# Year 3 Technologies · teacher-only checks and next moves

Keep this separate from learner cards. Capture `exact action/words | source or actual mode | help offered | next move` without identifiable child data in this public pack. These short checks are formative, not a full achievement-standard judgement. Score 2 for independent evidence with access available, 1 after a model/prompt, 0 for not yet evidenced; **not assessed** if access, approval or opportunity was unavailable. Do not mark planning as an actual experiment, bodily movement, shared drama, sounded music or media-tool use. Recheck with the fresh task below.

| Day | Observable check / acceptable response | If not yet, teach and recheck | Evidence limit |
| ---: | --- | --- | --- |
| 11 | A holder must stand or be supported and make the card readable for the named user; one fold test is not a durability certification. | Use a fresh heavier paper card and retest stability before revising criteria. | A fictional user story cannot stand in for feedback from real users. |
| 12 | A folded form may resist the gentle push differently. No universal strength ranking follows from one informal trial. | Repeat with a new fold shape and record the push direction explicitly. | Do not call the paper test an engineering safety certification. |
| 13 | Both designs have a legible card position and feasible fold sequence; the chosen option gives a testable reason, not a guessed guarantee. | Provide a new narrow table space criterion and ask for revised sketch/sequence. | A design sketch is not a made product or real user evaluation. |
| 14 | The model either holds the card visibly under this gentle test or needs revision. Note the observed result rather than ‘works perfectly’. | Try a different card width and revise one fold step. | A single desk test does not prove long-term durability or universal access. |
| 15 | A model can be visible/reused in this trial yet fail narrow-footprint; ‘sustainable’ needs a wider evidence base. | Give a new fictional user needing a larger card and ask which criterion/test changes. | Invented criteria are practice, not proof of real community needs. |
| 16 | An ordered three-step route works only for matching labels; a nonmatch needs an explicit branch. | Use a new box label pair and ask learner to add a decision step. | Paper sequence shows algorithm reasoning, not a running visual program. |
| 17 | BLUE matches BLUE and can be placed; GREEN is not a match and follows ELSE. The rule needs a safe end if no label matches. | Try a new RED card with no RED box and add a clear ‘ask’ end. | Unplugged branching does not prove a digital program was implemented. |
| 18 | The check repeats three times for three cards; an unmatched card must not be placed in a guessed box. | Test four new tokens with two matching labels and count iterations again. | A paper loop demonstrates logic, not executed software. |
| 19 | Both representations preserve blue=2, green=1. A table supports exact lookup; tokens can show quantity, but neither adds an unrecorded category. | Use counts 1 and 3 with new labels and check fidelity in both forms. | The numbers are fictional and reveal no real borrowing data. |
| 20 | A and C can match; B must pause/ask, not be forced into a box. A clear algorithm handles all three and meets the no-guess criterion on paper. | Give a new repeated label or blank label and ask learner to refine the stopping condition. | This assessment covers unplugged algorithms, not implementation or secure account use. |

**Fresh transfer:** Day 20 uses a new situation within its subject. After a miss, use the named *different* scenario in the third column rather than rehearsing the same answer. Record support and a future teaching action. A specialist/local educator should review these prompts and each learner's current pathway before classroom use.

Original SubjectNest cards © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/); credit, link and note changes.