# Ten teacher scripts · 25 minutes each

Use [practice Texts P–U](ORIGINAL-TEXTS.md), the [clean learner page](LEARNER.md), [daily routes](DAILY-CHOICES.md), [optional extras](DAILY-EXTRAS.md) and the [worked key](teacher/ANSWER-AND-NEXT.md). Each script is **2 + 4 + 5 + 7 + 4 + 3 = 25 minutes**. The seven-minute product is an initial sample, with additional composition time as locally needed. Days 25/30 use new [public formative cards](STUDENT-CHECKS.md), not QCAA instruments. Source labels are part of the teaching: every named club, person and place is fictional.

### Day 21 · One final point, one whole match

**Target:** analyse what Text P's headline foregrounds and what the 4–3 result cannot attribute. **Prepare:** P and the [foreground strip](print/foreground-strip.svg).

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Show “Mina wins it” without the body. Ask what kind of story a reader expects.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Read P with maker label. Mark the exact result and final-point fact, then underline the absence of a full play-by-play. Model “Mina scored the last point” as supported; “Mina scored all four” is not.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Test three claims: last point, all Comets points, biggest contribution. Ask which is stated and which needs absent evidence. Discuss how present-tense headline compresses the match.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Choose Day 21 route. Produce a two-sentence editor note naming the selected hero frame, one exact fact and one unknown.
5. **Peer audit · 4 min.** Partner finds the warrant for each verb; writer revises an attribution if unsupported.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “Does 4–3 tell us who made every earlier point?” Collect `no + source reason`.

### Day 22 · A score sheet cannot hold everything

**Target:** analyse Text Q's torn-paper image and close-third-person focus while distinguishing fictional Jo from a match witness. **Prepare:** Q and [sequence windows](print/sequence-windows.svg).

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Ask what a score sheet can record well and what it may omit; invite source-based guesses only.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Read Q. Point to “small moon” as an image of the torn sheet; it is not a real astronomical claim or a hidden statistic.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Sequence 3–3, Mina's last shot, 4–3 and Jo's reflection. Identify two actions the page “could not hold.” Name the fictional narrator's limited focus.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Choose Day 22 route. Explain one image or structural shift, its possible effect and one claim the scene cannot prove about the real match.
5. **Peer audit · 4 min.** Partner checks whether the sentence calls Jo an interviewee or treats the net-straightener as a documented player contribution.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “Why leave the hole in the last sentence?” Accept a bounded interpretation about incomplete recording; reject any claim it proves a real error in scoring.

### Day 23 · Report, scene, editor note

**Target:** synthesise P/Q/R by provenance and purpose, not by treating one text as a correction to all facts. **Prepare:** three labelled strips and [foreground strip](print/foreground-strip.svg).

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Put P's headline, Q's final line and R's “no complete sequence” together. Ask who wrote each.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Place P as fictional published brief, Q as SubjectNest fiction and R as fictional internal evidence note. Only P/R specify the stipulated result; Q imagines a perspective.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Trace a safe chain: known final point → chosen headline → reader's possible impression → R's warning. Do not use Q to fill an absent match log.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Choose Day 23 route. Make a three-source note with one detail and purpose per source, plus a claim that remains unknowable.
5. **Peer audit · 4 min.** Peer marks each source label and checks whether a fictional image has become a factual statistic.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “Which source explicitly says we lack earlier play-by-play?” Key: P and R, with R directing editorial caution.

### Day 24 · Revise without erasing the celebration

**Target:** write a public match line that preserves the result and final point without awarding unrecorded sole credit. **Prepare:** P/R and [editor arc](print/editor-arc.svg).

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Compare “Mina scored the final point” with “Mina alone won every point.” Ask which could be printed from P.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Draft a candidate headline: “Mina's final point closes a 4–3 Comets win.” Explain the possessive and why it celebrates a moment without claiming the whole match belonged to one person.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Test two subheads: “Seven points, many possible contributors” versus “Every player helped equally.” Only the first can be framed cautiously; the second invents distribution.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Choose Day 24 route. Write a headline and 70–100-word public note with exact score, final point, a reason to avoid sole-credit language and one missing evidence question. Save an earlier line and revision.
5. **Peer audit · 4 min.** Reader checks that a public supporter could understand the result without being told a fictional scene was an interview.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** State one change and its warrant in P/R. Use the key to determine if attribution needs reteaching.

### Day 25 · New-case check A: a game demo

**Target:** apply foregrounding and attribution to fresh [Texts V–W](STUDENT-CHECKS.md#day-25-check-a--game-demo). Both prompt and key are public. **Prepare:** card not previously used in this sequence.

1. **Launch · 2 min.** State audience: a fictional game-demo newsletter editor. Avoid suggesting a preferred headline.
2. **Source access · 4 min.** Release V/W with labels and log any reading support; do not give the answer key.
3. **Independent plan · 5 min.** Learner selects one exact detail per text, the report's chosen focus, a stylistic effect and a source limit.
4. **Independent response · 7 min.** Choose Day 25 route. Capture a first 90–130-word/equivalent editor note with a justified replacement line.
5. **Self-audit · 4 min.** Learner checks attribution, `only/every` claims and whether the literary scene is mistaken for an interview.
6. **Submit · 3 min.** Collect first response and mode/support log. Use the public worked key for a specific next move.

### Day 26 · When a metaphor meets a count

**Target:** compare Text S's “green wall” with its ten-planter observation without treating the metaphor as a measured conclusion. **Prepare:** S and foreground strip.

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Read S's title alone. Ask what the image suggests before showing the count.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Read the complete bulletin and sort six with shoots, four without visible shoots at day seven, later outcome unknown. A 6/10 observation does not certify a literal wall.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Ask whether “green wall” can be an expressive headline even if not all planters show shoots. Discuss how including the four changes a reader's picture without proving why they differ.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Choose Day 26 route. Explain the metaphor's likely effect, the exact observation and one future unknown in two to four sentences or equivalent.
5. **Peer audit · 4 min.** Partner locates the day-seven qualifier and rejects “the four failed forever” or “the six will grow into food.”
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “What did the group actually see at the seven-day check?” Key: six visible shoots, four not yet visible.

### Day 27 · A poem can leave a question open

**Target:** interpret Text T's comma/full-stop imagery and line ending as a literary response, not garden data. **Prepare:** T and [sequence windows](print/sequence-windows.svg).

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Show “Six small green commas.” Ask what a comma usually does in a sentence.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Read T twice with natural pauses. Contrast comma/open continuation with full stop/possible ending; note the poem's “I want” belongs to an invented speaker.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Pair T's six/four with S's observation but ask what the poem does differently: it creates a feeling of unfinishedness through punctuation images and line breaks.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Choose Day 27 route. Make one interpretation supported by two exact poem details and say what the poem cannot predict.
5. **Peer audit · 4 min.** Partner tests whether the interpretation permits another reading; avoid treating “dark full stops” as botanical proof.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “Why does morning leave the page open?” Accept a source-backed reading about uncertain later growth, not a scientific forecast.

### Day 28 · The crop is a choice

**Target:** evaluate Text U's *described* close crop and two captions using S's full count. **Prepare:** S/U and [foreground strip](print/foreground-strip.svg). No unprovided photograph is required.

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Read U's complete image description before either caption. Ask what is inside versus outside the frame.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Caption 1's “whole story” exceeds a crop showing six of ten planters. Caption 2 names the four outside and keeps the day-seven limit.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Ask whether a close crop is always dishonest (no); it becomes misleading when the caption claims completeness. Separate framing choice from certainty about intention.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Choose Day 28 route. Write a 35–55-word accessible caption/transcript describing what is shown, what is outside frame and what remains unknown.
5. **Peer audit · 4 min.** Reader with no image checks whether the text alone explains the ten-planter situation; revise any visual-only instruction.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** “Which word in Caption 1 causes the clearest overclaim?” Key: “whole.”

### Day 29 · A public review with both record and image

**Target:** write and visibly revise a short public reflection comparing S and T/U without flattening poem into data. **Prepare:** S/T/U and [editor arc](print/editor-arc.svg).

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Set audience as an imagined garden newsletter reader who has not seen the sources.
2. **Model · 4 min.** Offer a plan, not a full model: bounded count → selected metaphor/image → possible effect → missing future evidence → useful caption/question.
3. **Guided reading · 5 min.** Test “The poem proves four planters will stay bare” against T's final line; model a narrower interpretation.
4. **Practice route · 7 min.** Choose Day 29 route. Draft 120–160 words or an equivalent complete public transcript with one S fact, one T detail, one U framing point and a question. Keep before/after sentence.
5. **Peer audit · 4 min.** Partner identifies a source-backed comparison and one line where the poem/data boundary could be clearer; learner revises and names the effect.
6. **Exit · 3 min.** Submit draft, revision reason and support log. Offer more time for a finished version; speed is not the construct.

### Day 30 · New-case check B: a travelling book cart

**Target:** transfer count, image and individual voice to fresh [Texts X–Y](STUDENT-CHECKS.md#day-30-check-b--travelling-book-cart). **Prepare:** new card and neutral paper/aids only; key public.

1. **Launch · 2 min.** Set fictional local-news editor audience and 90–130-word/equivalent task; withhold preferred interpretation.
2. **Source access · 4 min.** Release X/Y, including full text description; log read-aloud/access support.
3. **Independent plan · 5 min.** Learner notes maker/purpose, exact count or route detail, one literary choice, an omitted/unknown fact and possible audience effect.
4. **Independent response · 7 min.** Choose Day 30 route. Capture source-linked first response and a more careful public line.
5. **Self-audit · 4 min.** Check that one fictional speaker is not a survey and a photograph does not prove unseen streets.
6. **Submit · 3 min.** Collect response and support log; use the public key for feedback, not a QCAA grade.

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