# Original fictional source packet · model keys and number explanations

**Everything here is invented for classroom reasoning.** The leaf-like profiles are abstract cards, **not botanical specimens, species, identification guidance or evidence of evolutionary relatedness**. “Long stem” means at least the width of the model blade in this packet only. No collection, tasting, handling of unknown plants, site visit, First Nations knowledge or real-person testimony is involved. The [full A4 profile board](print/model-profiles.pdf) and [complete text/tactile alternative](print/TEXT-ALTERNATIVES.md) carry these descriptions. The separate Day15/20 check sources are held out.

## Baseline six from the fictional opening exercise

| Card | Entire outer edge | Tip | Stem |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| S1 | smooth | rounded | long |
| S2 | smooth | rounded | short |
| S3 | smooth | pointed | short |
| J1 | jagged | rounded | long |
| J2 | jagged | pointed | long |
| J3 | jagged | pointed | short |

These descriptions extend the original Week 1 model set. An output label is **valid only if all three recorded traits match**, not merely a path ending at that label.

## Four newly authored challenge profiles

| Card | Entire outer edge | Tip | Stem | Safe expected result against baseline six |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| T1 | smooth | rounded | short | S2 |
| T2 | jagged | pointed | long | J2 |
| T3 | smooth | pointed | long | **unmatched** (S3 needs short stem) |
| T4 | mixed: one smooth side, one jagged side | rounded | short | **unmatched** (no baseline mixed-edge card) |

T3 and T4 are not “new biological species”. They are deliberate **test inputs** outside the six-card model's complete descriptors.

## Version 1 · a plausible but flawed nested key

This original pseudocode is a **fictional paper algorithm**, not a computer program or a real plant identifier. It makes nested choices but fails to verify the complete profile at the end. A class may translate it to a flowchart on the [blank key/trace mat](print/key-trace.pdf).

```text
IF edge includes any jagged section THEN
    IF tip is rounded THEN OUTPUT J1
    ELSE IF stem is long THEN OUTPUT J2
    ELSE OUTPUT J3
ELSE
    IF tip is pointed THEN OUTPUT S3
    ELSE IF stem is long THEN OUTPUT S1
    ELSE OUTPUT S2
```

**Version 1 ten-case desk log (fictional):** It labels S1–S3 and J1–J3 correctly, labels T1 as S2 and T2 as J2, **mislabels** T3 as S3 and T4 as J1. Thus **8/10** full-descriptor-safe results and **2/10** mislabels **in this invented test set only**. `8÷10=0.8=80%`; the two mislabels are `2÷10=0.2=20%` of these ten cases. This is not a real-world accuracy estimate.

## Version 2 · revised decision plus full-profile verification

```text
IF edge is neither entirely smooth nor entirely jagged THEN OUTPUT unmatched
ELSE IF edge is entirely jagged THEN
    IF tip is rounded THEN candidate = J1
    ELSE IF stem is long THEN candidate = J2
    ELSE candidate = J3
ELSE
    IF tip is pointed THEN candidate = S3
    ELSE IF stem is long THEN candidate = S1
    ELSE candidate = S2
IF candidate exists AND all three traits match its baseline description
    THEN OUTPUT candidate
ELSE OUTPUT unmatched
```

Under the **same ten listed descriptions**, Version 2 returns the eight valid labels and two appropriate “unmatched” outputs: **10/10 safe results** by the stated criterion. It does **not** prove the key works for all possible shapes, real plants or another observer. A later tester should sample new descriptions and inspect word meaning/accessibility.

## Separate Week 4 number-explainer stimuli

**Fictional audience:** a younger reader who knows multiplication but is new to prime-power notation. No actual younger child has tested these drafts.

- **Draft A (too compressed):** “72 = 2³ × 3². Done.” The arithmetic is true but omits what powers mean, how 72 was split and how to check it.
- **Draft B (incorrect):** “72 = 2³ × 3² because 2³ is 6 and 3² is 6.” Both power evaluations are false; `2³=8`, `3²=9`, and `8×9=72`.
- **Verified source calculation:** `72=8×9=(2×2×2)×(3×3)=2³×3²`; the product checks as `8×9=72`. This exact explanation is for the **teacher model and later learner critique**, not a Day20 answer.

**Fictional optional outreach decision for Day18:** The core explanation already exists in accessible text, large print and a tactile/card route as a required baseline. One extra showcase slot and a **$25 discretionary cap** allow one optional addition: **A** a paper practice station costing **$18**, possibly giving immediate peer feedback; or **B** take-home demonstration cards costing **$24**, possibly allowing repeated practice. A leaves `$25−$18=$7`; B leaves `$25−$24=$1`. Neither predicted benefit has been measured. Under ranking A>B, choosing A forgoes B's possible repeat-practice benefit; under B>A, choosing B forgoes A's possible immediate-feedback benefit. **Price is not the same as opportunity cost.** Core access and safety are never the “savings” option. No real purchase, learner home-data collection or school policy change follows.

Original SubjectNest fictional profiles, algorithms, logs, drafts and decision brief © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).