Keep this page separate from the clean learner page, choices and fresh checks. Read-aloud, screen reader, speech, sign/AAC, typing and child-directed adult transcription can all make the same question accessible. Record reading route separately from reasoning: exact first response | source named | access provided | content hint, if any | next move. A response after listening is not by itself evidence of independent reading. None of these invented sources proves a real-world impact, product safety, local policy or student achievement standard.
Daily exits · expected reasoning and immediate next move
| Day | Expected evidence | If not yet, teach and recheck |
|---|---|---|
| 11 | A and B are not independent: the same fictional Dockside Fix Club produced both from its own trial; A invites, B records. 11 + 4 + 3 = 18. |
Give a fresh fictional poster/log pair and have the learner trace creator and date before interpreting numbers. |
| 12 | Larger ELEVEN changes attention, not 11 + 4 + 3 = 18; four waiting and three not repaired are still printed smaller. |
Read the complete text/layout route in order, then ask what a skimming reader may miss on a new invented page. |
| 13 | B records 11 working at closing; C2 says Ren wanted a quieter explanation; neither establishes everyone's preferences or a one-week outcome. | Sort one fresh statement under records / suggests / not shown, naming its exact source. |
| 14 | “All 18 were saved” overreaches at all/saved. Safe repair: the club recorded 11 working at closing, four waiting for parts and three not repaired then. | Rebuild the closing categories with three source cards; recheck a new always/everyone sentence. |
| 16 | Bounded conditional recommendation such as “If volunteers and a quieter option are available, another small trial could be tested.” No new approval or cost claim. | Give the audience/decision in one line and ask for an if condition before evidence. |
| 17 | A clear structure gives reader recommendation, evidence, limitation/counterpoint and next step; the huge-program/Jo sentence makes an unwarranted leap and treats one selected view as representative. | Label four paragraph jobs on a new mini-case, then let learner choose a defensible order. |
| 18 | “The club log records four items waiting for parts at closing.” In “Although the poster is bold, the small line remains important,” comma follows the opening dependent clause. | Rehearse one new records-versus-proves sentence and a separate opening-clause comma; score meaning and punctuation separately. |
| 19 | Revision names a source boundary or condition, e.g. at closing or if volunteers are available. A delivered pitch is noted separately from a cue-card plan. | Ask one neutral question on a new fictional pitch; invite a private second try in chosen mode. |
Thirty practice routes · acceptable responses
| Route | Checkable response or criterion |
|---|---|
| D11-A | A and B share Dockside Fix Club and 18 September 2026; A is public invitation, B internal tally. A may be read by potential visitors, B by organiser/staff. Both use one trial. |
| D11-B | Text alternative names the large ELEVEN WORKING BY CLOSING TIME!, smaller four/three line and fictional club/footer; one accurate number. No invented visual colour. |
| D11-C | Same club supplied poster and tally, so the number is repeated, not independently verified. A later independent follow-up could ask whether items stayed working. |
| D12-A | All three counts remain 11, 4 and 3; redesigned placement makes the non-working/waiting categories as findable as the lead count. Still no later durability/cost evidence. |
| D12-B | 18 of 30 zines were taken and 12 remained in Mini-case E; “most loved in town” is not established. A ten-word fair headline is “Eighteen of thirty zines were taken at the trial shelf.” |
| D12-C | Sequence names headline first, 11/18 context next, smaller 4/3 and limit last; explains likely attention without calling the accurate figures false. |
| D13-A | Example: recorded 11 working at close (B); suggested another small trial could help (D); not shown whether repairs lasted a week. Question asks for follow-up or capacity. |
| D13-B | Mini-case G supports 32 of 40 labels readable after one indoor day; no weatherproof claim. An approved outdoor/longer test would address durability, though no result is known. |
| D13-C | A question about one-week condition follows B's missing follow-up; a question about a quieter explanation follows C2 or D; neither receives an invented answer. |
| D14-A | Caption distinguishes A's invitation and B's tally: 11 working at close, 4 waiting, 3 not repaired; no claim that all seven “failed forever.” |
| D14-B | “Sixteen of 20 returns were logged by closing; four were not yet logged.” Ask whether/when those four were later logged; do not label borrowers or items lost. |
| D14-C | Jo liked asking questions; Ren wanted a quieter explanation. Two selected slips cannot represent all visitors, and selection/visitor total is unknown. |
| D15-A, later | Hall Editors' sign invites another shelf; 18/30 taken at close; what readers loved or finished remains unknown. |
| D15-B, later | Both 16 logged and 4 not yet logged visible; the sign avoids saying all were safely home, lost or late. |
| D15-C, later | A longer or relevant weather exposure test would address “weatherproof”; current indoor one-day count is 32 readable and 8 not. No outcome is invented. |
| D16-A | Bounded small-trial plan cites 11/18 at closing, one selected Jo/Ren view with attribution, and an if-condition/unknown about parts, volunteers or access. Waiting for evidence is also defensible if reasoned. |
| D16-B | 18 of 30 zines taken supports testing another shelf, not “most loved in town”; later reading/preferences remain unknown. |
| D16-C | 16 of 20 returns logged at close; a reporting improvement can include a later check for four unlogged returns, without blaming anyone. |
| D17-A | Four distinguishable jobs: limited recommendation, B/C linked evidence, what is unknown, and a test/approval question. Wording/order can vary if reader can find each. |
| D17-B | The opening admits no reading-completion data; 18/30 taken is a limited reason for a small next trial. Counterpoint-first order can build trust by naming a limit early. |
| D17-C | Source G records 32/40 readable after one indoor day; next stage proposes relevant approved weather testing, not mass purchase. |
| D18-A | Example: “Although eleven items worked at closing, the log does not show whether they lasted.” Records is more precise than proves for a tally; comma follows the opening dependent clause. |
| D18-B | Example: “The four discs that had no logged return at closing need checking.” The restrictive that ... clause identifies the discs and has no enclosing comma. Do not write “four lost discs.” |
| D18-C | Example: “The indoor note records 32 of 40 readable after one day, so the labels might work longer; rain performance is unknown.” A stronger prediction needs a real test; no claim of guaranteed survival. |
| D19-A | A 30–45-second claim repeats a short proposal intentionally, cites B 11/18 at closing, gives an if-condition/unknown, then revises after a neutral question. Record delivered versus planned. |
| D19-B | Three boxes are claim, 18/30 trial evidence, and unknown/next test. A delivered private pitch may support presentation; a cue card alone is planning. |
| D19-C | Questions ask about outdoor rain/long-term evidence; response stays within one-day indoor 32/40 and changes “weatherproof” to a bounded statement. |
| D20-A, later | Four-part note cites 20 lent, 16 returns logged by close, four not yet logged, unknown later status, and a reversible follow-up/logging step. |
| D20-B, later | Another small shelf trial may be recommended with 18 taken/12 remaining; “everyone loves these” is repaired to a source-limited statement and future question. |
| D20-C, later | B/C/D support a possible small test, counterpoint is durability/capacity unknown, and the response proposes follow-up or an approval question, not guaranteed success. |
Day 15 held-out check · Borrow Box
| Item | Acceptable response | What to observe |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The fictional West Room lending team made both after its first trial. The public poster addresses potential visitors and invites interest in another day. It and its log are not independent accounts. | Creator/context/purpose before accepting a headline. |
| 2 | “A KIT FOR EVERYONE!” is largest at top; three remained and no all-user suitability survey appear smaller below. Placement may foreground invitation and reduce notice of limits; it cannot change 9 + 3 = 12. |
Feature linked to a possible effect, with the complete text-layout route accepted. |
| 3 | Log supports “Nine of twelve kits were borrowed during the day” and “three remained at closing.” It cannot show that each borrower was satisfied, that all visitors found a suitable kit or that borrowed kits were used. Nine borrowed kits are not nine satisfied people. | Accurate narrower statement plus explicit unknown. |
| 4 | Ask who wanted a kit but could not use one, whether borrowed kits were useful, or how many would attend another day; a later anonymous voluntary feedback/source check could address that. Do not invent results. | Question/source directly addresses missing decision evidence. |
Day 20 held-out check · pop-up reading cart
| Item | Acceptable response | What to observe |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Source X records 30 set out, 19 taken, 11 left at closing. Source Y is one selected fictional visitor who said large headings helped them. Neither proves actual reading, usefulness for all visitors or future demand. | Exact X detail, attributed one-person Y view and unknown. |
| 2 | A second small trial if capacity/access and feedback collection are arranged is defensible. Waiting for more information is also defensible if supported by the unknowns. Source Z's “every room/everyone” is an overreach, not approval. | Bounded decision and relevant condition/question. |
| 3 | Model four-sentence response: “Although Source X records 19 of 30 guide cards taken at closing, it does not show whether they were read. Source Y says one visitor found large headings helpful, but this selected view cannot represent everyone. I recommend a second small trial if staff and accessible formats are available. The group should ask more visitors and record usefulness before considering other rooms.” Other sequences/modes are valid if source, limit, recommendation and next step are checkable. The comma after opening Although clause is correct; records/says fit the sources. |
Paragraph/argument stages, source-linked evidence, counterpoint, precise verbs and revision. Do not demand this exact wording or handwriting. |
Formative rubric and next moves
For Day 15, note source context, feature → meaning, supported/unknown and next question separately. For Day 20, note two source uses, bounded recommendation, limitation/counterpoint, argument organisation and language edit separately. Use I for accurate independent reasoning with available access, P when a content prompt led to the answer, R for a specific mismatch and N for not yet seen because access/time was missing. Keep an exact phrase or mark beside the code; do not collapse a writer into one numerical mark.
- Poster treated as independent proof: compare creator/footer/date of two texts, then test an unrelated new source pair.
- Selected comment treated as a poll: ask how many comments/visitors are actually known and resample with a new two-slip case.
- Layout treated as a truth test: keep words/numbers identical while changing size/order, then ask what changed and what did not.
- Universal claim or invented outcome: add
at closing,according to Source X,might, or an explicitunknown; recheck a different fictional case. - Argument missing a reader's decision: ask “What should this reader do next?” before polishing sentences.
- Sentence boundary/comma: make one new
Although ... , ...pair; keep semantic reasoning score separate from punctuation support. - No source linked to a number: return to source ID/line; do not reward a plausible number from memory if not attributed.
- Access not ready: offer the full text/layout route, private response, supported reading or scribe later; do not treat an unfinished blank as failure.
For family feedback, name one next reading/writing move, not a permanent “visual learner”, confidence or ability label. Classroom and EAL/D review remain pending. Original staff keys and rubric © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, CC BY 4.0.