. Maximum pairs: (0,10), (1,9), (2,7), (3,4), (4,0). Staff, vehicle, hours and technique are held fixed in the model. Joined line segments help visualise the order; intermediate points are not directly reported.
2. X (2,7) and Y (3,4) are **on the frontier**. (2,5) is **inside** because the table permits 7 repair sets at two sessions. (3,7) is **beyond** because at three sessions the stated maximum is four sets. An inside point indicates modeled underuse but does not identify a cause such as unemployment.
3. X→Y adds **one pop-up reading session** and forgoes 7−4=**3 book-repair sets**. Conversely Y→X gives up one session and gains three sets. Units and direction matter.
4. “Choose Y **if** the agreed criterion is to maximise sessions among X/Y, subject to checking attendance and access”; “choose X **if** the criterion is to retain more repair sets, subject to checking use” are both bounded. Both use the modeled inputs efficiently. Neither output mix proves fair distribution **without evidence** about who owns/controls the inputs, who can attend/use either service, quality and preferences. Request accessibility and use evidence without collecting classmates' private circumstances.

**If ready:** ask whether a proposed technique that makes (3,7) repeatably feasible would change the old frontier and what else must be verified. **If not ready:** rebuild the ordered-pair table with full-word counters, then compare at the *same* three-session input. The fresh check gives no real policy advice.

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