Use the source label with every response. 2 = source-bound explanation independently, 1 = accurate after an adult directs the source, 0 = not yet shown with access available. This is formative planning evidence, not a Year 2 achievement judgement. A fictional map or voice is never evidence of a real local place, worker, First Nations Country/Place connection or social/spiritual significance.
| Day | Exact check / acceptable evidence | If not yet, teach and recheck |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | National Museum of Australia is named; typewriter keys put letters directly on paper. A correction question is open, e.g. “How did a typist fix a wrong letter?” Do not infer ownership. | Point to the source label and one sentence; ask child to restate what it actually says. |
| 2 | Museum typewriter made direct paper marks; described/demonstrated word processor allows editing before print. Both aim to make readable words. Distinguish described from observed demonstration. | Use a new paper label and a teacher-edited on-screen/printed description; name each source. |
| 3 | Jori = values physical copy; Mara = values pre-print change. Their invented preferences cannot show what all workers needed or had. | Move two name tokens to their exact statements, then ask for an unknown. |
| 4 | A supported by museum note; B needs another source and is too broad; C invented voice; D needs a real local source. A careful rewrite: “The museum describes one typewriter that printed on paper.” | Ask child to underline the source word in A; compare it with “every” in B. |
| 5 | Short first/now account names the museum note and teacher demonstration/printed current description. Typewriter direct paper mark contrasts with editing before printing. It does not imply every worker used either tool or one is universally better. | Give a fresh two-tool card with source labels and ask which action is actually supported. |
| 6 | Invented order: parcel desk ⊂ Lumo district ⊂ Weri region ⊂ Tava state. A map of a larger area can omit small building details. Actual local labels remain unverified. | Nest four different-size paper rectangles, then contrast invented versus approved map. |
| 7 | With an approved current source: accurately name title/date and source-supported local → regional → state/territory relation, without a private home location. Without it: mark fictional rehearsal only, so no actual K03 content evidence. | Locate only one public feature on a checked map, then introduce the next larger named division. |
| 8 | Arrow sequence desk → sorting point → second desk; invented interconnection only. Sender/receiver questions may differ. Distance, time and real route are unknown. | Cover arrows, then reveal one at a time; ask what an arrow does and does not tell. |
| 9 | Proposal ties to A's clearer label or B's quieter wait; child names a responsible real check, e.g. ask the site's manager/access users. This is not a measured access verdict. | Keep comment, proposal, test in separate boxes using another fictional comment. |
| 10 | Question, named real source or “source to seek,” respectful next step and one limit. No local importance/First Nations claim without an authorised source. | Provide a source label and two possible questions; choose one that could be checked. |
Knowledge-code gate: AC9HS2K02 is introduced through a source-credited typewriter account and current-tool comparison; these two examples do not cover home, work, travel and communication histories broadly. AC9HS2K03 receives actual geographical evidence only on Day 7 with a checked local map. AC9HS2K01 and AC9HS2K04 remain unaddressed pending local sources, authority and cultural protocols. Do not mark content coverage from the fictional Tava map.
Fresh transfer: Give a different, approved museum object description or checked local map title. Ask for one source-bound detail and one question, with the exact support used. Do not re-score the same memorised typewriter sentence as independent understanding.
Original teacher key © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, CC BY 4.0.