# Original fictional science-claim packet · paper light screens

**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](print/claim-poster.pdf) and [complete text/hierarchy alternative](print/TEXT-ALTERNATIVES.md) preserve its emphasis.

> **EACH EXTRA LAYER HALVES THE SENSOR VALUE!**
>
> Start at 160. Four layers should leave only one sixteenth: `160 × 2^-4 = 10` arbitrary 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.