# Two fresh public checks · keep first reasoning

These are **public formative tasks**, not secure exams, QCAA school assessments or legal advice. Both files, people, instruments and places are invented. A teacher may read the file aloud or transcribe a response and should record support. Learners may use any same-target route in [daily choices](DAILY-CHOICES.md). The teacher should capture the first response before feedback. No personal legal matter is needed.

## Day 5 check A · Horizon skate hall (File J)

**Read the new file.** A fictional venue called **Horizon Skate Hall** publishes a membership rule: “Use the marked lane when carrying boards.” A staff member says the rule is a *Queensland criminal law*. A different document headed *Night Open Public Rooms Bill* was **introduced** into the fictional Queensland Assembly exercise yesterday. The exercise file says nothing about passage, assent, commencement, an offence or a penalty. A one-page closure notice is placed behind a high counter; some visitors say they cannot see or reach it. No real local by-law, enacted Act or criminal charge is supplied.

1. Classify the lane instruction and the proposed bill. What is **not** yet established as law or crime? Cite two file details.
2. Name a primary source and two legal-status details you would need before accepting the staff member's criminal-law claim. Why is a venue worker's statement insufficient?
3. Who would make an actual Queensland statute, who might administer it, and who would decide its meaning in a dispute? State one overlap or caveat.
4. Give the venue's and one visitor's viewpoints about the notice. Explain one plausible consequence of leaving the notice as it is, without assuming a breach of a particular real Act.
5. Recommend one fair, practical next step with a reason based on accessible notice or predictable enforcement. State what your recommendation **does not** prove.

**Choose output:** a five-box annotated file, five full-word sorting cards with a short explanation, or a five-part spoken/AAC/dictated response. Keep the same source and limits. Say “the file establishes”, “I infer”, and “I still need”.

## Day 10 check B · South Quay (File K)

**Read this separate new file.** The invented **South Quay Youth Studio** has a club rule: “One visitor at a time near the sound desk.” In a classroom simulation, a **Queensland model bill** about public studio notices has passed the Legislative Assembly and received assent, but the supplied extract says its notice provision **commences next month**. Its only reproduced clause describes a notice duty; the extract provides **no offence or penalty**. A worker alleges that Ari deliberately damaged a cable today. An invoice shows replacement cost; a camera still shows Ari near the desk, but the cable is outside the image. No other witness or offence provision is supplied. A website also claims a **1986 Australian Law Reform Commission report** states what *every* living First Nations community thinks about law today; no community is identified or quoted.

1. Separate the club rule, assented-but-not-yet-commenced provision and unsupported criminal claim. Which source/status fact matters for today?
2. Does the supplied evidence establish Ari's action or guilt? State the general criminal onus and standard, then give two limits of the invoice/camera still. Do not decide a real offence.
3. If a real Queensland criminal charge were identified, what court is the usual first level? What could a relevant higher-court precedent help with, and what could it **not** prove here?
4. Explain why the website's universal claim is not established by a dated institutional report. What kind of contemporary, community-approved source and legal source would be needed for a specific issue?
5. Write a short recommendation for the studio that distinguishes safety/notice from criminal accusation, cites at least two file details, considers two viewpoints and states a consequence or limitation. Keep it conditional.

**Choose output:** annotate the file and make a claim/evidence/limit grid; sort full-word status/evidence/source cards with a short synthesis; or give a recorded/transcribed spoken or AAC five-part response. The same legal reasoning is expected. Do not disclose a personal case or present a fictional First Nations voice.

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