Every name, coordinate, count and event below is invented by SubjectNest. None is a real map, flood warning, geological assessment, affected community, field observation or emergency plan. A cell represents an invented 100 m × 100 m square only where explicitly stated. North is at the top; columns A–D run west to east, rows 1–3 north to south. Cell counts are buildings, not people. A letter category is a teaching label, not a measured flood depth or probability.
Card A · Creekbend floodplain model
An imaginary creek follows column A. For one specified model rainfall scenario, A1–A3 are labelled H (higher model inundation), B1–B3 M (middle), C1–D3 L (lower); these labels apply only within this example. The identical alignment makes an introductory north–south band easy to see. A different scenario could produce a different boundary.
| Row, north to south | A: creek-side H | B: near-bank M | C: inland L | D: inland L |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 dwellings | 8 dwellings | 12 dwellings | 4 dwellings |
| 2 | 0 dwellings | 15 dwellings | 18 dwellings | 5 dwellings |
| 3 | 0 dwellings | 6 dwellings | 10 dwellings | 3 dwellings |
The model count in M cells is 8 + 15 + 6 = 29 dwellings; H contains 0 in this card, L contains 12 + 4 + 18 + 5 + 10 + 3 = 52. Neither total says how many people live in the buildings, what construction they have, whether anyone has a warning, or whether a road is open. Do not equate “0 dwellings in H” with “no exposure”: a road, ecology or a passing person could still be exposed. The map's area is 12 × 0.01 km² = 0.12 km², because 100 m × 100 m = 0.01 km². This geometry is invented.
Card B · Three process sketches
B1: rain and runoff. In an imaginary catchment, sustained heavy rain falls while ground is already wet. Runoff rises, the fictional creek overtops the bank and reaches the lower bank-side cells. This is a simple atmospheric input interacting with surface hydrology; it does not supply a forecast, recurrence interval or specific inundation depth.
B2: slope movement. On an imaginary steep slope, saturated loose material loses stability and moves downhill. The process is geomorphic and may be influenced by rainfall. A teacher should not assert that all landslides share one trigger or speed.
B3: fault movement. An imagined fault suddenly slips, sending shaking through surrounding rock. This is geological. The broad observation that earthquakes are frequent and often large at tectonic plate boundaries does not establish any specific site's probability. No magnitude or safety statement is attached to this invented event.
Card C · North Loop access network
A hypothetical transit network has a library at C1, clinic at C2, workshop at D2 and bus interchange at B3. The only bridge from the west approach to the central/east services is B2. In a classroom scenario B2 is closed after water reaches the road; the remaining map gives no alternative crossing. This is a conditional access question, not advice to travel. A person on the west side may be cut off from the clinic even if the clinic at C2 has lower model inundation. Ask what map or agency information is missing before claiming a safe route. The card does not locate any actual services or disabled people.
Card D · Three model event timelines
All timings are fabricated for comparison, not descriptions of current warnings or universal hazard behaviour.
| Event | First signal to impact | Model event duration | Source limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| D1 sudden local runoff | 20 minutes | 2 hours | One imagined cell set; not a forecast. |
| D2 slow-rising river | 18 hours | 3 days | Same word “flood”, different onset/duration. |
| D3 fault shaking | no useful model warning in this card | 40 seconds | A short duration does not mean small impact. |
Do not infer event frequency or long-term probability from this three-row sample. Severity depends on more than duration or onset, including location, magnitude, exposure, vulnerability and response capacity. Discuss preparedness with current local authorities, never with these timings.
Card E · Equal hazard, different conditions
Eastbank and Westbank are invented neighbourhoods under the same stipulated flood scenario. Each has 20 model dwellings in the M zone. Eastbank's scenario has a practised warning channel, two independently checked possible routes and a community contact network. Westbank's scenario has no tested warning reach, one unverified crossing and a clinic dependent on that crossing. These facts suggest different capacity, but the card gives no residents' needs, building construction, road level, real warning performance or loss figures. Neither location is assigned a country or level of national development. The locations are not the official case-study pair.
Card F · A school-access planning brief
In a fictional school catchment, 30 model learners use the western bus route, 14 use the eastern route and 8 use a walking connection. A scenario closes the western crossing. Option 1 prints one large-text route notice; Option 2 tests an accessible multimode notice (large text, audio and plain-language message) and verifies an approved alternate journey with the transport authority. Option 2 has more verification steps, but the brief gives no time, cost, tested reach, actual safe route or result. Count only the 30 model learners whose usual western route is affected in this stated scenario, not all 52; do not assume Option 2 already works. A school cannot issue actual travel instructions from this brief.
Source boundary: QCAA v1.3 Geography Unit 1 Topic 1 motivates the targets. Geoscience Australia flood, earthquake and Bureau flood knowledge support only the general process descriptions. All cards and data are original invented teaching models.