Everything here is invented for Year 9 inquiry. The maker, room, paper, sensor values, dates, messages and trials are not a real product, school, experiment or measured safety result. Values have arbitrary sensor units; no lux, eye-safety, room-safety or device-performance claim can be made from them. A mathematical model is useful for asking what follows if its assumption held, and can be compared with this fictional record. Keep maker, source purpose and limits with every quotation or calculation. The Day 15 and 20 fresh cases are separate.
Source A · invented prototype poster
The fictional Paper Screen team wrote this poster to ask a fictional facilities manager for a second trial. It is a promotional source from the same team that made B and D, not independent confirmation. The original A4 visual poster and complete text/hierarchy alternative preserve its emphasis.
EACH EXTRA LAYER HALVES THE SENSOR VALUE!
Start at 160. Four layers should leave only one sixteenth:
160 × 2^-4 = 10arbitrary units. Our first tabletop record ended at 20, so this paper-screen idea deserves a controlled retest before anyone calls it dependable.Paper Screen team · fictional draft · 18 September 2026.
The headline states a hypothesis as if it were universal. The smaller text admits that the four-layer recorded value differs from the exact-halving prediction. “Deserves a controlled retest” is a proposal, not a performance or safety guarantee. There is no real product for sale or installation.
Source B · same fictional team's first tabletop record
The team says it placed one to four layers of the same unnamed paper between a school-approved low-voltage light and a sensor at one desk position. The record lacks paper thickness, lamp setting confirmation, sensor calibration, repeated readings, background reading, exact distance and the identity of a second observer. The entries below are invented, not a classroom measurement.
Number of paper layers n |
Recorded sensor value, arbitrary units | Exact-halving prediction from 160: 160 × 2^-n |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 160 | 160 |
| 1 | 80 | 80 |
| 2 | 44 | 40 |
| 3 | 26 | 20 |
| 4 | 20 | 10 |
The predicted column follows from an assumption of identical independent half-transmission per added layer, not from the record. For n=0, 2^0=1; 2^-4=1/16. At four layers, the recorded value is 10 units higher than the exact-halving prediction. No measurement uncertainty is supplied, so this gap cannot be interpreted as a calibrated optical result.
Source C · invented overconfident summary sentence
“The reduction established dependable control of room lighting.”
This is a draft sentence to edit, not an observed conclusion. Reduction condenses a sequence of values but hides who made a reading, which light/sensor setup was used, and what the data can establish. Dependable would need repeatability under a documented method and relevant use conditions; neither the one-table record nor a four-layer mathematical prediction establishes it. A better sentence names the team and the fictional setup and keeps uncertainty visible.
Source D · same team's fictional follow-up readings
The recorder says three rounds used the same paper stack, desk position and light setting. It does not report calibration, whether the sheets were new each time, independent observers, ambient light or uncertainty. Rows are invented. They are not equivalent to a validated repeatable physical test.
| Layers | Round 1 | Round 2 | Round 3 | Range of these invented values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 160 | 158 | 162 | 158–162 |
| 1 | 80 | 79 | 82 | 79–82 |
| 2 | 44 | 42 | 43 | 42–44 |
| 3 | 26 | 25 | 28 | 25–28 |
| 4 | 20 | 19 | 21 | 19–21 |
The four-layer invented readings cluster around 20, whereas the exact-halving model predicts 10. The three similar values suggest repeatability within the stated fictional setup, but do not identify why the model differs, prove an actual material property, establish an uncertainty interval or justify room use. A repeat under a genuinely documented method and independent check would be needed for a real claim.
Source E · fictional manager's decision brief
“Please tell me whether to approve a small, supervised, non-public retest. I need the claim, one numerical contrast, the method weaknesses and a precise next check. Do not tell me that the screen is approved for use, safe for reading or environmentally better. We have no such evidence.”
The manager's brief is a writing audience and a design question, not an endorsement. A responsible learner can recommend retesting, redesigning the test, or pausing. No learner must purchase materials, use a real lamp or share a home situation.