# HASS staff checks and next moves

**Staff only.** Record exact child claim and whether it came from a checked source, a fictional model, or inference. Use `I` independent, `P` after a specific prompt, `R` repair, `N` not yet observed. A source name is evidence only when the child has actually inspected the provided note/map. A child need not disclose any personal/local knowledge.

| Day | Acceptable evidence / key | Exact next move |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 11 | Small plan for door; state/territory reference view for broad boundary; each omits detail for the other purpose. | If child treats a courtyard sketch as real boundary evidence, ask what area the sketch actually covers. |
| 12 | Publisher **Geoscience Australia**; reference-map page title and access date recorded. A question about broad features/boundaries is plausible; local detail requires another map. | If “internet” is only source label, point to publisher/title/date fields and reread together. |
| 13 | Fictional local ⊂ region ⊂ state/territory **as a model**; real place names require approved source. | If invented label is reported as real geography, add a bold MODEL tag and ask for a checked map. |
| 14 | Plan A has path/shelves; B only shelves. Visitor likely needs route; helper likely needs shelf label. Perspectives are fictional. | If child says a drawn wide path is definitely accessible, ask what a real user/site test would require. |
| 15 | **Source 2** could test a real state boundary if its map/title/date are checked; fictional Source 1 cannot. Next: inspect actual labelled boundary and source metadata. | If the answer gives a boundary location from the card, note that neither description supplies a specific boundary fact. |
| 16 | Museums Victoria record supports handheld barcode/location tracking **there**, beginning in 2001; does not prove all museums adopted it. | If child generalises to everyone, underline “this museum” in the source note and rewrite the sentence. |
| 17 | Museum fact separated from invented paper/digital game. Both cards could list a shelf; digital search is a possibility, not proven for the invented system. | If child attributes our paper list to the museum, align each claim with a source label. |
| 18 | Visitor/stock-helper needs distinguished; public list omits personal name; suggestion addresses both. | If roles collapse, give each fictional role a separate question strip and let child choose a field. |
| 19 | Proposal plus named source or “new idea to test”, with one possible effect and uncertainty. | If child claims the idea will certainly work, ask who could test it and what observation would change the proposal. |
| 20 | Museums Victoria is publisher; record supports one scanner's use in its inventory system **2008–2014**; cannot determine all museums' adoption dates. | If child equates an object date with a national timeline, ask whose collection the source documents. |

**Coverage limit:** Fictional maps can show spatial-representation *reasoning* but not actual local-to-state interconnection. `AC9HS2K03` remains conditional on a school-approved local/regional/state source. The two museum records document particular technology use, not every family/workplace. `AC9HS2K01` and `AC9HS2K04` need verified local and community-authorised sources and are not claimed.