These keys and new-case cards are publicly accessible; checks are formative and new relative to practice, not secure exams. A school must set and judge its own Unit 1–2 instruments. Keep first responses and record support, reading access, mode and time separately. Accept interpretations tied to the exact source and stated limits; this is not a QCAA A–E rubric or ISMG.
Daily key and next move
| Day | Defensible response | If missed, next move |
|---|---|---|
| 21 | P states a 4–3 Comets result and Mina's final point. The headline foregrounds her, but P has no earlier play-by-play. It cannot assign all four points or quantify other contributions. | Set final point beside whole match; ask which one has a source line. |
| 22 | Q's torn “small moon”/final hole may suggest what a score sheet leaves out. The 3–3 to 4–3 sequence is fictional narration; Jo is not an actual interviewee. The scene cannot establish official earlier actions. | Reorder four events, then separate Jo's imagined perception from P's stated result. |
| 23 | P is a fictional public brief, Q an invented literary scene, R a fictional editorial caution. P/R agree on result and final point; neither supplies a full earlier sequence. Q's net-straightener and warning are story details, not match-record facts. | Reattach maker labels and circle every fact imported from the scene into a report claim. |
| 24 | Accept a line such as “Mina's final point closes the Comets' 4–3 win.” A public note may celebrate the moment while asking who made earlier points or what the complete sequence shows. “Every player helped equally” remains unproved. | Put exact score/final point/absent log in an editor arc; revise one unsupported attribution. |
| 25 | See Check A below. | Reteach the specific source/agency/effect boundary after first response. |
| 26 | S observes ten planters: six with visible shoots and four without at day seven. “Green wall” is an expressive frame, not a literal full-coverage measure. Later growth/causes are unknown. | Ask whether the headline and observation are the same kind of statement. Re-read the day qualifier. |
| 27 | T's green commas and dark full stops borrow punctuation to represent continuation/stillness. “Morning leaves the page open” supports a reading of uncertain future; the poem is not a germination forecast. | Highlight two exact images, then ask for a possible effect rather than a scientific prediction. |
| 28 | U describes a crop of six sprouted planters; four outside frame. Caption 1's “whole” overstates coverage. Caption 2 gives all ten and the day-seven limit. Cropping is a choice; intent cannot be certified. | Place inside/outside text strips against each caption. Ask what a reader without a picture would know. |
| 29 | A good public reflection compares S's bounded observation with T's imagery and U's crop, names possible effect, asks about later checks, and saves a substantive source-backed edit. Do not read T as scientific proof. | If it only lists three texts, ask what one choice does to a public reader. If it overpredicts, reinstate day seven. |
| 30 | See Check B below. | Reteach the specific count/crop/voice boundary after first response. |
Day 25 Check A · game demo
Warranted reading: V's fictional editor highlights Bea in “builds a maze for everyone.” V actually says Bea pressed start and coded the menu, Kian drew rooms and Rue tested instructions; it has no total-contribution ranking. W is SubjectNest fiction focalised through Rue. The grey door, note and smaller-looking screen can make a reader notice unobtrusive testing work or Rue's uncertainty about being heard. The last sentence explicitly says Rue did not know whether the door changed. W cannot fill the absent development log or prove unfair credit. A careful line: “Pixel Yard's team showed a maze demo; Bea coded the menu and started it, while Kian drew rooms and Rue tested instructions.”
Possible response: “Pixel Yard's fictional newsletter calls Bea the person who ‘builds a maze for everyone’. That headline celebrates a public moment, but the brief also says Kian drew rooms and Rue tested instructions. It has no full development log, so it cannot rank their total work. In the separate invented scene, Rue sees a grey door that blends into a wall and leaves a note to make it clearer. The screen looks smaller than the note from behind the chairs, which may make a reader notice work that the public demo does not show. Rue does not know if the door changed. I would headline this as a team demo, naming Bea's menu and the other stated roles.”
Next moves: If a response credits Bea with all coding/design, re-read V's three named roles. If it claims Rue's note was implemented, point to W's final sentence. If it uses W as an interview, restore the literary maker label. If a student argues the headline is still acceptable as celebration, ask them to name what it foregrounds and what limit a subhead must restore. If an expressive mode blocks response, re-offer an agreed mode without supplying interpretation.
Day 30 Check B · travelling book cart
Warranted reading: X records three Tuesday stops: North Gate, Pool Steps, Post Office. The described photo shows Pool Steps only. “Every corner” exceeds the recorded route and cannot be checked against an unknown town-wide street count. Y is one invented poem; “my corner was a margin” may invite a reader to consider a place not named on the printed route. It does not prove the cart failed to arrive later or that a real resident was excluded. No next route is announced. A careful line: “Page Cart stopped at three named places on Tuesday; its next route has not been announced.”
Possible response: “The fictional Page Cart newsletter says ‘a book on every corner’, yet its recorded Tuesday route names North Gate, Pool Steps and the Post Office. The described photograph shows a queue only at Pool Steps, so it cannot show the other stops or every street. In the separate invented poem, the speaker calls their corner ‘a margin’. That image may make readers notice what a three-dot route leaves outside its printed view. It is one imagined voice, not proof that a real person was missed; the next route is also unknown. A clearer public line would name the three Tuesday stops and invite readers to ask when the next route will be published.”
Next moves: If a student counts the photo as evidence for three sites, point to X's full frame description. If they say the poem documents a missed service, ask what its speaker actually knows. If “every” is treated literally, request the town-wide street count (absent). If a revised line predicts the next route, replace it with a question. If an effect is asserted for all readers, change it to a plausible possible effect.
Local feedback lens, not an official reporting tool
| Construct | Local evidence to notice | Next move if not yet observed |
|---|---|---|
| Source and provenance | Names public maker versus invented literary maker and purpose | Restore labels before interpretation. |
| Choice and effect | Quotes a headline/image/action and explains a plausible positioning | Ask what a possible reader might notice because of that choice. |
| Boundary | Holds score/count/frame/future unknown apart and avoids total attribution | Match outcome claim to the final available source sentence. |
| Public revision | Gives a useful accurate line and a reason tied to evidence | Build fact → possible effect → limit → revised line. |
Record observed / emerging / not yet observed per construct, with a next teaching action. No mark or QCAA unit judgment is inferred from this ten-minute lens. SubjectNest original keys © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, CC BY 4.0.