# Teacher copy · exact answers, interpretation and next moves

Use with the [fresh Day 15/20 tasks](ASSESSMENT.md) **after** saving the first response. The key gives defensible examples, not a model a learner must copy. Do not combine components into one score or infer a broad achievement-standard level from this fortnight.

## Day 15 · notice

| Component | Source-faithful response | Teach next if developing |
|---|---|---|
| Navigation | **When** gives the two Monday 4:00–4:45 pm sessions. The notice says **no next date approved**. | Ask learner to skim headings, scan for time, then read the whole relevant sentence; practise on a different notice. |
| Recorded evidence | 9 and 11 completed **labels**, totalling 20 labels across sessions. They are not 20 proven unique visitors/families. | Lay two labelled counts on a mat; ask what unit was counted and what was not recorded. |
| Limits | No unique visitor tally and no test after rain; no evidence of winter durability. | Trace the flyer noun “families” and duration “winter” back to source. If no line, mark “still unknown”. |
| Flyer critique | “Twenty families”, “proved”, “last all winter”, and the proposed weekly opening are unsupported. “Open every Monday” is a proposal, not a fact about approval. | Replace one absolute phrase with a bounded sentence while retaining interest in a possible future trial. |
| Picture sequence | Showing drawing before rule/permission can initially imply action happened first; later rule/yes panels or captions can revise the impression. Order does not by itself prove a visitor ignored the rule. | Lay 1→2→3 and 3→1→2; ask what a reader knows at each moment, using exact verbal descriptions if needed. |
| Note | A strong note reports completed labels, says what is not known and asks an answerable next question, such as checking durability over time or whether another safe trial is approved. It does not require supporting or rejecting the table itself. | Give four blank labels: message/evidence/limit/question; fade them in a new topic after child composes. |

## Day 20 · story

| Component | Source-faithful response | Teach next if developing |
|---|---|---|
| Observation vs inference | Narrator saw Tali slide a curling map under the mat and heard/seen Tali shake her head; the idea that Tali wanted an **unfair start** was narrator's assumption. | Use two boxes: words the text directly supplies, versus what narrator concluded. Ask which line supports each. |
| Changed interpretation | Tali says the corners curled and the mat helped flatten the map so **everyone** could see the route. That offers an alternative purpose for the same action. The story does not reveal every private thought Tali had. | Reread Tali's exact line; retell first interpretation, new information and revised possibility without labelling a facial expression as proof. |
| Figurative effect | “Room buzzed like a beehive” is a simile that may suggest noise/activity; a room is not literally a hive. “My certainty had been a locked door” is a metaphor suggesting reluctance to consider another explanation. Accept another text-grounded effect. | Pair each figurative phrase with a plain literal version, then ask what the figurative wording adds for a reader. |
| Alternate viewpoint | A plausible Tali account keeps the map curling, Tali sliding it under a mat and later saying it was to let everyone see the route. It may mention wanting a flat map. It cannot claim, as established, what the leader or narrator privately believed beyond visible/speaking evidence. | Sort source-given action, plausible inference and unsourced addition. Give a different two-viewpoint story for another attempt. |

## Five component-specific judgments

| Component | Evidence to note | Next teaching rather than a broad grade |
|---|---|---|
| Navigate/read | Finds relevant heading and confirms whole sentence; independent or heard route recorded | Explicit skim–scan–confirm practice with a new text; teach independent print separately if needed. |
| Source reasoning | Names counted unit, method limit and overclaim without inventing data | Recreate source method with tokens and ask which claim it can support. |
| Visual order | Explains an initial inference caused by sequence and later clarifying detail | Reorder plain described panels, pause after first frame, then reveal rest. |
| Literary response | Distinguishes narrator knowledge/inference and explains a figurative effect with a line | Model one think-aloud with a different original scene, then ask learner to justify a new interpretation. |
| Composition and revision | Structures a purposeful note or viewpoint scene, source-bounded details, one meaningful self-edit | Move sentence/panel cards, rehearse orally/AAC, then fade frame; record who authored and scribed words. |

Use `secure here / developing here / not yet observed` **for each component**, with the exact response and access mode. A partner response, fluent accent, neat handwriting or chosen communication mode is not a proxy for source reasoning. If a learner has a home-language explanation, confirm meaning with appropriate support; no unreviewed translation is claimed. Original SubjectNest key © 2026 NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd, [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Credit, link and indicate changes.