Question: How can a fictional manager act responsibly on incomplete evidence? Kit: A–E, recommendation canvas, plain paper. 35 = 3 + 7 + 12 + 8 + 5.
- 0–3: Choose a defensible position: approve a small supervised retest, require a better protocol first, or pause. No option approves public room use.
- 3–10: Model
decision / model assumption / exact B or D contrast / method limit / next check. Include 160×2^-4=10 against B's 20 at four layers and the missing calibration/background note; do not describe an actual reduction in a real room. - 10–22: Learners create a two-panel original paper or text-led media brief for the fictional manager. Panel 1 gives a careful numerical claim; panel 2 gives an actionable method/permission request. An oral/AAC brief is equally valid science argument; Arts evidence needs a created/presented media artefact.
- 22–30: Peers test the first glance against fine print. The author revises one overclaim and documents the change. Routes: hand-drawn high-contrast panels; tactile panel layout directed to an adult; typed two-panel brief plus oral/signed explanation. No logos, external photo or real name.
- 30–35: “Which sentence stops this becoming a safety/approval claim?” Accept: the fictional record and controlled-retest condition. Response move: if “proven dependable” appears, underline the missing real method and replace it.
Another domain: Recommend a paper-filter test for a fictional theatre set, not installation. Home: write a no-cost because / however / next note about imaginary data.