Every organisation, sign, comment, number and date below is invented. These are reading and reasoning stimuli, not results from children, a real school or a community trial. The related poster shows Source A with deliberate visual emphasis; the text alternative gives the same words and hierarchy. Keep source origin and purpose attached when quoting.
A · Invitation poster, made by the fictional Table Signs team
The team made this poster after a one-day indoor tabletop trial. Its purpose is to gain permission for a second small test, so it foregrounds a favourable count. It and B come from the same team and are not two independent confirmations.
18 SIGNS UPRIGHT AT CLOSING!
We tried 24 folded paper table signs. By the end, 18 stood: 12 without a change and 6 after we added a removable paper tab. Six had tipped or slid. A second small trial could help us choose a fold.
This was one indoor table test. We did not test long-term use, different surfaces or readability from every position.
Table Signs team · fictional poster · 18 September 2026
B · Trial recorder's closing sheet
The fictional recorder wrote this on the same date, for the team's own planning. It is a primary source within this invented case, but neither independence nor accuracy is established. Categories are exclusive at closing.
| Closing category | Signs | What this does and does not mean |
|---|---|---|
| Upright without a change | 12 | Stood at closing on one indoor table. |
| Upright after a removable paper tab | 6 | Stood at closing after an adjustment; not proof the original fold worked. |
| Tipped or slid | 6 | Not upright at closing; no cause recorded. |
| Total tried | 24 | 12 + 6 + 6 = 24. |
No starting fold allocation, repeat count, surface condition, time-to-tip, measurements or independent check is recorded. The sheet cannot tell whether tabs, folds, placement or chance caused any difference.
C · Two selected idea slips
The team selected two anonymous fictional comments from an unknown number of possible comments. No child, family or real speaker is represented. The slips are ideas, not a representative survey or evidence of an access need.
- C1: “The big heading was easy for me to find on the table.”
- C2: “Could the small instructions be shorter?”
A learner can ask a design question from either slip. Do not infer that everyone agreed or diagnose anyone.
D · Draft to the fictional room manager
“Please allow a second supervised table trial of two fold bases before we make more signs. We have a closing count from one indoor table, but the six added tabs mean we cannot compare the original fold fairly. We would label the two designs, use the same paper size, surface and checking time, and record each result. We could also ask willing viewers whether the heading and instructions are clear, without storing names. This is a request for a test, not approval to put signs into public use.”
This is a proposal from the same team, not an approved plan, measurement, real consent process or safety certificate. Real use would require school rules and local access review.
Optional counter-source E · Printer's inventory note
The fictional printer says: “We have 24 blank cards. They can be arranged as 2 rows of 12, 3 rows of 8 or 4 rows of 6. We could instead prepare 25 cards in a 5-by-5 square. A batch of 23 cards cannot make a rectangular array with more than one row and more than one column.” These are number properties and hypothetical layout options, not a cost or ecological-impact claim.
Evidence language
Use A says, B records, C suggests a question and D proposes. “Eighteen upright at closing” is narrower than “18 reliable signs.” “Six after tabs” cannot be treated as success of an unchanged design. The packet supplies no data about real accessibility, long-term durability, sustainability or a school purchase. An evidence-based recommendation may be test first or insufficient information.