Target: propose one action that follows from bounded spatial evidence and recognise where an authentic two-place study is still required. Prepare: Cards E/F and risk evidence board.
- Launch · 2 min. Card F has 30 western-route learners out of 52 total. Ask which number a western crossing closure directly affects in the brief.
- Model · 4 min. 30 are linked to the western route, not necessarily harmed. Option 2 proposes accessible multimode information and verification by the transport authority; no alternative safe route is established. Connect proposed action to the access issue, with a checkable next evidence step.
- Guided reading · 5 min. Revisit E: same scenario/exposure, different warning and crossing information. Explain why this invented comparison cannot stand in for QCAA's two real locations in differently developed countries.
- Practice route · 7 min. Choose Day 9 route. State spatial evidence, conditional impact, action, responsible verifier and limitation for F.
- Audit · 4 min. Peer says “Option 2 guarantees access”; learner changes this to a proposal to test and verify, then asks how the message reaches people who need it.
- Exit · 3 min. “What is still needed for QCAA's Topic 1 case study?” Key: a real hazard at two real contrasting locations, sourced spatial/exposure/vulnerability data and defensible comparison/action.