# Week 1 integrated guide — Choice lab

**Version:** v0.1, 29 September 2026. **Five 35-minute sessions.** Draft for educator, local-syllabus, accessibility and financial-literacy review. Children practise an **informed choice from fictional product cards**. No one discloses household income, purchase history or brand use. Use [English source cards](../english/term-1/weeks-01-02/aids.md) to support language analysis, but this HASS block asks a broader decision question and does not duplicate the daily [English](../english/term-1/weeks-01-02/lessons.md) or [mathematics](../mathematics/term-1/weeks-01-02/lessons.md) lessons.

**National links:** AC9HS6K08 (influences on consumer choices and strategies for informed personal consumer/financial choices), AC9HS6S01 (questions), AC9HS6S02 (locate/organise source information), AC9HS6S04 (evaluate source origin/purpose/perspectives), AC9HS6S05 (evidence-based conclusions), AC9HS6S06 (assess possible effects of proposed actions), AC9HS6S07 (present explanation using sources/terms). Exact Year 6 content-description codes checked against the [ACARA v9 download](https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/downloads), retrieved 29 September 2026, pinned workbook SHA-256 `db446882d2c00cf7c085a03e250e2442fda6c44011fc114680c46c1dc7a822c3`. This is a **partial HASS inquiry**, not a full assessment of consumer competence or a school financial recommendation.

**Primary source cross-check:** [ACCC unit-pricing guidance](https://www.accc.gov.au/business/industry-codes/unit-pricing-code) explains that a standard-unit price helps comparison; [ACCC guidance on potentially misleading claims](https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/advertising-and-promotions/false-or-misleading-claims) identifies broad vague claims and unfair comparisons as concerns. These pages are **linked, not reproduced**. The specific products/prices below and in English are invented. Students analyse what follows from invented card data; they do not adjudicate a real advertisement's legality.

**Prepare/access:** Print the original decision card below and the invented [notebook source packet](../english/term-1/weeks-01-02/aids.md). Give calculator for price arithmetic so source/decision reasoning is accessible. Supply large print, screen reader, tactile numbers, AAC, signed discussion or adult transcription. A learner may select “insufficient information” as a justified response. Keep Card D sealed for final English transfer. Do not photograph or post pupil financial choices. Avoid framing the cheapest option as morally best or a person's budget as a measure of worth.

## Day 1 — What question are we answering?

**Question:** “Best” by which criterion? **35 = 5 launch + 7 model + 12 criteria lab + 8 compare + 3 check.**

1. **Launch 5:** Show two fictional notebook outlines without prices. Ask what a chooser might care about: upfront cost, sheet count, carrying size, durability, accessible format. Record criteria without requesting a learner's personal situation.
2. **Model 7:** Teacher frames two imaginary users: User A has a fictional immediate $7 limit; User B needs many sheets. “The same option might suit these different criteria differently. I need source details.”
3. **Criteria lab 12:** Groups select two criteria and write a question each that a source could answer. They label criteria as known, unknown or needing direct user input. A “what matters to you?” card is a hypothetical user consultation, not an assumption about disability/finance.
4. **Compare 8:** Groups exchange questions. Peers check whether any criterion is being presented as universal and refine it.
5. **Check 3:** “What must come after ‘best’ for an informed choice?” **Key:** a criterion/user need and evidence. **Next:** if child gives a brand preference alone, ask “best for what?”

## Day 2 — What can an advert tell us?

**Question:** Which claims are evidenced on the fictional source? **35 = 5 retrieve + 7 model + 12 audit + 8 discuss + 3 check.**

1. **Retrieve 5:** Revisit criteria; make clear [advert Card A](../english/term-1/weeks-01-02/aids.md#card-a--fictional-advert-for-notebook-b) is invented and interested in promoting B.
2. **Model 7:** Teacher points to “100 sheets” and $8 as stated card details, and “BEST CHOICE FOR EVERYONE!” as a universal opinion/claim. “I need a second source and user criterion.”
3. **Audit 12:** Pairs fill `claim / card detail / missing evidence` in original record card. Include quality, use and durability as unknown; do not infer them from font size.
4. **Discuss 8:** Compare advert with the neutral [Card B table](../english/term-1/weeks-01-02/aids.md#card-b--fictional-neutral-comparison-table). Ask why a table and an advert may foreground different information. “Neutral” describes layout of this invented table, not a guarantee it contains every needed fact.
5. **Check 3:** “Does 100 sheets establish best choice for a person needing 20?” **Key:** no, because their criterion may differ. **Next:** add user scenario before recommendation.

## Day 3 — Unit cost and upfront cost answer different questions

**Question:** How can two true figures point to different choices? **35 = 5 notice + 7 model + 12 calculate/check + 8 decide + 3 check.**

1. **Notice 5:** Identify Card B listed totals A $6/60 sheets, B $8/100. Ask which is lower upfront. **Key:** A by $2.
2. **Model 7:** Divide with calculator or written working: $6/60=$0.10 per sheet; $8/100=$0.08 per sheet. “B is 2 cents lower per included sheet; this does not make the $8 upfront disappear.”
3. **Calculate/check 12:** Groups check both divisions and record assumptions: same usefulness/quality of each sheet, use of sheets, no extra costs. Arithmetic support is allowed; this HASS check is choice reasoning.
4. **Decide 8:** For fictional $7 immediate limit, A fits; for fictional need of 100 sheets and enough upfront money, B may lower per-sheet spend if all are used. Both conditional conclusions are defensible; neither asserts actual durability.
5. **Check 3:** “Which is cheaper upfront, and which has lower listed price per sheet?” **Key:** A upfront; B per sheet. **Next:** make two labelled columns if learner collapses them.

## Day 4 — What we still need to know

**Question:** How do missing information and perspectives affect a recommendation? **35 = 5 revisit + 7 model + 12 source questions + 8 rank + 3 check.**

1. **Revisit 5:** Read fictional Sam's preference on [Card C](../english/term-1/weeks-01-02/aids.md#card-c--fictional-personal-viewpoint). Attribute it to one invented character, not all consumers.
2. **Model 7:** Teacher says “I cannot claim B is more durable from the price table. I would ask for paper quality/use evidence.” Distinguish advertiser, table author and user perspective.
3. **Source questions 12:** Children generate questions about accessibility, return conditions, repairability or size **without** asserting answers. Sort which could be answered by product specification, comparison test or user's preference. Avoid unverified environmental claims.
4. **Rank 8:** Each group picks one missing fact that would most change a specified fictional user's choice and explains why. A different reasonable criterion is acceptable.
5. **Check 3:** “Can we write ‘recycled’ on either product from these cards?” **Key:** no such information. **Next:** model “unknown” and a source request.

## Day 5 — A cautious recommendation for a fictional user

**Question:** Can we explain a choice with source, criterion and limit? **35 = 5 recap + 7 model + 12 create + 8 peer audit + 3 check.**

1. **Recap 5:** Class retrieves purpose, upfront price, unit price, missing data. Correct any number errors against cards.
2. **Model 7:** “For fictional User A with $7 now, A is the listed affordable option: $6 versus $8. I cannot conclude it is more durable. I would ask about paper quality before a broader recommendation.” Show criterion/evidence/limit.
3. **Create 12:** Learner chooses a **fictional** user card or writes a nonpersonal criterion. Make a short written, spoken, AAC, tactile or visual recommendation. Include one counterpoint or uncertainty; adult records exact child wording.
4. **Peer audit 8:** Peer checks two figures, citation to Cards A/B/C, condition and missing information. No peer critiques the child's family spending or identity.
5. **Check 3:** “What would change your choice?” **Accept:** a relevant new source or different criterion; clear condition. **Next:** if answer “nothing” despite unknowns, revisit one missing fact and its possible effect.

## Original decision record card

```text
FICTIONAL USER/SCENARIO: _______________________________
DECISION QUESTION AND CRITERION: ________________________
SOURCE A CLAIM / PURPOSE: ______________________________
SOURCE B STATED FIGURES: A ____ for ____; B ____ for ____
UPFRONT COMPARISON: ______________   PER-UNIT: __________
SOMETHING UNKNOWN: _____________________________________
MY CONDITIONAL CHOICE: If __________, then _____________
ONE POSSIBLE EFFECT / WHAT MAY CHANGE IT: ______________
RESPONSE MODE / ADULT SUPPORT: __________________________
```

**Evidence key:** From the original invented cards, A $6/60 sheets =10c/sheet and B $8/100=8c/sheet; B costs $2 more upfront and 2c less per sheet. There is **no** durability, real-world demand, shipping, accessibility or environmental performance evidence. An accurate student may choose A, B or defer, provided criterion and support are explicit.

**Rights:** Original guide/card © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Credit *SubjectNest Year 6 Australian-first opening pack*, v0.1, [source](https://github.com/neuroforge-io/neuroforge_business/tree/main/products/curriculum-studio/content/year-6/term-1), licence and changes. ACARA and linked ACCC material retain their separate rights; no third-party worksheet is reproduced. [Integrated-file hashes](manifest.sha256). Educator/local review pending.