This is a public library file, not access-controlled. Avoid displaying it alongside the learner packet; adapt check cases when advance access matters. Use first-response evidence; record whether read-aloud, calculator, tactile representation, dictation or prompting changed the task. A route is access, not a learner label. All values below are invented.
Day-by-day look-fors
| Day | Expected evidence | If missing, next move |
|---|---|---|
| 11 | A and B are same-team sources; four-layer 20 recorded vs 10 model; poster purpose and quiet qualification both noticed. | Read headline and small print with equal emphasis; contrast maker, number and method. |
| 12 | P(0..4)=160,80,40,20,10; P(5)=5 remains unobserved; 2^-2=1/4. |
Build eight equal marks, then return to reciprocal notation. |
| 13 | Signed residuals 0,0,+4,+6,+10; no cause inferred. |
Physically align each prediction tile and record tile; change cause statement to a test question. |
| 14 | Protocol controls paper, lamp, geometry, ambient light, sensor/measurement, runs, recording and risk. Actual new readings only when approved and performed. | Ask a second group to attempt one instruction; turn a vague “same setup” into positions/settings. |
| 15 | See separate worked Check A below. | Re-teach the one weak component using new numbers, then reassess later. |
| 16 | At n=4 D gives 19–21, middle 20; clustered in this fictional setup, not universal or independent. | Contrast repeat on one desk with another documented setup. |
| 17 | r=.55 has smaller mean absolute gap than .50 for B, but neither is a proved paper property. |
Sort fits five numbers from predicts another setup; plan a new test. |
| 18 | “The reduction” is traced to team/action/values; “dependable” unsupported; revisions remain attributed. | Keep one useful abstract noun with its referent, then remove unwarranted certainty. |
| 19 | Two panels show decision, 10 model vs 20 recorded, source/method limit and next check. Actual Arts evidence requires a designed media artefact. |
User-test first glance; revise the biggest unsupported word. |
| 20 | See separate worked Check B below. | Target exponent, repeat/independent distinction or operational controls separately. |
Check A · first response only
P(3)=96×2^-3=96×(1/8)=12. Negative exponent expresses reciprocal, not a negative quantity. An equivalent repeated division96→48→24→12is full reasoning.- Three-card record is 18;
record − prediction = 18−12 = +6arbitrary units. This conflicts with the notice's exact-half assertion for all additional cards; it neither identifies a cause nor a real material property. - “The improvement” nominalises and presumes a desirable change. A defensible revision: “In the Folded Card team's invented one-table record, the three-card sensor value was 18 rather than the exact-half prediction of 12; the method and viewing conditions were not validated.” Variants naming team, comparison and limitation earn credit. “Proved reliable” does not.
- Accept an operational request such as fixed sensor distance and background reading, sensor calibration, or independent repeat at three cards; “test more” alone needs precision.
Response branch: If 96×2^-3 becomes −12, use eight equal shares. If learner reports 18 as the prediction, draw separate source/model columns. If the rewrite only swaps “improvement” for “change”, ask who did what, in which invented record, and with what limit. Do not alter a first-response score because of later feedback.
Check B · first response only
P(3)=120×2^-3=120/8=15. Three-sheet invented values are 23,21,22; ordered 21,22,23, so middle is 22. Difference22−15=+7arbitrary units. Range 21–23 is also acceptable as supplementary description.- Three values cluster for one reported “same desk” setup; this is within-record similarity. Missing calibration, materials, ambient light and independent observers prevent claims about another setup, method validity, mechanism, safety or real reproducibility.
- Good question: “With a specified paper batch and fixed lamp/sensor geometry, how do sensor readings change as sheet count increases from 0 to 3?” Controls must be operational: e.g., mark lamp and sensor positions at specified fixed separation, use the same named lamp setting/background condition, use equal-size paper from one batch, calibrate or zero the sensor consistently. Merely writing “keep light same” needs a setting. A written plan does not prove any actual retest took place.
- Accept “Require a documented supervised retest before a decision about a trial: the team's fictional three-sheet middle 22 is 7 above the exact-half prediction of 15; calibration and background are missing; repeat with fixed geometry, background readings and an independent observer.” Pausing or approving only a small supervised non-public retest is equally defensible when reasoned. Public use or safety claims are unsupported.
Response branch: If median is mistaken for average, order the three values physically; both happen to be 22 here, so ask learner to name their method. If clustered values are called universal proof, ask what a different observer/setting could change. If a method plan is described as completed, mark not observed and separate future plan from completed action.
Desk scoring note
Use four dimensions rather than a single permanent label: exponent/model, source/data separation, method/uncertainty, audience/wording. For each, note independent, with access support, or needs next teaching step. Score the first response; document help used. A different communication route carries the same evidence demand. No claim of actual classroom efficacy has been established by this desk review.