All organisations, notices, people, surveys and figures here are invented classroom sources. They are not medical evidence, diagnoses, wellbeing scores, local policy, actual service information or claims about a real group. A learner works on the third-person case, never their own health, family circumstances, identity or support needs. Do not collect personal disclosures. Each public message can be tested against a separate desk note. The fresh public checks use unrelated cases.
Day 1 · Rehearsal-room poster
Public message: A fictional rehearsal club writes, “A person is either healthy or unhealthy. No symptoms today means their health is settled.” The poster shows one smiling face and leaves its criteria unstated.
Desk note: The constructed case offers no diagnosis or individual health measurement. The club's programme includes physical access to rooms, opportunities to meet others, time for rest and a sense of purpose for participants, but participation alone establishes no health outcome. Health can be considered across physical, mental, emotional, social and spiritual dimensions, and circumstances can change over time.
Inquiry: What does the poster's fixed binary leave out, and what would a more careful dynamic, multidimensional description say?
Day 2 · Puzzle-league welcome sheet
Public message: A fictional puzzle league writes, “Only risks matter when helping a newcomer settle in; listing resources is a distraction.”
Desk note: The invented newcomer is not a real student and has no stated diagnosis. The case gives two possible resources: an optional peer introduction and a clearly labelled quiet work area. It also gives one possible barrier: a single noisy entry point. A risk/harm lens and a resource/strength lens can ask different useful questions; neither alone is a health verdict.
Inquiry: Reframe the welcome sheet using both risk reduction and available resources without claiming that one person is resilient or unwell.
Day 3 · Community-radio sign-up
Public message: A fictional radio club promises, “The only resource a new presenter needs is personal confidence.”
Desk note: The imagined sign-up includes a presenter's preparation notes (personal resource), a volunteer buddy who can explain the equipment (social resource) and a no-cost community media room with a clear booking page (community resource). These are described opportunities, not proof of uptake or wellbeing. The club has not asked participants which resources work for them.
Inquiry: Sort the three resource levels and replace the “only” claim with a choice-respecting one.
Day 4 · Tool-lending checkout
Public message: A fictional tool library says, “Everyone can use our help desk, so any non-use is a personal choice.”
Desk note: Its invented help page is open only 10:00–11:00 on weekdays, and registration requires an online-only form. It also offers a plain-language guide and a volunteer to explain choices. The limited hours and form are possible access barriers; the guide and volunteer are possible enablers. No uptake, disability, employment or local policy data is supplied.
Inquiry: Distinguish an offered resource from usable access and write one question the library should investigate before blaming a person.
Day 5 · Wellbeing app mock advertisement
Public message: Fictional “BrightStep” claims, “Clinically proven to improve every user's wellbeing by 80%.” It shows a large 80% badge without a denominator or a study link.
Desk note: This is a made-up ad for source criticism, not an app recommendation. It supplies no study design, sample, comparator, definition of wellbeing, measurement method, date, author, conflicts of interest or access information. The number cannot be verified from the card. Health literacy includes understanding a message, asking a question of the maker and critically testing its evidence.
Inquiry: What can a reader understand, ask and challenge before repeating the number? Use fresh Check A later if locally scheduled.
Day 6 · Makerspace schedule card
Public message: A fictional makerspace writes, “Motivation alone explains who attends a morning workshop.”
Desk note: The invented schedule begins at 07:30, the only registration option is a data-heavy webpage, and the room has a step at the entry. The card includes no actual attendance or personal circumstances. Timing, digital access and the built environment are possible determinants/barriers; interest and motivation may also matter, but the case cannot rank causes or diagnose anyone.
Inquiry: Identify more than one kind of determinant and rewrite the single-cause claim without inventing a participant profile.
Day 7 · Community arts timetable
Public message: A fictional arts centre writes, “Our music group fixes every dimension of health after one visit.”
Desk note: The model programme offers a place to make art, optional group conversation, a quiet route, and space for personal meaning. These can be discussed as opportunities touching physical, mental, emotional, social or spiritual dimensions in different ways; the centre has no outcome data. “Spiritual” here can include meaning and connection; it does not assign a religion or cultural identity to anyone.
Inquiry: Name at least three possible dimensions without treating a one-time visit as a treatment or guaranteed outcome.
Day 8 · Senior-transition handout
Public message: A fictional study centre writes, “Resilient people never need help. Asking for support means they lack a personal strength.”
Desk note: Its invented support menu includes a student planning tool (possible internal/personal resource), a trusted tutor appointment (social resource) and a clearly signposted no-cost study room (community resource). The menu is not evidence that anyone used a service or improved. Resilience can be discussed as a resource that interacts with surroundings, not a fixed score, moral judgment or medical diagnosis.
Inquiry: Replace the blame frame with a resource-and-access frame while naming one missing piece of evidence.
Day 9 · Book-cart feedback card
Public message: A fictional book-cart editor writes, “Most local young people find our information easy to use.”
Desk note: Of 12 volunteers who chose to answer a brief invented question, 8 selected “the instructions were hard to follow” and 4 selected “easy to follow”. No sampling frame, question validation, nonresponse count or wider population data exists. The card is an invented primary-source-style response summary, not a published survey or a real student record.
Inquiry: Calculate the fraction/percentage in this volunteer set, identify whose perspective is missing and narrow the editor's claim.
Day 10 · Timetable-board proposal
Public message: A fictional council proposal says, “We will solve resilience for all students by putting up a new timetable board.”
Desk note: The constructed issue is narrower: one invented after-school programme posts session changes only on a small-print board near a single entrance. No user consultation, access audit, uptake or wellbeing outcome has been gathered. A useful preparatory Unit 1 issue question could ask how people who rely on different information routes can learn of schedule changes; any action or impact test is for later school-planned inquiry.
Inquiry: Turn the sweeping topic into one contextualised access question, state two information needs and keep the proposal a question rather than a proven fix. Fresh Check B uses another case.
Original resource rights: © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, SubjectNest, CC BY 4.0. Credit author, source, licence and changes.