# Public teacher-targeted key and next moves · Health Days 1–10

This file is **publicly accessible by URL**. [Check A/B](../STUDENT-CHECKS.md) are fresh relative to the lessons but **not secure exams**, QCAA instruments or health screens. Observe three separate strands: `case frame/resource/barrier or source claim`, `exact fictional evidence and reasoning`, `bounded revision/question with unknown`. Record read-aloud, language, AAC, scribe, visual/tactile access and any **content hint** separately. “Clear in this response / partial or hinted / not yet evidenced” is a next-teaching note, never a diagnosis, resilience score or QCAA standard. If a real learner discloses a concern, follow the school's current safeguarding process outside this fictional task; do not record it in the shared example.

## Daily source-bound models

| Day | Credible response boundary | Next move if evidence is thin |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 01 | The smile and “no symptoms” supply no health measure. A static healthy/unhealthy binary omits changing context and possible physical, mental, emotional, social and spiritual dimensions. Better: “This fictional club offers several kinds of participation, but no individual's health status can be decided from this poster.” | Ask which exact evidence would justify the binary; invite two dimensions without asking about the learner. |
| 02 | A risk-oriented question asks what the noisy entry could make harder or how harm could be reduced. A salutogenic/strengths question asks how the optional peer introduction and quiet area can be accessed. Neither note diagnoses a newcomer or proves a resource worked. | Sort BARRIER from OFFER; ask for one question from each lens. |
| 03 | Preparation notes are a possible **personal** resource, a volunteer buddy **social**, a no-cost media room **community**. A page offering the room does not show whether anyone could book or use it. Replace “only confidence” with a choice-respecting list and an access question. | Put every resource under a named level; ask who can confirm usability. |
| 04 | Limited **10:00–11:00 weekdays** hours and an **online-only** form are possible access barriers; a guide and volunteer are possible enablers. There is no non-use or participant evidence, so “personal choice” is ungrounded. Ask who can reach the service and what routes they prefer without presuming a profile or policy breach. | Separate availability from usable access; do not make up a disability or legal claim. |
| 05 | The fictional `80%` lacks denominator, sample, comparator, wellbeing definition, method, date and source. *Clinically proven* and *every user* are unsupported. A careful public line asks for evidence before any outcome statement; it does not recommend the mock app. | Have the learner write two questions the maker could actually answer: “80% of whom?” and “measured how and when?” |
| 06 | **07:30** timing, data-heavy registration and a step are possible contextual determinants; motivation may also play a part, but no attendance profile or causal ranking is supplied. A correction names offered conditions and proposes an access question. | Ask what the source actually knows about any attendee (nothing), then restore at least two context factors. |
| 07 | Making art, optional conversation, quiet access and meaning can be discussed through several possible health dimensions. No evidence says one visit **fixes** any dimension. Spiritual may mean a sense of meaning/connection; do not assign religion or identity. | Change a cure/treatment verb to “offers an opportunity”; ask what outcome was measured (none). |
| 08 | A planning tool is a possible personal resource, tutor a social resource, and room a community resource. Asking for support cannot be scored as weakness from this menu. Uptake and effect remain unknown; offer choices without prescription. | Move the three cards into resource levels and put UNKNOWN UPTAKE at the end. |
| 09 | **8/12 = 2/3 ≈ 66.7%** of responding volunteers selected hard; **4/12 = 1/3 ≈ 33.3%** selected easy. The public “most local young people find easy” contradicts even this small set and cannot be generalised to a population. Voluntary selection, question validity and nonresponse are unknown. | Put denominator 12 beside both results; replace population wording with “among these 12 volunteers”. |
| 10 | A useful narrow question: “How can people using different information routes find changes to this fictional after-school programme's timetable?” Possible information needs: ask intended users which routes they can access, and audit where/how notices are currently displayed. No redesign or wellbeing effect is established. | Require context + possible barrier + information need; keep proposed action and measured impact for later inquiry. |

## Check A worked response · Mapfold guide

The QR-only guide is an **offered resource**; QR-only delivery is a **possible access barrier**. The invented count `3/4 = 75%` means **three of four volunteer adult staff located a link**. It does **not** mean 75% of local teens, a wellbeing improvement, universal access or a clinically established effect. Questions include: “Can readers use an alternative to QR, and have intended readers tested it?” and “What outcome, method, denominator and comparison would support a health claim?” A cautious rewrite: “In one fictional try-out, three of four volunteer adult staff located this guide link. We have no evidence about young people's access or wellbeing outcomes.”

**Next moves:** If “75% healthier” appears, put the counted event, population and outcome on separate cards. If the student calls a possible barrier a proven exclusion, ask what access evidence is missing. If the learner invents an alternative service as existing, recast it as a proposed option.

## Check B worked response · cycle-repair club

`5/10 = 50%` of **these ten voluntary adult respondents** selected “hard to find”, with another 5/10 selecting easy. This cannot describe every participant, nonrespondents or the wider community. The existing scanned-code notice is an **information resource** and may also be a **barrier** because it is only at the back entrance and requires scanning; whether it actually excludes anyone is unknown. One narrow preparatory Unit 1 question: “How can people using different information routes learn of this fictional club's timetable changes?” Two information needs: where updates are currently placed and which methods intended users say they can use. The new poster is only a **proposal**, with no implementation or wellbeing evidence.

**Next moves:** If the student reports 50% of all participants, restore “of ten volunteers”. If they declare a legal access breach, ask what rule/setting and evidence were provided (none). If they recommend the poster as proven, move it back to the question/planning column.

**Original resource rights:** © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, SubjectNest, [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Credit author, source, licence and changes.