# Ten teacher scripts · 25 minutes each

Read [original texts](ORIGINAL-TEXTS.md) and display the appropriate [learner task](LEARNER.md). The three [daily route choices](DAILY-CHOICES.md) share each day's exact evidence target. Use the [teacher key](teacher/ANSWER-AND-NEXT.md) after a first response. Each script totals **2 + 4 + 5 + 7 + 4 + 3 = 25 minutes**. This is a short teaching slice, not a full 55-hour unit or a school assessment instrument. No student has to volunteer a personal story. Texts E–J are fiction by SubjectNest. Do not reveal Day 15/20 check cards until the check period if first encounter matters locally.

### Day 11 · A headline with a hidden outcome

**Target:** distinguish invitation, fact and unsupported promise in Text E. **Prepare:** E and the [source lens](print/source-lens.svg); paper copy works.

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Show only “Everyone can fix something.” Ask: which word claims most? Hold answers.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Read E with its maker label. Underline “twelve sign-up slots” and “cannot promise a repair.” Model that a planned slot is a conversation opportunity, not a repaired object.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Sort `twelve planned slots`, `all objects repaired`, `selection process`, `no electrical work` into stated / contradicted / not supplied. Ask why “everyone” may position a newcomer warmly while implying too much.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Learners choose Day 11 route; produce a two-part editor note: name a phrase and likely invitation effect, then replace the headline with a narrower one. Require one exact fact and one limit.
5. **Peer audit · 4 min.** A partner points to the source line supporting the new headline; writer removes any guarantee or invented access promise.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “Can twelve planned slots prove twelve repairs?” Collect `no + why` and use the key to decide whether to reteach claims versus counts.

### Day 12 · The scene refuses the easy ending

**Target:** analyse how first-person focalisation and an object image in Text F represent agency without turning Leena into a population claim. **Prepare:** F and [voice map](print/voice-map.svg).

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Ask what a reader expects after E's “fix something”; do not reveal the scene ending.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Read F aloud once. Revisit “as if that promise had a handle”: the simile connects the notice to a carried object; it does not say Leena believed a guaranteed repair was legally owed.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Locate the blank label and the final two sentences. Ask what changed (a question was written) and what did not (the toy still did not work). Contrast F's private moment with E's public invitation.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Learners choose Day 12 route and make a short interpretation with one quotation, one plausible effect on a reader and one limit on what can be inferred about Leena.
5. **Peer audit · 4 min.** Partner marks any “all repair visitors” leap and asks whether the quoted line is narrator language, dialogue or organiser wording.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “What did the label do in the scene?” Accept a defensible inference tied to the written question; do not accept “the toy was repaired.”

### Day 13 · Whose version becomes a rule?

**Target:** compare the public E, literary F and internal G without treating a fictional note as a real policy. **Prepare:** all three source labels and the source lens.

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Show G's “We should revise it.” Ask which earlier words “it” refers to.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Trace G back to E's headline and F's unresolved toy. Explain G's purpose: coordinate volunteers and avoid overreporting, not market the event.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Place three source cards in order `public invitation / one invented encounter / internal adjustment`. Ask whether F proves that all visits fail. Ask whether G supplies access arrangements; it supplies an offered route, not full arrangements.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Learners choose Day 13 route; make a three-source comparison: one selected detail per source, one difference in audience/purpose, and a question not answered by any source.
5. **Peer audit · 4 min.** Partner checks each attribution and labels any imported real-world rule as unsupported.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “Which source can tell us what the organisers planned to change?” Key: G, as a fictional internal note; it cannot certify that change happened.

### Day 14 · Write a usable public correction

**Target:** revise E for a prospective visitor using supported inclusions and an honest unknown. **Prepare:** E/G and [public editor](print/public-editor.svg).

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Read E's headline beside G's “cannot promise” statement; ask which would a new visitor need first.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Draft one line aloud: “Bring a small item or a question; twelve conversations are planned.” Name the source for each clause and why “fix” is no longer promised.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Compare two endings: “Everyone will have a tool” versus “Ask the organisers what items and materials will be available.” The first invents an answer; the second marks a genuine unknown.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Learners choose Day 14 route and compose 70–100 words or an equivalent agreed public-facing transcript: an accurate invitation, the twelve-slot limit, one participation route from E/G and one unanswered practical question.
5. **Peer audit · 4 min.** The listener reads as an unfamiliar visitor, marking exact supported words and one place where a reader could still misread a guarantee. Writer revises once.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** Submit before/after sentence plus one reason for the change. Use the key for next teaching move; do not turn this into a QCAA grade.

### Day 15 · New-case check A: the Map Room

**Target:** transfer perspective analysis to [unseen fictional Texts K–L](STUDENT-CHECKS.md#day-15-check-a--map-room). The public check and key are formative. **Prepare:** new card only on the day, neutral source lens if needed.

1. **Launch · 2 min.** State the task and audience: an editor wants a careful 90–130-word note about a new invitation and one scene; do not supply an interpretation.
2. **Source access · 4 min.** Release K and L with source labels. Read aloud only if this is the agreed access route; log that support.
3. **Independent plan · 5 min.** Learner locates maker, exact invitation, one literary choice and one stated limit. Give no “best quote” or model answer.
4. **Independent response · 7 min.** Choose Day 15 route and capture a first independent comparison. All routes require source attribution, one effect, and a bounded unknown.
5. **Self-audit · 4 min.** Learner checks words such as `everyone`, `guaranteed`, `proved`; keep first version and record revisions.
6. **Submit · 3 min.** Collect the response and support log. Use the public worked key for feedback and plan a locally new parallel case if first encounter has been lost.

### Day 16 · A call that offers, then narrows

**Target:** analyse how Text H creates a relationship with possible contributors and where its terms remain open. **Prepare:** H and source lens.

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Put H's headline next to its “pitch does not guarantee one” sentence. Ask how both can be true as intentions.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Identify maker, possible contributor audience, imperative “Add yours” and eight planned production slots. A pitch can be invited without selection being assured.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Read the three permitted pitch formats and the three unpublished conditions. Distinguish “transcript is welcome” from a claim that all production access needs are settled.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Learners choose Day 16 route; create a source-backed note: one language choice, plausible effect on a reader, one confirmed option, one important unknown.
5. **Peer audit · 4 min.** Partner asks, “Could this source answer how pitches are chosen?” Writer checks and narrows.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “Does sending a transcript guarantee a production slot?” Key: no; the call welcomes that format but lists only eight expected slots and no selection criteria.

### Day 17 · A dialogue protects a speaker's choice

**Target:** analyse silence, folding and dialogue in Text I as literary choices, while distinguishing Kai's fictional preference from a real consent process. **Prepare:** I and voice map.

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Ask why a stage direction might carry meaning even when no character speaks.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Read I with neutral voices. Point to Jules folding the headline; interpret it as a possible shift from slogan to conversation, not proof of Jules's permanent change.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Locate Kai's “fact about the case” and “not permission” lines. Compare what H's invitation selects with what Kai wants to retain control over.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Learners choose Day 17 route; defend an interpretation of one stage direction and one spoken line with source labels and a limit.
5. **Peer audit · 4 min.** Partner checks that “Kai says…” is not recast as “young people think…” and that the possible effect is a reader inference, not a measured reaction.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “What does Kai ask before an episode goes out?” Key: who hears it first; H does not yet specify that procedure.

### Day 18 · A caption can erase a condition

**Target:** compare Text J drafts and create a short public caption preserving an invitation without inventing outcomes. **Prepare:** H, J and public editor.

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Read J Draft 1's “Every pitch becomes an episode.” Ask for the source line that can test it.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Place H's eight expected slots next to Draft 1. Explain why “every” conflicts with the explicit no-guarantee sentence. Draft 2 names a condition and permissions process as a plan.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Compare “finally speak for the town” with “invites short pitches.” Discuss who is positioned as previously silent, without assuming a real town's history.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Learners choose Day 18 route; produce a 30–45-word caption/transcript for a fictional public page with one exact invitation, one selection limit and one permission question.
5. **Peer audit · 4 min.** Reader checks the caption against H, then asks whether a web viewer without an image would understand it. Revise if needed.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “Which draft is closer to H's stated selection limit, and why?” Key: Draft 2; it retains eight planned slots and avoids an every-pitch guarantee.

### Day 19 · Compose, then show the revision

**Target:** shape a 110–150-word public editor note comparing H and I and explain one evidence-led change. **Prepare:** H/I/J and public editor.

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Invite learners to choose a precise question for a Studio One organiser; no one needs to reveal a personal pitch.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Demonstrate a plan, not a full answer: invitation → Kai's different concern → specific language/stage choice → unknown → question.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Test two topic sentences: “The station ignores contributors” versus “The call welcomes pitches but leaves selection and pre-publication review unclear.” Locate what can be supported.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Learners choose Day 19 route and draft an editor note, transcript or AAC-composed equivalent. Require one H detail, one I line or stage direction, an interpretation, an explicit limit, and a question.
5. **Peer audit · 4 min.** Partner marks a supported phrase and a claim that needs narrowing; learner saves a before/after line and explains why the edit serves the audience.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** Collect draft, revision and explanation. Allow more composition time later; the 7-minute first attempt is process evidence, not a speed grade.

### Day 20 · New-case check B: the Screen Shelf

**Target:** transfer to [unseen fictional Texts M–N](STUDENT-CHECKS.md#day-20-check-b--screen-shelf), including one literary technique and one public-facing revision. **Prepare:** new card only on the day; key is public.

1. **Launch · 2 min.** State the editor audience and 90–130-word/equivalent target; no preferred interpretation is offered.
2. **Source access · 4 min.** Release M and N with maker labels. Log any read-aloud, extra time or prompting.
3. **Independent plan · 5 min.** Learner identifies maker/purpose, a phrase from each source, one stylistic effect, a condition and an unknown.
4. **Independent response · 7 min.** Choose Day 20 route; compare the sources and propose one more accurate headline or line. Retain first response.
5. **Self-audit · 4 min.** Check that one invented character is not treated as a survey and that no outcome is guaranteed.
6. **Submit · 3 min.** Collect source-linked response and support note. Use the [public worked key](teacher/ANSWER-AND-NEXT.md); this is not a formal school instrument or secure exam.

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