Use only the fictional public message and desk note, a learner route, an optional A4 aid/text route, and the public teacher-targeted worked guide. The common schedule is 3 + 4 + 5 + 8 + 3 + 2 = 25 minutes. Every route produces (1) a named frame/resource/barrier or source claim, (2) exact case evidence and an explanation, (3) a bounded revision or issue question plus an unknown. The third-person cases require no personal health disclosure, diagnosis, intervention, medical advice or claim about local services. Permit a parallel fictional context without asking why. Keep access support and content prompting separate in the evidence log. These are not QCAA instruments.
Day 1 · Replace a fixed health binary
0–3 notice: Display the smiling poster and ask what criteria it actually gives. 3–7 source: Reveal the desk note and mark “no individual health measurement”; do not invite self-rating. 7–12 teach: On the lens-and-language mat, contrast a static either/or label with a dynamic, multidimensional description. The smiling face and absence of stated symptoms cannot decide health status. 12–20 choice: A/B/C revises the poster for fictional readers with at least two dimensions and one unknown. 20–23 audit: Ask who could be left out if room access or social connection is ignored. 23–25 exit: One specific overclaim and a careful replacement phrase.
Day 2 · Risks and resources ask different questions
0–3 notice: Read “resources are a distraction” and solicit two possible questions, not personal stories. 3–7 source: Locate one possible barrier and two offered resources in the puzzle-league note. 7–12 teach: The lens-and-language mat contrasts a pathogenic/risk-oriented question with a salutogenic/strengths-oriented resource question; neither is a verdict on a person. 12–20 choice: Learners make a two-column welcome revision through A/B/C. 20–23 audit: Peer checks that the quiet area and buddy remain optional and that no diagnosis was added. 23–25 exit: State one risk-reduction question and one resource-access question.
Day 3 · Resources live at more than one level
0–3 notice: Circle only confidence in the radio-club line. 3–7 source: Reveal preparation notes, buddy and community room; none has known uptake. 7–12 teach: On the resource-and-access mat, sort personal, social, community resources without ranking a person. Explain that availability is not automatically usability. 12–20 choice: A/B/C makes a three-level map and rewrites only. 20–23 audit: Ask whether a booking page proves the room worked for every presenter (no). 23–25 exit: Name three resources and one question for users.
Day 4 · An offered desk is not universal access
0–3 notice: Read “non-use is a personal choice” and ask what the library has actually observed. 3–7 source: Mark hours, online-only form, guide and volunteer; avoid inventing a user profile. 7–12 teach: The resource-and-access mat separates resource, possible barrier, possible enabler and evidence still needed. 12–20 choice: Learners draft a responsible access question and rewrite the blame sentence. 20–23 audit: Check that an online-only form is named as a possible barrier, not a proven disability exclusion or a legal violation. 23–25 exit: What data would the fictional library need before saying “everyone”?
Day 5 · Interrogate an 80% badge
0–3 notice: Show 80% alone; ask for its denominator, date and outcome definition. 3–7 source: Reveal that the invented BrightStep ad provides none. 7–12 teach: On the message-evidence mat, move from understanding the literal claim to asking the maker, then testing source validity, reliability and currency. Do not search for or recommend an actual app. 12–20 choice: A/B/C produces three specific evidence questions and a non-promotional rewrite. 20–23 audit: Peer flags every user and clinically proven as unsupported in this card. 23–25 exit: Name one fact absent that would be essential before repeating 80%. Offer fresh Check A later if new to the learner.
Day 6 · Look past a single-cause story
0–3 notice: Read “motivation alone” and ask what the message leaves out. 3–7 source: Reveal 07:30 timing, heavy webpage and step; no attendance data or person is described. 7–12 teach: Use resource-and-access to connect possible environmental/economic and psycho-sociocultural determinants without claiming a causal ranking. 12–20 choice: A/B/C revises the claim and poses a non-intrusive access question. 20–23 audit: Ask whether any learner named a real person's diagnosis, finances or work schedule (remove it). 23–25 exit: Two possible determinants and one uncertainty.
Day 7 · One visit cannot fix five dimensions
0–3 notice: Circle fixes every in the fictional arts-centre line. 3–7 source: List only the offered making, conversation, quiet and meaning opportunities; no outcomes. 7–12 teach: On the dimension-map mat, label physical, mental, emotional, social and spiritual as possible ways to discuss health. Treat spiritual as meaning/connection without assigning belief or cultural identity. 12–20 choice: A/B/C gives at least three possible dimensions and a cautious message. 20–23 audit: Ask which outcomes were actually measured (none). 23–25 exit: Replace “fixes” with an opportunity statement and an evidence need.
Day 8 · Resilience is not a blame score
0–3 notice: Read “asking for support means weakness” and ask whose interests that wording serves. 3–7 source: Reveal the planning tool, tutor and room; no uptake or benefit data. 7–12 teach: Use resource-and-access to show a possible personal resource alongside social/community resources and possible access conditions. Resilience is a context-sensitive resource, not a fixed virtue, diagnosis or score. 12–20 choice: Learners replace blame with a menu of optional supports and an unknown. 20–23 audit: Strike any sentence that prescribes a support to a real classmate. 23–25 exit: A source-bound correction about asking for help.
Day 9 · Twelve volunteers are not a population
0–3 notice: Read most local young people and ask who was actually asked. 3–7 source: Reveal 8 hard and 4 easy responses from 12 volunteers. 7–12 teach: On message-evidence, compute 8/12≈66.7% hard and 4/12≈33.3% easy among these respondents only. Distinguish primary-style fictional responses from an authorised, representative study; name missing sampling/validation/nonresponse information. 12–20 choice: A/B/C rewrites the headline and gives one research-quality question. 20–23 audit: Check denominator 12 and remove a claim about all local young people. 23–25 exit: Report one bounded proportion and one credibility limit.
Day 10 · Narrow a topic into a useful question
0–3 notice: Read “solve resilience for all” and circle the outcome promise. 3–7 source: Reveal the small-print single-entrance board and missing user consultation; no policy breach is claimed. 7–12 teach: On the issue-question mat, identify specific group/context, possible barrier, resource/enabler and information needed. Model an inquiry question about how programme participants using different information routes can find schedule changes. 12–20 choice: A/B/C drafts one narrow preparatory Unit 1 question, two information needs and a bounded public line. 20–23 audit: Peers check that a board redesign is not presented as implemented or effective. 23–25 exit: One question, one evidence gap and no personal disclosure. Offer separate fresh Check B later if new.
Evidence log: day | exact fictional source detail | frame/resource/barrier/dimension or source-quality reasoning | bounded revision/question | access mode | content prompt | next move. Save actual learner work only in a school-approved system. The QCAA crosswalk names sampled Stage 1 opportunities and major unfinished work.
Original resource rights: © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, SubjectNest, CC BY 4.0. Credit author, source, licence and changes.