These invented cases are new relative to Days 1–10 practice. This page and the teacher-targeted worked key are publicly accessible by URL, so they are not secure exams, QCAA instruments or personal-health assessments. A school should make a new local parallel if prior access matters. Use after the named day in a later school-selected slot: 2 minutes case orientation, 8 minutes first response, 3 minutes boundary check. Allow access support and extra composition time as locally agreed; record whether support gave source access or content help. A read-aloud does not itself show independent reading. No real health disclosure, diagnosis, survey or service search is required.
Check A · after Day 5 · Mapfold guide claim
Public guide card: Fictional Mapfold Studio writes, “Our QR-only wellbeing guide makes 75% of local teens healthier. The number proves universal access.”
Desk note: In an invented internal try-out, 3 of 4 volunteer adult staff located the guide link. They were not asked whether their health changed. No young people were sampled, no wellbeing outcome was measured, and no denominator beyond those four staff or access audit is supplied. The only published route to the guide is a QR code; that may be a barrier for some readers, but no actual exclusion is documented.
Task: Identify the resource and possible barrier. Explain exactly what 3/4 = 75% describes and why it cannot support either public claim. Ask two concrete questions about access or evidence, then write a cautious replacement line. Choose A annotated claim and evidence table, B four labelled response tokens plus a dictated correction, or C private oral/AAC editor note with a scribed fraction and two questions. Every route must include resource, barrier, denominator and unknown outcome.
Check B · after Day 10 · Cycle-repair club update
Public proposal: A fictional club coordinator writes, “A new poster will solve resilience for every participant; everyone already knows how to find changes.”
Desk note: One invented club posts timetable changes only as a scanned-code notice at the back entrance. In a small fictional voluntary feedback exercise, 5 of 10 adult volunteers selected “hard to find the update”; the other five chose “easy to find”. Nothing is known about nonrespondents, people who did not attend, actual access needs, poster testing or wellbeing outcomes. The ten responses are not a representative population sample.
Task: Report the relevant fraction/percentage among these ten volunteers. Identify one possible resource and one possible barrier without inventing a participant profile. Turn the broad promise into one narrow preparatory Unit 1 inquiry question and two information needs. Do not claim the poster has been implemented or works. Choose A annotated proposal/response table, B ten labelled tokens with a dictated question, or C private spoken/AAC briefing with a scribed fraction. Every route must keep the voluntary-sample and outcome limits.
Evidence boundary: These public paper cases cannot establish a personal health status, unit result, real service accessibility, policy compliance or any improvement in resilience. Use a school-approved record route for actual learner work.
Original resource rights: © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, SubjectNest, CC BY 4.0. Credit author, source, licence and changes.