# Staff copy · worked responses, evidence boundaries and next moves

Keep separate from the clean learner page. This is **formative**: record what the learner said, wrote, selected or directed, with the source detail and any prompt/access support. Use **independent / prompted / not yet observed** beside each criterion. No total score is an Australian Curriculum achievement-standard decision. Exact oral reading is an access route for comprehension but is not independent decoding evidence. A pupil may revise after the first response; keep both. A real assistive-technology or translation trial still needs local review. If school policy does not permit a recording, take a short accurate local transcript or contemporaneous note. Do not publish child work or identifiable data.

## Daily feedback map

| Day | What a useful exit can show | If the thinking is missing, try next |
| ---: | --- | --- |
| 11 | “Two passes ended at J, so this route repeated for card 8; J as an identity is unverified because the key only had six labels.” | Put **route** and **label** on different cards, have the learner point to the log cell supporting each, then narrow the sentence. |
| 12 | Draft Two moves model → result → limit → next test; “their agreement” refers to the two testers, not everyone. | Cut four ideas into cards and ask a visitor to answer what was tested before revising a link. |
| 13 | Ren's one reading test can improve the viewing rule; Sol's neat-arrows impression cannot establish garden accuracy; the editor helps audience/term clarity. | Ask “What did this person actually do?” before asking what their statement can justify. Model a respectful challenge. |
| 14 | “Because the first question was clearer, both readers took the same route; however, the label remained unverified.” Past test verbs stay past; colon defines a technical term. | Rejoin the hanging *because/if* clause, read the two propositions separately, and test whether a colon really introduces a definition. |
| 15 | Use Check A below; a fresh parcel-symbol problem should reveal transfer, not a memorised card-8 answer. | Re-sample with a new neutral symbol set after focused instruction if the first attempt is not observed. |
| 16 | *Factor* in `4 × 9 = 36` is a multiplier; in “travel time was a factor” it is an influence. `36% of 50 = 18`; a matching digit string does not make 36 and 36% the same quantity. | Point to the local example/whole, then retell the technical word in a new sentence. Check arithmetic separately. |
| 17 | *Base* literally names the broad support; at the end it also suggests a starting point for inquiry. Doorway reading and Luca's changed sign support the second layer. | Mark the literal sign sentence, then compare “where to start” in the last line. Ask for the exact word creating the second meaning. |
| 18 | Accurate `3/4 = 0.75 = 75%` or `36% of 50 = 18`, named whole and a limit; `3:4` is not silently made equal to `3/4` of a whole. | Give two blank boxes labelled count and proportion; ask “of which whole?” before another equation. |
| 19 | Learner names a real peer/teacher question or honestly marks a self-check, revises a specific line and explains effect for a younger reader. | Give only the two fixed reader questions; let the author find the missing word. Retest the changed version. |
| 20 | Use Check B below; number, technical context, figurative wording and audience all need distinct evidence. | Group by the criterion below, not by an overall impression or handwriting speed. |

## Check A · Day 15 worked key and next moves

**Source truth:** Six original paper symbols are three circles and three squares. The rule sends a circle to C and **anything else** to S. The new star is not a square, yet Ali and Bo both follow the same rule to S. Their agreement supports **repeatable route-following on this one new card**. It does not make the star square, establish an identity for the star, or prove the key works for every symbol. A sensible revision is to add an explicit star/unmatched route, narrow the key's stated set to circles and squares, or test a separating feature with fresh paper symbols. A claim about real parcels or postal practice is unsupported.

**Worked visitor response:** “This paper key was built for six circle and square cards. When the new star card was tried, both Ali and Bo followed the *otherwise* branch to S. That repeated result shows how the rule routes this card, not that a star is square or that all symbols fit. The makers should label a new/unmatched route and test it with more paper symbols.” Other source-bound wordings can be equally strong.

| Criterion | 0 · absent/unsupported | 1 · partly visible | 2 · secure evidence in this sample | Next move for 0/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| A1 · source observation | No traceable observation, or says a real parcel was tested. | Names S but not who/how, or cites a vague agreement. | Says Ali and Bo each sent the **new star** to S in separate passes by the *otherwise* rule, with source detail. | Reopen source; point separately to original set, rule and new card. |
| A2 · claim reach | Accepts “star is square” or “all symbols” as proved. | Spots an overclaim but gives little reason. | Explains that the rule's output is not the star's shape/verified terminal identity and the six-card set limits scope. | Move ROUTE and IDENTITY cards; test a second unfamiliar shape on paper. |
| A3 · visitor explanation | Fragment/list with no understandable sequence. | Some overview/evidence/limit but links are hard to follow. | Three or four coherent sentences naming the model, observation and limitation for a new visitor. | Order overview → observation → “however” limit; read as an unfamiliar visitor. |
| A4 · next test/revision | No plausible follow-up or an unsafe/real-world assertion. | Suggests “test again” without what changes. | Specifies star/unmatched exit, narrowed set or separating feature and a paper retest. | Ask “What one question or label would stop the star being called square?” |

**Decision, not a grade:** If A1 is 0, reteach source extraction before argument. If A1 is 2 but A2 is 0/1, teach output versus classification truth. If A1/A2 are 2 but A3 is 0/1, use paragraph-path cards. If A4 is 0/1, model a testable next question. A score of 2 here does not close the official Year 7 description; look for transfer in later, different texts and locally approved work.

## Check B · Day 20 worked key and next moves

**Arithmetic truth:** `16/40` simplifies by dividing numerator and denominator by 8 to `2/5`; `2 ÷ 5 = 0.4`; `0.4 = 40/100 = 40%`. With a **40-cell whole**, 40% means 16 shaded cells. The draft “40% always means 40 shaded cells” is false; 40% of a 100-cell whole would be 40 cells, and 40% of 50 would be 20. “Scale” in this source is the correspondence **one drawn box represents one paper cell**, supplied in the source itself; an everyday use might be a weighing scale or fish scale, but learners need not offer one if unknown. “The diagram does the talking” is figurative: a diagram cannot literally speak; the added whole and labels let a reader understand it without author talk. It is an interpretation, not an observed reader study.

**Worked younger-reader response:** “The whole grid has 40 equal cells, and 16 are shaded. `16/40` means 16 out of those 40; it is the same proportion as `2/5`, `0.4` and `40%`. Here, 40% names **16** shaded cells because the whole is 40 cells, not 40 shaded cells. If the whole changes, the count for 40% may change, so always name the whole.” A strong figurative response adds: “The editor means the revised diagram could guide a reader by itself; it did not literally speak.”

| Criterion | 0 · absent/unsupported | 1 · partly visible | 2 · secure evidence in this sample | Next move for 0/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| B1 · quantity and scope | Treats 40% as 40 cells here, or no named whole. | Gives an equality but does not tie 16 cells to the 40-cell whole or correct the caption. | Explains `16/40 = 2/5 = 0.4 = 40%` for this **40-cell whole**, repairs “always 40 cells”. | Build/trace 40 equal paper squares, shade 16, count whole and part separately; check number language after. |
| B2 · technical word in context | No meaning or invents an external rule. | “Scale” is a size/ratio but no source clue. | Says one drawn box stands for one cell, citing the source; ordinary-sense contrast if offered is accurate. | Underline the appositive “one drawn box for one paper cell”; ask what *represents* means here. |
| B3 · figurative language | Claims the diagram literally spoke or gives no text link. | Says “it explained itself” without what changed. | Identifies the nonliteral “does the talking” and links it to the added whole/labels guiding a reader. | Compare what a diagram can physically do with what a reader could infer from a clearer caption. |
| B4 · younger-reader explanation | Unconnected equations or inaccessible unexplained jargon. | Some accurate number facts but missing overview, audience or limit. | Three/four ordered sentences name the whole, explain the equality, distinguish percent from count and give a useful boundary. | Use blank number map: whole → part → equivalent proportion → what changes if whole changes. |

**Decision, not a grade:** If B1 is 0, check the mathematics with a local mathematics teacher and reteach named-whole language; do not call the child a weak English reader from arithmetic alone. If B1 is secure but B2 is partial, teach context definitions. If B3 is partial, reread the figurative sentence and an adjacent literal line. If B4 is partial, reader-test the paragraph opening. Across all criteria, note independent versus prompted and the access route. A calculator may confirm 0.4; it does not supply a source citation or interpretation.

## Optional practice quick key

| Day | Expected boundary or worked check |
| ---: | --- |
| 11 | Equal route to RED/stop shows repeatability of the route only; team/stop identity needs an independent label or source. |
| 12 | Overview → observation → limit → next test; a linking phrase must point unambiguously to its prior idea. |
| 13 | A neat scoreboard or arrow is an appearance, not fairness or biological accuracy; Ren offers one route-use observation, Sol only an impression. |
| 14 | “If the model tilts, add a wider base.” The colon can introduce a definition: “The label needs one definition: *terminal* means the last printed name.” |
| 15 | Sol did not test garden plants; an overreach is repaired by limiting the claim to a fictional display impression. No Check A source appears here. |
| 16 | Technical factor: 9 multiplied by 4 gives 36. Everyday factor: an influence. `0.36 × 50 = 18`, while 36 seats remains a count of 36. |
| 17 | A line “knew” a way is personification; Luca's improved sign does not fix the leaning stand. |
| 18 | `3/4`, `0.75`, `75%` are equal; `3:4` needs context. `36% of 50 = 18`; `36% of 100 = 36`. |
| 19 | “Of what whole?” must be answered in the guide. Factor can mean influence generally, but `4 × 9 = 36` calls for multiplier meaning. |
| 20 | Return to Text D or F only after Check B is collected; do not expose its held-out source early. |

**Original resource rights:** © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, SubjectNest, [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Credit, source, licence and changes.