Question: What should the fictional manager do next, and why? Kit: A–D, notes, recommendation canvas. 35 = 3 + 7 + 12 + 8 + 5.
- 0–3: Choose one of three defensible positions: permit a small supervised retest; defer pending a clearer protocol; or revise the proposal and then retest. Do not recommend public use from the existing record.
- 3–10: Model a concise memo to the fictional manager: “Allow a small repeat test, if the same paper, surface and check time are used. B records 12 of 24 upright unchanged and 6 only after tabs. One indoor closing count cannot show long-term performance. Compare two folds and ask for a legibility review before deciding about use.” Attribute the source; avoid a universal claim.
- 10–22: Learners draft a written, oral, signed/AAC or child-directed visual recommendation with
decision / two source details / opposing concern / limit / specific next step. Maths evidence may use the accurately labelled same-whole fraction line. No child is asked to disclose home spending or access needs. - 22–30: Pairs question and clarify one claim using formal, respectful language for a manager. The author edits one line; a scribe preserves original and revised wording. Routes: write/edit a memo; assemble evidence and limit strips then dictate; rehearse a short spoken/sign/AAC brief with a visible source card. Record actual speaking/interaction only if observed.
- 30–35: “Which sentence keeps your advice responsible?” Accept: a source-bound condition and a next test/review. Response move: if evidence is only “18 worked”, return to adjusted six and closing-time limit.
Another domain: Make a recommendation for an invented gallery label or game table after a small paper trial. Home: tell someone a because / however / next argument using an imaginary object.