# Choice of route · same legal target every day

Any learner can switch route without giving a reason. Every route needs the **same source, legal distinction, relevant viewpoint/consequence and stated uncertainty** for that day's target. Display or print full-word tokens; never use colour alone. Spoken/AAC/dictated answers can be recorded as a transcript or teacher note; a reading/scribe prompt is logged for interpretation of independence.

| Day | Annotate or draw | Move full-word cards | Speak, dictate or AAC | Same evidence the teacher collects |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mark Card A's club and hub rules; draw a blank box for enacted law. | Sort `club rule`, `hub rule`, `enacted legal provision unknown` with makers. | Say “The volunteer claims … Card A establishes … To test a crime I need …”. | Legal/nonlegal distinction, actual source gap, bounded conclusion. |
| 2 | Ring missing notice and disputed proof on Cards A/C; arrow to fair action. | Sort `known rule`, `fair notice`, `evidence`, `chance to respond`. | Describe one affected person, consequence and a fair-process repair. | Rule-of-law criterion, viewpoint/consequence and proportionate change. |
| 3 | Make a four-rung source ladder and mark what no source proves. | Order `rumour`, `bill`, `authorised Act`, `relevant judgment`; label status. | Explain which source establishes an actual rule and which cannot establish facts. | Statute/proposal/common-law distinction and evidence limit. |
| 4 | Flowchart proposal to commencement, then connect three function boxes. | Sequence step cards and place `legislate`, `administer`, `interpret` under arms. | Narrate the Queensland pathway and three functions with one overlap caveat. | Accurate model pathway, roles and no instant-crime inference. |
| 5 | Annotate File J with “rule / proposal / unsupported crime”; write next step. | Sort File J statements by legal status and add a fairness token. | Give a source-bounded oral/AAC conclusion and fair verification step. | Independent transfer with cited File J evidence and limit. |
| 6 | Draw a two-axis grid: arms across, Commonwealth/state down. | Sort separate `arm` and `power allocation` tokens, then give one example each. | Contrast “who makes/administers/decides” with “which parliament has power”. | Two correctly separated classifications and constitutional caveat. |
| 7 | Diagram a conditional court route; add party-led versus judicial-officer-led inquiry notes. | Sequence court names, `binding legal point`, `disputed fact`, and two procedure-model cards. | Explain where a serious matter may go, what precedent cannot prove, and the broad model difference. | Court path, jurisdiction/precedent distinction, adversarial/inquisitorial contrast with caveat. |
| 8 | Label Card C “who proves?”/“how sure?” and Card H “words / missing purpose”. | Match `prosecution`, `beyond reasonable doubt`, `no offence supplied`, `interpretation question`. | Speak a two-part proof distinction and one cautious clause question. | Burden/standard contrast and no invented liability. |
| 9 | Make columns “1986 report / current source / community voice missing”. | Sort claims under `historic ALRC`, `current law to check`, `community permission`. | Explain the report's limited reach and a respectful source path. | Source date, diverse laws, authority/recognition distinction. |
| 10 | Annotate File K for status, roles, proof and source limit. | Sort File K items into legal status, evidence, missing voice and next-source piles. | Give a four-part source-bounded synthesis with a conditional next step. | Independent transfer; no guilt or cultural generalisation. |

Original response supports © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).