Codes: AC9E7LA02, AC9E7LY02, AC9E7LY05. Goal: evaluate three fictional responses by relevance and evidential reach. Prepare: Text C, claim–reach mat, optional discussion roles.
- Set a problem · 2 min. “Three readers respond to the same draft. Does confidence make a note useful?” Ask for a testable reason.
- Read · 5 min. Students read or hear Ren, Sol and the editor. Identify who reports a test, who reports an impression, and who gives audience advice. Do not rank people by status.
- Model · 5 min. Quote Ren's first-person test. Explain that it supports a viewing-rule revision for one reader, not a scientific label for card 8. Put source, usable advice and limit in separate fields.
- Discuss · 7 min. In pair or private teacher discussion, each learner chooses two notes, names one useful contribution of each, and challenges one claim that outruns its source. Use “I heard your point; the text says…” rather than dismissing a person.
- Decide · 4 min. Students select one edit for a public model caption: viewing rule, scope line or term definition. Require a because-statement tied to a note and the display audience. Where discussion occurred, ask the listener whether naming the note before an opinion made the spoken explanation easier to follow; evaluate that feature of the explanation, never a peer’s accent or voice.
- Exit · 2 min. “I would use ___ for , but I would not use it to claim .” Record the independent source boundary before any discussion repair.