Elementary Professional Acumen — Supplementary Materials 1

Chapter 1 teaching support

Chapter 1 teaching-support supplement

Four cards, then a checked spare

Edition: 0.1 · October 10, 2026 Work unit: E2-CH01-R01-TEACHING-SUPPORT-SUPPLEMENT Companion to: The Reading Box, student and teacher manuscripts v0.1, October 9, 2026.

This separate, dated companion completes the smaller-number exercise and the two named loop aids identified in Chapter 1 review findings F01 and F02. It does not replace either original manuscript, change its twelve questions or answers, or add another numbered story chapter. The original four-card candidate is developed here into an explicit teaching sequence. [R; S; T]

The cases, inspection results and example responses are fictional. The lesson is proposed, not classroom-tested or assigned to a validated reading level. Public availability does not grant new classroom, reproduction, adaptation or commercial-use permission. Existing permissions, school authority, staffing, access and record-custody requirements must be resolved before actual use. This edition is an authored reference companion, not a live website publication or an adopted lesson. [M §§16,21; T §3]

1. Teacher entry and placement

Use this optional route when the larger Chapter 1 inventory arithmetic is not yet appropriate. Check whether the learner can match objects one to one up to five, make two groups of two, and distinguish an object being present from being usable for the named job. Read the brief case aloud and accept pointing, placing tokens, speech, dictation or writing. A need for support changes the teaching plan, not the learner’s worth.

For this route, use the supplement questions below instead of the original numerical Q03–Q04, staged Q08 and transfer Q11 when their demands exceed readiness. Record the substitution; completing this companion is not evidence of completing those original questions. Original Q02, Q07 and Q12 may be selected separately for observation, appreciation and clarification. This companion does not complete their broader relational-development pathway or the K–6 routing guide. [S Q02–Q12; T §7; M §5]

Prepare four approved tokens labeled C1–C4, two team spaces, three evidence slips and one additional token C5 held out of the represented stock until Slip 3. At most five physical cards belong to this fictional case. All tokens and text should be accessible. State that a card is unusable by means of a case label; do not blur text, damage materials, obstruct vision or test a child’s sight. C5 being present in the teacher’s materials does not make its availability established in an earlier evidence stage.

The target is comparing the request with source-supported usable supply, communicating an unfinished check and revising after new evidence. It is not unaided reading, predicting the story ending, or working without help. The adult may model the entire exercise first. Record adult-modeled functions as modeled, not as independently performed roles.

2. Learner case and staged questions

Slip 1 — Counted is not yet checked

> Four picture cards are in this case’s box. Two teams need two usable cards each. We know the number and the request. The cards’ usability has not been checked for this job. No spare has been confirmed.

C01-R01-Q01. How many physical cards are counted? How many usable cards does the request need? Do we yet know how many of the counted cards are usable, or the exact usable shortage? Name the next check.

Do not release later slips as evidence for this stage. A learner who knows the whole case can say that the spare belongs to a later stage; remembering it is not misconduct. Unknown usability is neither confirmed zero usability nor confirmed complete readiness.

Slip 2 — The condition check changes the account

> A check now finds that C1–C3 are usable and C4 is not usable for this picture-card job. All four physical cards remain. There is still no confirmed spare or permission to use one.

C01-R01-Q02. What are the physical count, usable count, requirement and shortage now? Explain why keeping C4 in the box does not fill the shortage. What may the group ask, and what must it not promise yet?

Slip 3 — Confirm the addition, then check the allocation

> The responsible adult has checked one additional card, C5. It is usable, available for this job and permitted. It has now been brought into this case’s available set. No other spare is confirmed. C4 remains present but unusable. The group gives two usable cards to each team, and both teams check the received quantities.

C01-R01-Q03. How many physical cards now belong to the case? How many are usable? How many usable cards are allocated, and how many usable cards remain unallocated? What has the receiving count established, and what remains to be checked about the pictures?

The final slip explicitly confirms the added card and its receipt. Permission alone would not show that a card arrived. The case does not borrow supplies from the original twelve-card story or settle any later chapter’s unfinished resource question.

Changed outcome — a check need not improve supply

For this separate case, start again from Slip 2, not from Slip 3:

> The adult checks the possible spare and finds it unusable. It stays outside the represented box. No usable card is added, and the four-card box remains three usable plus one unusable. The request remains two usable cards for each of two teams.

C01-R01-Q04. Did making a check itself remove the shortage? Use STOP — CHECK — CHANGE — CHECK AGAIN to propose a next response. Give two conditional alternatives and say what would have to be confirmed. Do not invent a successful replacement or a new approved request.

A different small case — transfer

> A different box contains five physical cards. Two are checked as unusable and the other three as usable. Two teams each need two usable cards. Nothing is known about any other supplies.

C01-R01-Q05. Find physical stock, usable stock, required stock and the usable shortage. Does the spare from the earlier case solve this separate case? Explain before hearing the group’s answer, with needed help still available and recorded.

A useful contribution, not a judgment of a person

C01-R01-Q06. A learner says, “I counted four, but we have checked only three as usable. I need an answer about a spare.” Give one specific appreciative response and one bounded next opportunity with support. Does this statement establish the learner’s feelings or ability in every task?

Use the learning loop

C01-R01-Q07. Use the seven Loop Board prompts below to describe the main case through Slip 3. Keep the earlier unknown and the later confirmed facts distinct. Include one next check that the receiving count does not answer.

Rehearse only when approved

C01-R01-Q08. With approved drawings, rehearse a small count–check–revise activity. Record the request, actual help, the first response, the action actually taken, its result and a next check in What We Learned From Working Together. Keep the earlier account when revising. Report “not tried” or “not yet checked” when that is accurate; do not copy the fictional slips as evidence of your own outcome.

Q08 is a separate optional enactment, not an event established by reading the case. No learner is required to act out humiliation, a false accusation or distress. A different representation or a paused activity can be appropriate.

3. The Loop Board — one reusable thinking aid

Use these seven prompts on the existing learning account, aloud or in brief notes. They are prompts, not seven extra daily forms or a requirement to record every utterance. [M §4]

| Prompt | Worked main-case response | |—|—| | What happened? | Four cards were counted for two teams, each needing two usable cards. | | What do we know? | The initial physical count and request are four. Initial usability is not yet established. | | What might it mean? | The box may meet the request only if enough cards are usable; the first count alone does not decide that. | | What could we do? | Inspect suitability, then ask the responsible adult about an available and permitted spare if needed. | | What happened next? | A check found three usable. Later a checked, available and permitted spare was added, and two cards reached each team. | | What changed? | Usable supply changed from three established usable cards to four; the physical set grew from four to five because the unusable card remained. | | What do we know now? | Four usable cards were allocated, with none unallocated. Each learner’s use or understanding of the pictures still needs its own evidence. |

Repeat the loop when new evidence arrives. Its seven questions do not divide Critical Reasoning, Emotional Acumen, Social Acumen and Physical Health into separate stages. Those dimensions remain intrinsic to every state. A count, a reaction to correction, a conversation about supplies and readable materials can influence the same interaction together. [M §§1,4]

4. STOP — CHECK — CHANGE — CHECK AGAIN

STOP: Pause the affected claim or allocation when the necessary condition is missing. Keep ordinary support and any unrelated approved activity available. Do not turn a paused supply task into rejection of a learner.

CHECK: Compare the actual request, the physical objects, their usability and the evidence for availability and permission. Ask what was observed, who supplied the information and what remains unknown.

CHANGE: Make only an approved adjustment. In the main case, add the checked spare after its arrival is confirmed. In the changed-outcome case, no usable spare has arrived: a possible later time or altered request remains a proposal until the responsible people confirm it.

CHECK AGAIN: Record the result after the adjustment, including no improvement, an incomplete check or a new problem. Confirm the receiving quantities separately from understanding the pictures. A proposed change is not its result. [M §4; S Q09–Q10]

The correction aid and Loop Board share the existing learning record. They are not a new behavior score, a compulsory consensus procedure, or authority to move real supplies.

5. Three learning functions, with honest support records

For learners ready for the full supported rotation, use Slip 1 in Round 1, Slip 2 in Round 2 and Slip 3 in Round 3. The letters identify participants, not fixed fictional characters.

| Round | Learner A | Learner B | Learner C | |—|—|—|—| | 1 | Mentor | Scribe | Referee | | 2 | Scribe | Referee | Mentor | | 3 | Referee | Mentor | Scribe |

The Mentor explains the request, evidence and proposed next check. The Scribe records the explanation, help and missing information. The Referee asks which evidence supports the claim and what its consequences or limits are. Referees do not discipline other learners or approve supplies.

On rotation, Mentor→Scribe fills a gap left in the spoken explanation; Scribe→Referee questions using the clearer account; Referee→Mentor explains from the broader perspective. A scribe can dictate or arrange objects. All learners should have an opportunity to perform every function; a missing function remains unevidenced until an actual later opportunity occurs. [M §3; S Q08; T §4]

In Round 1, A may hold the count, B the request and C the statement that usability and spares are unconfirmed. Make every piece available through a suitable channel before a group conclusion. Later slips are shared at their stated stages. This is conditional evidence practice, not a blinded test.

After the rounds, each learner explains the transfer case before peer corrections where feasible. Record supplied reasoning as support. A polished group account is not three individual demonstrations. Earlier learners may instead observe adult modeling or practice one function at a time without a claim of completed independent rotation.

A proposed twenty-minute case-teaching option allocates three minutes to access/prerequisites, nine to three supported rounds, four to transfer, two to comparing reasons and two to closure: 3+9+4+2+2=20. This is an editorial planning assumption, not observed delivery. Q04, Q06–Q08 and fuller discussion may require separate time or explicit substitution. The option is not twenty extra minutes silently inserted into the original forty-minute core. Preparation, permissions, extra support and reporting take time too; no time saving is established.

6. Complete worked answers

These keys support the eight supplement questions only. Original Chapter 1 A01–A12 remain unchanged. They do not replace the separately planned original-answer analysis supplement. Use shorter explanations when they show the relationship; exact wording is not required.

C01-R01-A01 — Q01. Four physical cards are counted. Two plus two requires four usable cards. No usable count or exact usable shortage has yet been established. A matching physical total is not a suitability check. Ask to inspect the cards for this job. A later condition check may establish a shortage; an absent check must not be represented as either zero usable cards or guaranteed readiness. Counting with objects or pointing to two team places can express the reasoning without unaided reading.

C01-R01-A02 — Q02. Four physical cards remain; three are usable and one is unusable. Four are required, so four minus three leaves a shortage of one. C4’s presence does not make it usable. Ask the responsible adult to check a possible spare’s suitability, availability and permission. Until that evidence exists, do not promise complete sets or take another activity’s supply. A changed request or newly confirmed suitable supply could change the gap. Keep the useful inspection visible rather than blame its reporter.

C01-R01-A03 — Q03. Four original cards plus the acquired spare make five physical cards. Three original usable cards plus one usable spare make four usable; the original unusable card remains. Two plus two allocates all four usable cards, leaving zero usable cards unallocated. The receiving checks establish the stated quantities, not each learner’s understanding of the pictures. A suitable supported explanation or actual use would provide different evidence. If the spare were merely permitted but not supplied, this final state would not follow; the slip explicitly confirms arrival and allocation.

C01-R01-A04 — Q04. The changed case still has four box cards, three usable and a shortage of one against four needed. The failed candidate remains outside that box and is not extra usable supply. Checking did not itself close the gap. STOP the promise of complete sets; CHECK the unchanged need and reported failed spare; CHANGE only an agreed plan; CHECK AGAIN after any permitted adjustment. One alternative is asking about another suitable spare, requiring actual stock, availability, permission and delivery. Another is a later activity or a genuinely reduced requirement, requiring agreement from those responsible and affected. Neither is already approved or successful. Taking another team’s allocation or rushing a check could transfer the problem rather than solve it.

C01-R01-A05 — Q05. Five physical minus two unusable leaves three usable. Two plus two requires four, so one usable card is missing. This is a different case: an earlier case’s acquired spare is not a delivered resource here. Ask about actual suitable supplies and approval, or propose an agreed change. Counters or a drawing are valid methods; record any supplied strategy. A newly checked resource could alter the conclusion, but nothing in this case establishes it.

C01-R01-A06 — Q06. One response is, “Your check showed that we still need one usable card.” A bounded opportunity is helping compare one approved set with its request, with readable information, help available and a check of the explanation afterward. Other specific responses may fit. Neither the pause nor the statement measures private feelings, accumulated Self-Esteem or ability on all tasks. Naming a capability and a need for help can support coordination; appreciation is conveyed toward the contribution. Review the next interaction rather than require confident delivery or a cheerful response.

C01-R01-A07 — Q07. The worked Loop Board in section 3 answers all seven prompts. Preserve its order of evidence: four counted and four required first; usability unknown; three usable established next; one acquired usable spare finally supports four usable within five physical cards. The next learning check remains open after quantities are received. Other explanations are valid when they retain those boundaries. Revising the account does not erase an earlier accurate observation, and more written prompts alone do not demonstrate improvement.

C01-R01-A08 — Q08. There is no predetermined actual result. A sufficient record identifies the approved task, information released, actual materials and help, the first response, a performed adjustment or explicit non-action, the resulting observation and the next check. “Not tried” is accurate when nothing was enacted. A fictional example is: “We first counted four. Our case label showed one unavailable. We recorded three usable and asked about a spare; none was confirmed in our rehearsal.” Use that only as an example, not as a claim about a real learner. Preserve disagreement or no improvement. More readable material, another explanation, changed requirements or continuing uncertainty could lead to a later revision.

7. One record, not another reporting system

Attach this companion to the Chapter 1 teaching set as a separately identified source. For a later assembled reference, place a cross-reference beside the teacher’s smaller-number suggestion and the student’s Q10/What changed? prompts. Do not silently edit the v0.1 sources. The book-assembly task owns integration, and its final acceptance plus the H3 presentation checks remain open. Standalone website publication is not performed by this source-development task.

Use the existing What We Learned From Working Together account. A short response may name the request, counted/usable/needed amounts, source stage, actual assistance, action/result and next check; not every field needs a separate form. The teacher’s existing nine-field record preserves observation, interpretation, uncertainty, conveyed response, participant clarification and subsequent evidence. This short case record does not replace those distinctions or require continuous surveillance. [T §6; M §20]

Observe separately whether the learner distinguishes physical from usable stock, retains an unknown, calculates the changed gap, asks for an appropriate resource check and explains a revision. Record demonstrated with stated support, demonstrated without a supplied answer/strategy under stated conditions, or not yet evidenced. Do not create a global PA score, infer a diagnosis or make help contingent on approval. No classroom outcome, improved Self-Esteem or teacher-time benefit is reported.

8. Source and edition crosswalk

M — PA_Curriculum_Master_v0.3.docx, October 7, 2026: §§1,3–5 supply intrinsic dimensions, rotation and both loop aids; §§15–16,18,20–21 govern solutions, instruction, records and safeguards. The complete text is retained from the verified synthesis; no new layout, legal or empirical review is claimed.

S — E2_Elementary_Student_Chapter_01_v0.1.md: Q03–Q04, Q08–Q12, What actually happened?, What changed? and A01–A12. The original source is preserved byte-for-byte. Supplement identifiers C01-R01-Q01–Q08 prevent confusion with the original Q01–Q12.

T — E2_Elementary_Teacher_Chapter_01_v0.1.md: §§3–4 preparation/roles, §6 existing observation record and §7 earlier-counting adaptation. Original sources and preparation-era statements remain unchanged; the separate CH01-R02 status addendum is still open.

R — E2_Chapter01_Requirements_Coverage_Review_v0.1.md, October 9, 2026: findings F01/F02 and Candidate lower-number exercise for R01. This edition preserves its four-card, one-unusable, one-checked-spare structure, explicitly confirms arrival/allocation in Slip 3, and supplies teacher placement, complete questions/keys, failure and transfer cases, loop aids and source/use notices. This is development of the reviewed candidate, not a repeated Chapter 1 review.

Control — E2_Elementary_Coverage_Register_v0.9.json and RP 2.11: define the bounded R01 work and separate downstream publication, assembly and use gates. Historical local coverage judgments remain unchanged; this companion adds evidence for EC-18, EC-19 and EC-30. The original status-context task and original twelve-answer analytical task are not completed by this companion.

Edition limit: Newly authored source companion only. No website write, source replacement, actual school use, new reuse license, medical recommendation or credential is created. The recorded website gate and fresh source/rights/target checks still apply before any later publication.

Chapter 1 solutions

Chapter 1 — Solution-analysis supplement

The Reading Box · companion to the original student and teacher manuscripts

Edition: v0.1 · Prepared: 2026-10-10T05:46:59.844866-07:00 · Work unit: `E2-CH01-R03-SOLUTION-ANALYSIS-SUPPLEMENT`

Status: Authored source companion for reading and editorial review. Local verification does not certify Library persistence, publication, classroom use, book integration or effectiveness. The original student and teacher v0.1 manuscripts remain unchanged. The separate completed teaching-support and dated-status companions are not recreated here.

1. Purpose and source boundaries

This supplement implements the existing R03 task, not a second Chapter 1 coverage review. Curriculum Master v0.3 §15 requires each assigned problem to have a solution that identifies evidence, assumptions, the four-dimensional relationships, the relational pathway, calculations, uncertainty, alternatives, feedback, unintended consequences and evidence that could change the conclusion. It permits justified indeterminacy rather than an invented unique answer. The original twelve keys are present and reasoned; this companion maps their coverage and makes selected implicit relationships explicit. [M §15; R F04 and R03]

S means the complete original student manuscript; T means the complete teacher manuscript; M means the curriculum Master v0.3; R means the original Chapter 1 requirements review. “L” references raw manuscript lines, not the line numbers added by a retrieval tool. Every source has a file identity and checksum in the accompanying source manifest. Original questions and answers below are reproduced exactly, not revised. Teacher explanations are cited in context and the complete teacher source is retained beside this companion.

Reading the map. EXISTING identifies an explicit answer passage. EXISTING_CONTEXT brings in the original teacher or story explanation. MAPPED is editorial articulation supported by the cited passages, not a quotation or a claim that the original answer stated it verbatim. ADDENDUM identifies one of six separately labeled new explanatory notes. A justified non-numerical treatment addresses only the calculation field; it does not exempt an answer from relational analysis. Conditional calculations describe stipulated examples, not actual pupil results.

Four dimensions, one state. Critical Reasoning, Emotional Acumen, Social Acumen and Physical Health are intrinsic to each interaction state. The map does not score those dimensions or assign children to them. It distinguishes observable reactions and practical access from unknown private feelings and health. A proposed pathway is not evidence of an observed causal effect. PA remains an analytical/developmental framework, not an ethical doctrine or a measure of personal worth. [T L17–21; M §§0,15–16]

Use and workload. This is a teacher/editor reference, not 120 extra pupil questions, a compulsory script or a new daily reporting system. It adds no required numeric exercise. Use the existing shared keys, actual support records and approved response channels. Material-use restrictions and school authority remain unresolved for actual use; reading access grants no new reproduction, adaptation or commercial license. [T L25,29,45,59,75,87]

2. All twelve answer maps

A01 — Ordering events

Preserved source: S L59 and L121.

> Q01. Put these events in order: the group checks two spares; Jo notices blurred words; Mina counts twelve cards. Tell which part of the story supports your order.

> A01 — Q01. First Mina counts twelve, then Jo notices the blurred words, then the group checks spares. The story supplies this order; the number of cards alone does not. Notice counting, the response to correction, shared checking and readable materials together. If another account describes a different event, check that account rather than silently changing this story. Keep the source of the order visible.

| Solution field | Existing coverage and editorial interpretation | |—|—| | EV — Evidence | EXISTING · S L121; S L13,21,35–37. The narrated counting, blurred-word discovery and later spare check determine the order. The inventory total does not establish chronology. | | AS — Assumptions | MAPPED · S L59,121; T L35. The question concerns this edition of the fictional story. A recollection or a different event record is not silently substituted for it. | | DM — Simultaneous four-dimensional relationships | EXISTING_CONTEXT · S L121; T L17,21. Sequence evidence, responses to correction, joint checking and readable information coexist. The source does not measure anyone’s feelings or health. | | RP — Relational pathway | ADDENDUM · S L25,121; N01. Keeping the original claim and its correction lets the next reader identify what was known when the count was made; the added note traces what a silent overwrite would conceal. | | CA — Calculation or justified non-numerical treatment | JUSTIFIED_NA · S L59,121. This is an ordering question. Ordinal sequence is needed, but no new quantity computation or numerical PA score is relevant. | | UN — Uncertainty | EXISTING · S L121; T L35. Another account might refer to another event; compare source and edition before treating the accounts as contradictions. | | AL — Alternative interpretations or actions | EXISTING · S L121. Retain a different account separately and inspect it, rather than edit this story to force agreement. | | FB — Feedback | EXISTING_CONTEXT · S L121; T L47. Locate the relevant sentence with the learner and keep the evidence for a revised order visible. | | UC — Possible unintended consequences | ADDENDUM · N01. A silent overwrite could hide the earlier assumption and mislead later review about which support or check was missing. This is a conditional risk, not an additional event in the story. | | RE — Evidence that could revise the conclusion | MAPPED · S L121; T L35,47; N01. A source-supported correction to the learner’s ordering changes that response. A genuinely different source changes the scope of the comparison, not the preserved edition retrospectively. |

New explanatory note: N01 in section 3. All other content in this map is source cross-reference or explicitly labeled editorial interpretation.

A02 — Observation before interpretation

Preserved source: S L61 and L123.

> Q02. What did Leo actually observe before he said Jo never paid attention? What did Jo later explain? Keep observation and guess separate.

> A02 — Q02. Leo had not heard an answer yet. “Never pays attention” was a broad guess, not an observation. Jo reports checking blurred words, and Mina also checks the cards. Quietness could have other explanations in another situation. Asking and providing readable information supports thinking and participation without demanding an emotional or medical explanation. A later clarification may change the account; do not replace one unsupported label with another.

| Solution field | Existing coverage and editorial interpretation | |—|—| | EV — Evidence | EXISTING · S L123; S L17–21. Leo had not heard an answer. Jo reports checking blurred words, and Mina checks the cards; the source distinguishes those forms of evidence. | | AS — Assumptions | MAPPED · S L123; T L35. Absence of a heard reply does not establish why no reply was heard. Jo’s explanation is a report, not unrestricted access to a private state. | | DM — Simultaneous four-dimensional relationships | EXISTING_CONTEXT · S L123; T L17,21. Evidence about the pause, the response to being questioned, the peer exchange and readable material access are part of the same situation. | | RP — Relational pathway | MAPPED · S L123; T L35. An invitation to clarify exposes a checkable material issue, allowing the group to revise a global attribution and its usable-card account. Later participation effects remain possibilities, not measured outcomes. | | CA — Calculation or justified non-numerical treatment | JUSTIFIED_NA · S L61,123. The task classifies evidence and inference. There is no required numerical calculation and no defensible conversion of quietness into a score. | | UN — Uncertainty | EXISTING · S L123. Quietness can have other explanations; a later clarification may change the account. | | AL — Alternative interpretations or actions | EXISTING · S L123; T L21. Ask, inspect relevant information, or provide an appropriate response channel without demanding an emotional or medical explanation. | | FB — Feedback | EXISTING · S L123; T L35. Use clarification to update the particular description rather than reward prediction of the teacher’s preferred explanation. | | UC — Possible unintended consequences | EXISTING · S L123; T L21. Replacing one unsupported label with a new favorable label would preserve the same inference error; compulsory disclosure would add a different burden. | | RE — Evidence that could revise the conclusion | EXISTING · S L123; T L35. Participant clarification and another person’s material inspection can change the account, with their different evidential limits retained. |

A03 — Requirement rather than inventory

Preserved source: S L65 and L125.

> Q03. Three teams need four cards each. How many usable cards are needed? You may draw three groups, count objects or explain in words.

> A03 — Q03. Four plus four plus four makes twelve cards. This assumes all three teams need four and the cards are usable. Drawing or counting is an alternative to written arithmetic. Compare counts without turning an error into blame; make the materials and explanation accessible. If a team’s requirement changes, recalculate. Counting the box does not itself prove the requirement or quality of its contents.

| Solution field | Existing coverage and editorial interpretation | |—|—| | EV — Evidence | EXISTING · S L65,125; S L11. The stated requirement is three teams with four usable cards per team; merely counting the box does not establish that requirement. | | AS — Assumptions | EXISTING · S L125. All three teams still require four cards, and an allocated card must be usable for the task. | | DM — Simultaneous four-dimensional relationships | EXISTING_CONTEXT · S L125; T L17,21. Quantity reasoning, response to an error, comparison with peers and accessible representations belong to the same counting exchange. | | RP — Relational pathway | MAPPED · S L125; T L47,49. Separating the requirement from the inventory makes the later shortage check meaningful; showing a grouping provides information for targeted support without labeling the learner. | | CA — Calculation or justified non-numerical treatment | EXISTING · S L125. 4 + 4 + 4 = 12 required usable cards. Repeated addition, drawings or objects are valid representations of this requirement. | | UN — Uncertainty | EXISTING · S L125. This calculation does not establish either the amount in the box or its usability. | | AL — Alternative interpretations or actions | EXISTING · S L125; T L49. Use drawings or counting rather than require written arithmetic; distinguish a requirement error from a usable-inventory error. | | FB — Feedback | EXISTING_CONTEXT · S L125; T L47. Compare the learner’s grouping with the stated requirement and give the support needed for that specific relationship. | | UC — Possible unintended consequences | EXISTING · S L125; T L49. Turning an arithmetic error into blame or treating speed as respect would substitute a person judgment for evidence about the calculation. | | RE — Evidence that could revise the conclusion | EXISTING · S L125. A changed number of teams or cards per team requires recalculation. A clearer learner explanation may revise the assessment of their reasoning, not the stipulated requirement. |

A04 — Usable supply, shortage and displaced costs

Preserved source: S L67 and L127.

> Q04. Twelve cards are counted, but two cannot be read. How many can be used now? How many more are needed? After two readable spares are checked and permitted, how many usable cards remain after the three sets are made?

> A04 — Q04. Twelve less two leaves ten usable cards, a shortage of two against the need for twelve. The checked and permitted two spares bring the usable total to twelve. Giving four to each of three teams leaves zero usable spares. The two blurred cards still exist but are not ready for this task. Clarification, cooperation and access matter alongside the arithmetic. If the new cards are unreadable or unavailable, the shortage remains; never count an unchecked resource as supplied.

| Solution field | Existing coverage and editorial interpretation | |—|—| | EV — Evidence | EXISTING · S L67,127; S L27–37. Twelve original cards include two unreadable ones. Two readable spares are checked and their use permitted before they are counted as supplied. | | AS — Assumptions | EXISTING · S L127. The requirement remains twelve usable cards; the two added spares are distinct, readable and available for this task. | | DM — Simultaneous four-dimensional relationships | EXISTING_CONTEXT · S L127; T L17,21. Usable-count reasoning, response to correction, coordination and readable access coexist; the arithmetic alone does not describe all their consequences. | | RP — Relational pathway | ADDENDUM · S L127; N04. Checking usability changes the inventory claim, which changes the feasible allocation. The added note distinguishes completing this group’s set from shifting a shortage to another group. | | CA — Calculation or justified non-numerical treatment | EXISTING_PLUS_RECONCILIATION · S L127; N04. 12 − 2 = 10 usable; 12 − 10 = 2 short; 10 + 2 = 12 usable after supply; 12 − (4 + 4 + 4) = 0 usable left. N04 also reconciles physical stock without changing this key. | | UN — Uncertainty | EXISTING · S L127. Unchecked, unreadable or unavailable spares do not remove the shortage. The story does not state that another activity was deprived of resources. | | AL — Alternative interpretations or actions | EXISTING_CONTEXT · S L127,137; T L71. Inspect and obtain permitted supply, or seek approval to change the task or timing. A permitted alternative is not necessarily costless for other users. | | FB — Feedback | EXISTING_CONTEXT · S L127; T L47,55–57. Show counted, usable, required and short quantities separately, preserving both the earlier explanation and the support used to correct it. | | UC — Possible unintended consequences | ADDENDUM · N04. A transfer could merely move the two-card shortage to a lender; inspection or replacement can also take time. Neither cost is asserted to have occurred in the fictional ending. | | RE — Evidence that could revise the conclusion | EXISTING_PLUS_ADDENDUM · S L127; N04. Observed usability, permission, availability or a changed requirement changes the allocation conclusion. Evidence about another user’s commitments changes the broader resource assessment. |

New explanatory note: N04 in section 3. All other content in this map is source cross-reference or explicitly labeled editorial interpretation.

A05 — One adjustment, several relationships

Preserved source: S L73 and L129.

> Q05. Find one detail about information or counting, one about a response to correction, one about working together, and one about readable materials or practical access. Could one detail matter in more than one way? Talk about the story; nobody needs to share private feelings or health information.

> A05 — Q05. Examples are Mina’s count; Leo’s correction of his claim; Jo and Mina checking together; and bringing a readable list within reach. One adjustment can affect all four relationships. We can describe words and actions without knowing private feelings. Other story-supported choices are valid. Check the effect of help afterwards: moving a list does not prove that everyone can use it. Do not assign one person to each dimension.

| Solution field | Existing coverage and editorial interpretation | |—|—| | EV — Evidence | EXISTING · S L73,129; S L39–43. The source offers a count, a correction, shared inspection and a list brought within reach as story-supported examples. | | AS — Assumptions | MAPPED · S L129; T L17. The four dimensions characterize each interaction state, not four separate children or a sequence of approval steps. | | DM — Simultaneous four-dimensional relationships | EXISTING · S L129; T L17. The answer expressly allows one adjustment to matter to all four relationships and does not infer private feelings from the action. | | RP — Relational pathway | ADDENDUM · S L129; N05. Making the list available can enable a label comparison, which supplies evidence for joint checking; actual access and the subsequent response determine whether that pathway occurred. | | CA — Calculation or justified non-numerical treatment | JUSTIFIED_NA · S L73,129. The task identifies linked story details. No numerical dimension score or causal effect size is established. | | UN — Uncertainty | EXISTING · S L129. Moving a list does not establish that everyone can use it or reveal a person’s feelings. | | AL — Alternative interpretations or actions | EXISTING_CONTEXT · S L129; T L21,65. Other story-supported examples and suitable communication or representation formats are valid; ask about access rather than assume one format fits everyone. | | FB — Feedback | EXISTING · S L129; T L47. Check the effect of the offered help afterwards and describe the specific contribution or remaining obstacle. | | UC — Possible unintended consequences | ADDENDUM · N05. An adjustment that helps one person could obstruct another person’s access; treating placement alone as success could leave the task inaccessible. | | RE — Evidence that could revise the conclusion | EXISTING_PLUS_ADDENDUM · S L129; N05. A participant’s clarification and an actual attempt to use the list can justify keeping or changing its position or format. They do not establish a private health diagnosis. |

New explanatory note: N05 in section 3. All other content in this map is source cross-reference or explicitly labeled editorial interpretation.

A06 — Arrangement is not individual learning

Preserved source: S L77 and L131.

> Q06. Which statements are supported at the end of the story: “Three sets of four readable cards were made”; “every child will understand every card”; “two blurred cards were put aside”? Say what is known and what still needs checking.

> A06 — Q06. Three sets were made and two blurred cards were put aside. Universal understanding was not observed. Reading the cards with appropriate support and checking each learner’s response would provide different evidence. A correct group arrangement is not every person’s learning. Keep uncertainty, reactions, participation and usable materials in view; a changed task or missing response may require more support rather than a negative label.

| Solution field | Existing coverage and editorial interpretation | |—|—| | EV — Evidence | EXISTING · S L77,131; S L37,45. Three sets were made and the two blurred cards were put aside; universal understanding was not observed. | | AS — Assumptions | MAPPED · S L131; T L47,49. The question asks what this story establishes, not whether later learning is possible. A group product is not evidence of every person’s independent performance. | | DM — Simultaneous four-dimensional relationships | EXISTING_CONTEXT · S L131; T L17,21. Task evidence, reactions, participation and usable materials remain linked when the teacher considers what to check next. | | RP — Relational pathway | MAPPED · S L131; T L47,49. Distinguishing arrangement from understanding directs the next check toward each learner’s response and the support used, rather than treating a completed set as sufficient learning evidence. | | CA — Calculation or justified non-numerical treatment | JUSTIFIED_NA · S L77,131. The sets and excluded cards are facts from the story, not a new arithmetic assignment. No learning percentage can be derived from their count. | | UN — Uncertainty | EXISTING · S L131. Whether every child understands every card remains unknown; a missing response does not identify its cause. | | AL — Alternative interpretations or actions | EXISTING_CONTEXT · S L131; T L21,47,65. Check a response using appropriate reading support or an accessible response channel; retain the distinction between supported and independent evidence. | | FB — Feedback | EXISTING · S L131; T L47. Offer the next support justified by the particular response or missing evidence, rather than a negative person label. | | UC — Possible unintended consequences | EXISTING_CONTEXT · S L131; T L21,49. Calling a learner deficient from missing evidence, or withdrawing needed help because the group finished, would exceed what the observation supports. | | RE — Evidence that could revise the conclusion | EXISTING · S L131; T L47,75. A learner’s later response on an appropriate task, with its support level recorded, changes the bounded learning assessment. One response still does not prove universal understanding. |

A07 — Repairing a statement without requiring a performance

Preserved source: S L81 and L133.

> Q07. Change “You never pay attention” into a description of what was observed and a helpful question. Then give one specific sentence of appreciation supported by the story. Do not claim to know Jo’s private feelings.

> A07 — Q07. One possible repair is: “I have not heard your answer yet. Would you like to show or tell us what you are checking?” Appreciation could be: “Your word check showed why our count of ready cards was wrong.” These statements refer to evidence and invite clarification. Different wording is acceptable. Do not require eye contact or a cheerful response as proof of success. Check the subsequent exchange; praise that pressures someone to hide uncertainty would not provide useful support.

| Solution field | Existing coverage and editorial interpretation | |—|—| | EV — Evidence | EXISTING · S L81,133; S L17–21. The repair begins with the absence of a heard answer and appreciation refers to Jo’s demonstrated word check. | | AS — Assumptions | MAPPED · S L133; T L21. An invitation permits clarification; it does not entitle the observer to a particular expression, eye contact or disclosure. | | DM — Simultaneous four-dimensional relationships | EXISTING_CONTEXT · S L133; T L17,21. Accurate wording, response to correction, the social invitation and an accessible response channel coexist. The observer does not know the recipient’s private feelings. | | RP — Relational pathway | MAPPED · S L133; T L21,35. Replacing a global claim with a bounded observation creates an opportunity for relevant clarification; what the next exchange actually supplies determines whether the repair was useful. | | CA — Calculation or justified non-numerical treatment | JUSTIFIED_NA · S L81,133. This is a language-and-evidence task. No numerical level of respect or improvement can be inferred from the wording. | | UN — Uncertainty | EXISTING · S L133. A cheerful response or eye contact is not proof of success, and the helpfulness of praise cannot be presumed. | | AL — Alternative interpretations or actions | EXISTING · S L133; T L21. Different accurate wording and speech, writing, pointing or another suitable response are acceptable. | | FB — Feedback | EXISTING · S L133. Inspect the subsequent exchange and preserve uncertainty instead of treating the requested social response as the result. | | UC — Possible unintended consequences | EXISTING · S L133. Praise can pressure someone to hide uncertainty. A friendly formulation alone does not remove that risk. | | RE — Evidence that could revise the conclusion | EXISTING_CONTEXT · S L133; T L21,35. Participant clarification or evidence that the invitation adds pressure changes the next wording or support. Silence alone does not establish that pressure occurred. |

A08 — Staged information and role evidence

Preserved source: S L91 and L135.

> Q08. In each round, make a short account of what is available, what is needed, what remains uncertain and what must change. Keep the first account when adding the next one. Each person then explains one revision independently.

> A08 — Q08. Round one: twelve counted and twelve needed, but usability is not yet confirmed. Round two: ten usable, twelve needed, two short. Round three: two checked and permitted spares give twelve usable, with none left after distribution. Preserve the earlier conditional explanation. Every person performs every role; the independent explanation is separate evidence. Readable cards, time to answer, responses to correction and sharing information all matter. An absent learner needs a later supported opportunity, not an invented completed role.

| Solution field | Existing coverage and editorial interpretation | |—|—| | EV — Evidence | EXISTING · S L87–93,135; T L37,39. Three rounds release counted stock, unreadability and then checked permitted spares. The earlier account and each person’s independent explanation are retained. | | AS — Assumptions | EXISTING_CONTEXT · S L87,135; T L37. Before release, usability information is unknown rather than false. Later facts are not assumed to have been available in round one. | | DM — Simultaneous four-dimensional relationships | EXISTING · S L135; T L17,39. Readable cards, response time, reactions to correction and information sharing operate alongside the numerical account in each round. | | RP — Relational pathway | ADDENDUM · S L135; T L39; N08. The preserved explanation carries information through Mentor→Scribe→Referee→Mentor; actual functions and support, not nominal rotation alone, determine what practice is evidenced. | | CA — Calculation or justified non-numerical treatment | EXISTING · S L135. Round 1: 12 counted and 12 needed; usable supply and hence confirmed shortage remain unknown. Round 2: 10 usable and 2 short. Round 3: 12 usable and 0 usable left after distribution. | | UN — Uncertainty | EXISTING · S L135; T L39,49. The group result is not each learner’s independent explanation; absence of a participant leaves their role evidence missing. | | AL — Alternative interpretations or actions | EXISTING_CONTEXT · S L135; T L39,41,65. Dictation, objects or other usable channels can support a function. Additional suitable opportunities are needed for missed roles; observation alone is not completion. | | FB — Feedback | EXISTING_CONTEXT · S L93,135; T L39. The new Scribe repairs an explanation gap, the Referee uses the clearer record, and the next Mentor explains from the broader view. | | UC — Possible unintended consequences | EXISTING_PLUS_ADDENDUM · S L135; N08. Invented role completion conceals a missed opportunity. Treating a shared or adult-supplied answer as independent could move responsibility beyond the evidence. | | RE — Evidence that could revise the conclusion | EXISTING_PLUS_ADDENDUM · S L135; T L39,47; N08. A role actually performed and a later individual explanation, with assistance recorded, can change that learner’s evidence status without rewriting the earlier round. |

New explanatory note: N08 in section 3. All other content in this map is source cross-reference or explicitly labeled editorial interpretation.

A09 — Conditional plans when supply is unknown

Preserved source: S L97 and L137.

> Q09. Suppose the spare box has not been opened. May the group say that two usable spares definitely exist? Suggest two possible next actions and a condition needed for each. Different supported plans may remain different.

> A09 — Q09. No definite spare count is justified. The group could ask an authorized adult to inspect the spare box, if access and readable spares are available. It could propose fewer cards per team or a later activity, if the teacher approves a changed task. Borrowing, waiting and redesign may affect other users. Keep the shortage and uncertainty visible; do not pressure a person to promise resources. Recheck once actual information arrives.

| Solution field | Existing coverage and editorial interpretation | |—|—| | EV — Evidence | EXISTING · S L97,137. The spare box has not been opened, so no definite number of usable spares is established. | | AS — Assumptions | EXISTING · S L137. Inspection needs authorized access; a change to the task needs the teacher’s approval. A proposed resource is not a supplied resource. | | DM — Simultaneous four-dimensional relationships | EXISTING_CONTEXT · S L137; T L17,21,71. Resource evidence, pressure to finish or promise, effects on other users and practical access coexist in choosing a next step. | | RP — Relational pathway | MAPPED · S L137; T L71. A permitted inspection can replace an unknown with supply evidence; an approved task change can alter the requirement. These are distinct ways of changing feasibility. | | CA — Calculation or justified non-numerical treatment | JUSTIFIED_NA · S L97,137. The assigned task requests two conditional actions, not a new numerical exercise. The earlier shortage of two is context, not evidence of spare supply. | | UN — Uncertainty | EXISTING · S L137. Existence, usability, permission and practical availability remain unresolved until checked. | | AL — Alternative interpretations or actions | EXISTING · S L137. Ask an authorized adult to inspect; propose an approved smaller or later task. Borrowing, waiting and redesign remain conditional options, not a forced consensus. | | FB — Feedback | EXISTING · S L137. Keep the shortage and unknowns visible, and reassess when actual information arrives rather than solicit an unsupported promise. | | UC — Possible unintended consequences | EXISTING · S L137. Borrowing, delay and redesign can affect other users; pressure to promise unavailable resources can make the plan less reliable. | | RE — Evidence that could revise the conclusion | EXISTING · S L137. Actual inspection results, permission or a changed task requirement can revise the selected plan. No successful outcome is supplied in advance. |

A10 — An actual practice record cannot be prewritten

Preserved source: S L101 and L139.

> Q10. With an adult’s approved paper tokens or drawings, model the three rounds. Keep a short record: “We planned …; we checked …; we changed ….” Do not wet or damage actual cards. Nobody needs to act out the unkind sentence from the story.

> A10 — Q10. No unique actual result can be supplied in advance. A valid record distinguishes the approved materials, available information, each person’s roles, first account, change, support and later check. A fictional example is: “We first counted all twelve. We set aside two marked tokens, recorded ten usable, then added two permitted spares.” That is an example, not your result. Include access difficulties or disagreement without assigning blame. Revise from the group’s actual evidence, including an unfinished attempt.

| Solution field | Existing coverage and editorial interpretation | |—|—| | EV — Evidence | EXISTING · S L101–109,139. Only the group’s actual materials, roles, first account, revision, assistance and later check support its practice record. The answer labels its demonstration as fictional. | | AS — Assumptions | EXISTING_CONTEXT · S L101,105,139; T L25,27. Any actual activity uses authorized materials and support. Public availability of the source is not classroom reproduction or adaptation permission. | | DM — Simultaneous four-dimensional relationships | EXISTING_CONTEXT · S L139; T L17,55–57. What was checked, responses to revision, participation or disagreement, and access/support conditions are retained together rather than collapsed into a score. | | RP — Relational pathway | MAPPED · S L139; T L55–57. Preserving the actual first account and the subsequent check allows a reason for change to be examined; an incomplete or unchanged result can inform the next support. | | CA — Calculation or justified non-numerical treatment | CONDITIONAL_EXAMPLE · S L139; S L127. The fictional example uses 12 counted, 2 set aside, 10 usable and 2 permitted spares. Actual results are indeterminate until the activity occurs; those numbers must not be inserted as observations. | | UN — Uncertainty | EXISTING · S L139. There is no unique actual result available in advance. An unfinished attempt, disagreement or no improvement remains evidence to retain. | | AL — Alternative interpretations or actions | EXISTING · S L101,105,139. Use approved tokens or drawings; do not damage cards or rehearse the unkind sentence. Record “Not tried yet” when that is the actual condition. | | FB — Feedback | EXISTING_CONTEXT · S L139; T L47,55–57. Identify the change, its evidence and the next check, with support and the earlier response still visible. | | UC — Possible unintended consequences | EXISTING_CONTEXT · S L105,139; T L75. Copying the demonstration as a result would fabricate evidence; blame or omitted access difficulties could distort later decisions about support. | | RE — Evidence that could revise the conclusion | EXISTING · S L139; T L55–57,75. Actual work and a subsequent check can revise the record. Keep null, worse, unfinished or supported results instead of replacing them with the expected story ending. |

A11 — An independent transfer problem and targeted support

Preserved source: S L113 and L141.

> Q11. A new box has ten cards. Three are unreadable. Two teams need four readable cards each. How many are usable, how many are needed, and what is the shortage? Do you know whether borrowing will solve it? Explain on your own before comparing.

> A11 — Q11. Ten less three leaves seven usable. Four plus four requires eight, so the shortage is one. Whether borrowing works is unknown until a usable card, permission and practical access are confirmed. Recount or draw as an alternative; compare independent reasoning rather than copy the fastest answer. Additional support may change how someone expresses the calculation. Keep the original response and later correction, and consider the needs of whoever would lend the card.

| Solution field | Existing coverage and editorial interpretation | |—|—| | EV — Evidence | EXISTING · S L113,141. The changed box contains ten cards, three unreadable; two teams each need four readable cards. The learner first explains independently. | | AS — Assumptions | EXISTING · S L141. The stated task and unusable count apply; borrowing requires a usable card, permission and practical access. | | DM — Simultaneous four-dimensional relationships | EXISTING_CONTEXT · S L141; T L17,57. The numerical relationship, response to correction, comparison or borrowing arrangements and usable representation coexist. Prompted correction is recorded as prompted. | | RP — Relational pathway | ADDENDUM · S L141; T L49,57; N11. Separating usable supply from the requirement helps locate what a learner’s response actually supports, so the next assistance can address the relevant relationship rather than a global ability label. | | CA — Calculation or justified non-numerical treatment | EXISTING · S L141. 10 − 3 = 7 usable; 4 + 4 = 8 needed; 8 − 7 = 1 short. Borrowing is not yet a demonstrated solution. | | UN — Uncertainty | EXISTING_CONTEXT · S L141; T L49,57. A wrong shortage alone does not identify its cause, and a corrected supported answer does not establish independent mastery. | | AL — Alternative interpretations or actions | EXISTING · S L141; T L49. Recount, draw or use another suitable representation; distinguish an inventory error, a requirement error and a comparison/subtraction error before selecting support. | | FB — Feedback | EXISTING_PLUS_ADDENDUM · S L141; T L57; N11. Retain the independent response and later correction, identify the support given, and appreciate the specific demonstrated contribution rather than speed. | | UC — Possible unintended consequences | EXISTING_PLUS_ADDENDUM · S L141; N11. Copying the fastest answer conceals individual evidence; obtaining a card can displace a lender’s need. Treating a prompted result as independent can also hide further support needs. | | RE — Evidence that could revise the conclusion | EXISTING_PLUS_ADDENDUM · S L141; T L57,67; N11. A later individual demonstration with its actual support level can revise the bounded assessment. Confirmed borrowing conditions change the resource conclusion, not the historical first response. |

New explanatory note: N11 in section 3. All other content in this map is source cross-reference or explicitly labeled editorial interpretation.

A12 — A quiet request and bounded next opportunity

Preserved source: S L115 and L143.

> Q12. Another learner speaks quietly and asks to see the word list. What can you describe without guessing their feelings or ability? Offer a helpful next step. Would one helpful act prove they will never need support again?

> A12 — Q12. Describe a quiet voice and a request for the list, in the observed setting. Offer the list in a usable position or format and a suitable way to respond. The cause of quietness and the person’s general ability remain unknown. A useful act can earn specific appreciation and another supported opportunity; it does not remove future needs or establish private self-esteem. Check the next response. Do not make support conditional on confident delivery.

| Solution field | Existing coverage and editorial interpretation | |—|—| | EV — Evidence | EXISTING · S L115,143. Describe the quiet voice and request for the list in the observed setting; do not infer their cause or general ability. | | AS — Assumptions | EXISTING_CONTEXT · S L143; T L19,21. Support is not conditional on confident delivery. A useful contribution does not establish that future support will be unnecessary. | | DM — Simultaneous four-dimensional relationships | EXISTING_CONTEXT · S L143; T L17,19,21. Clarifying needed information, the response to a request, conveyed reliance and usable access occur together; the observer cannot measure private feelings or health from this exchange. | | RP — Relational pathway | ADDENDUM · S L143; N12. An accessible list and a suitable response channel can enable a bounded check; the contribution actually observed can support specific appreciation and a supported next opportunity, not unlimited responsibility. | | CA — Calculation or justified non-numerical treatment | JUSTIFIED_NA · S L115,143. No numerical computation is assigned. A voice level cannot be converted into a valid measure of self-esteem, trust or general ability. | | UN — Uncertainty | EXISTING · S L143. The cause of quietness, private self-esteem, general ability and future support requirements remain unknown. | | AL — Alternative interpretations or actions | EXISTING · S L143; T L21,65. Offer an appropriate list position or format and a suitable response method, guided by the learner’s actual access needs rather than a diagnosis. | | FB — Feedback | EXISTING · S L143. Check the next response and acknowledge the specific contribution without making help depend on confident performance. | | UC — Possible unintended consequences | EXISTING_PLUS_ADDENDUM · S L143; N12. Removing support or granting excessive responsibility after one useful act could turn an intended opportunity into an unsupported demand; no such effect is asserted as observed here. | | RE — Evidence that could revise the conclusion | EXISTING_PLUS_ADDENDUM · S L143; N12. Participant clarification and the next task response can revise the scope, format and support of the opportunity. Neither one success nor one difficulty establishes a permanent personal trait. |

New explanatory note: N12 in section 3. All other content in this map is source cross-reference or explicitly labeled editorial interpretation.

3. Six new explanatory notes

N01 — Keep the earlier claim visible

New editorial explanation; not an observed result. Ana’s original “twelve ready cards” note and her reason for correcting it are both part of the source history (S L25). If a later account silently replaces the original claim with “ten usable cards,” a reviewer could wrongly infer that the usability check had already occurred. That could hide the missing check or allocate responsibility on an inaccurate timeline. A minimal correction retains the earlier statement, identifies what was checked and states the new usable count; a timestamp belongs to a real record only when its time is known. For Q01, a corrected learner answer should likewise point to the story sentence that supports the new order. This is an editorial explanation of a possible consequence, not a new fictional or classroom event.

N04 — A shortage removed here can remain elsewhere

New editorial explanation; not an observed result. The story confirms two distinct readable spares and permission, so its local arithmetic is complete. The accounted-for set contains fourteen distinct cards: the twelve originals and the two checked spares. Of those fourteen, twelve are usable and two are original unreadable cards; no claim is made about any uninspected contents of the spare box. Allocating the twelve usable cards leaves zero usable spares; it does not make the two unreadable cards disappear. In a different, explicitly hypothetical situation where the two added cards were already committed to another activity, transferring them here would increase this group’s usable supply by two and reduce that activity’s supply by two. It would not create two net cards. Check the other commitment and any agreed replacement or task change before claiming an overall shortage is resolved. Inspection, delivery, replacement and delay could require time or other resources; their amounts are unknown here. This adds resource-accounting context, not a finding that the story caused harm or a new unkeyed pupil exercise.

N05 — Check both access and the actual comparison

New editorial explanation; not an observed result. Putting the list within reach can make a comparison possible, but reach alone does not show that its words can be used. The proposed pathway is: a suitable shared representation makes a label comparison possible; the learner’s actual comparison supplies evidence; that evidence informs the next shared check. Each state still has all four dimensions. A list position that helps one learner could block another person’s view, so check access with the participants rather than infer success from placement. Their clarification may justify a different format, position or response channel. Do not infer a diagnosis, emotional improvement or learning gain from the adjustment itself.

N08 — A role label is not evidence that the function was performed

New editorial explanation; not an observed result. Keep the established full rotation and its purposes: Mentor→Scribe repairs gaps that were not articulated; Scribe→Referee uses the clearer situation record; Referee→Mentor approaches the problem from the broader view (T L39). The source already supplies this design; it is not newly invented by this supplement. A role card proves an assignment, not that its function occurred independently. If an adult supplied a revised explanation, retain that assistance rather than recording independent performance. Otherwise the next person could rely on capability that has not yet been evidenced and omit useful support. A later suitable role opportunity and individual explanation can add evidence without erasing the earlier missing or supported attempt. This is a clarification of evidence use, not a replacement rotation or new daily reporting system.

N11 — Correct arithmetic does not identify why the first response differed

New editorial explanation; not an observed result. The existing fictional teacher record describes seven usable cards followed by an initial claim of three missing; recounting the requirement with support yields one missing (T L57). The record supports a corrected, supported comparison. It does not establish whether the earlier response arose from confusing damaged cards with shortage, misreading the requirement, a subtraction difficulty or another cause. Those are alternatives to examine through the explanation and representation, not diagnoses. Keep “seven usable,” “eight needed” and “one short” as distinct relationships, and record the actual prompt. A later individual demonstration may justify less support for that particular relationship, but neither copying a peer nor repeating the prompted result alone establishes independent transfer. No new numeric practice question is assigned here; later task selection remains with the teacher’s approved plan and full key.

N12 — Specify the next opportunity together with its support

New editorial explanation; not an observed result. The source allows a useful act to earn specific appreciation and a further supported opportunity; it explicitly leaves future needs and private self-esteem unresolved (S L143). A bounded next opportunity names the actual checking task, the information available and the help that remains available. Giving a new responsibility while removing the list or an effective response channel would change the conditions under which the earlier contribution was observed. The intended opportunity could then become an unsupported demand. Check what occurs under the new conditions and adjust scope or support accordingly. This is a conditional relational explanation, not a promise of increased confidence, trust or self-esteem, and not a claim that a quiet request reveals a person’s inner state.

4. Acceptance and remaining limits

Twelve assigned questions and twelve original answers are retained with exact raw-line locators. Each answer has a ten-field disposition: 120 explicit mappings. Six new notes address selected implicit relationships; they do not replace all answers with a repeated template. Original teacher explanations, the R01 teaching-support companion, the R02 dated-status addendum, the lexicon and all nine completed reviews remain separate preserved sources.

Local checks cover source/checkpoint identity, 12/12 original Q/A equality, 120 complete unique field mappings, source-line and note references, arithmetic fixtures, exact historical archive preservation in the recovery candidate, and agreement between the Markdown, HTML and JSON representations. These checks do not prove pedagogical adequacy, causal effects, readability placement, legal authorization or accessibility in every environment.

The source deliverable can be marked durably complete only after the artifacts and successor checkpoint receive the independent stored-byte checks and matching receipt required by the RP. The current tool catalog offers reads/materialization but no Library upload action. No successful Library upload is therefore asserted. Website application needs supported writing tools, sufficient current allowance, fresh source/rights/target checks and saved/rendered evidence. Book integration belongs to E2-SEQ-A02; final acceptance to E2-SEQ-A03; presentation testing to H3; empirical evaluation to E3.

5. Source register

| Key | Preserved source | Identity / integrity | |—|—|—| | S | [E2_Elementary_Student_Chapter_01_v0.1.md](../source/E2_Elementary_Student_Chapter_01_v0.1.md) | `file_00000000afd08230af508a4267d89283` · 14416 bytes · SHA-256 `be43d6f130d234b29001b10f2e1d8c2a88839ea8c6e17f7637d37dcd9ec33c95` | | T | [E2_Elementary_Teacher_Chapter_01_v0.1.md](../source/E2_Elementary_Teacher_Chapter_01_v0.1.md) | `file_0000000098988230bb8452f934776da4` · 17630 bytes · SHA-256 `03c828228b883076cbc54a6a002e5508e1f4cd74aa37487dc50ec50f031e5ffb` | | M | [PA_Curriculum_Master_v0.3.docx](../source/PA_Curriculum_Master_v0.3.docx) | `file_0000000096c081f5baa79a2c0efb4096` · 48816 bytes · SHA-256 `f5235818d0e5501a154b3a858ba4fba2805b1855845dc356765520f62028ec2f` | | R | [E2_Chapter01_Requirements_Coverage_Review_v0.1.md](../source/E2_Chapter01_Requirements_Coverage_Review_v0.1.md) | `file_0000000000048230a2fb500a426e77a9` · 24808 bytes · SHA-256 `50020a9ebc4fc5251a474c8f4dca1ae969b73bd186e58f9688c9a8437291c813` |

Full source identities, the machine-readable mapping and replayable local tests accompany this edition. No external website links were checked or material-use terms changed in this source-development task.

Chapter 1 status addendum

Chapter 1 — dated edition-status addendum

Preserve the original text; use the verified continuation

Edition: 0.1 · October 10, 2026 Prepared: 2026-10-10T00:59:29.895037-07:00 Work unit: `E2-CH01-R02-DATED-STATUS-ADDENDUM` Applies to: Teaching Chapter 1 — The Reading Box, teacher manuscript v0.1, October 9, 2026. Status evidence cutoff: verified RP 2.12, `RP-2026-10-10_00-40-41_PDT.md`, created October 10, 2026, 12:40:41 a.m. PDT. Later source readbacks in this run confirm the identities listed below; they are not live website checks.

1. Editorial note for the preserved edition

The October 9 teacher manuscript contains statements about work that was pending when that edition was prepared. This separate addendum identifies the affected passages and supplies later, bounded evidence. It does not rewrite the original manuscript, revise its teaching claims or question keys, grant new use rights, or make the addendum a live website publication. References such as “latest RP” inside the old manuscript are historical context; the newest independently verified recovery point governs current continuation. [T1; RP; V]

Dated note suitable for later authorized placement beside Chapter 1:

> Edition-status note — October 10, 2026. This is the preserved October 9, 2026, v0.1 teacher manuscript. Its statements that the expanded lexicon was unverified and Chapter 2 unwritten describe that source edition, not the current development queue. The 140-entry relational lexicon v0.1 exists as a developed reference, and the student and teacher manuscripts for Chapter 2, The Message That Changed, exist. Their existence does not establish adoption, classroom validation, recovery of the missing Preliminary Glossary, or completion of the two elementary books. Keep the original wording and consult the newest verified RP for subsequent task and publication status. This note grants no additional use permission.

The note above is authored content, not an assertion that it has been inserted anywhere. Before a later website edit, check the actual current page, source/rights notices, target anchor and saved/rendered result. Book placement belongs to the existing assembly and final-acceptance tasks. [RP]

2. Exact source passages and their separate dispositions

The locators below are one-indexed raw lines in the unchanged teacher Markdown file, not line numbers in a Files tool response. Whole paragraphs are retained so that a corrected development status does not accidentally erase a still-valid qualification. The source hash in section 5 identifies the edition to which these locators apply. [T1]

C01-R02-N01 — 1. What this chapter develops; raw line 13

Preserved source wording:

> Chapter 1’s title and scene are editorial choices; the master specifies the elementary pattern and publication order, not this exact story. A chapter-level glossary accompanies the text. Completion of the larger 100–150-entry relational lexicon has not been verified; this pair does not claim to complete that earlier publication-development item. The latest RP authorizes this bounded draft while the wider lexicon and cross-audit remain open. [S1]

Dated disposition: The expanded lexicon source now exists as a 140-entry developed reference. Keep its non-adoption and missing-source limits; broader cross-audit is not thereby complete. The phrase latest RP in the old paragraph refers to its preparation context, not a dynamically current instruction.

Evidence: The stored lexicon declares edition v0.1, entry_count 140, state DEVELOPED_REFERENCE_NOT_ADOPTED, and an unrecovered Preliminary Glossary. This run also counted 140 actual entries with 140 unique identifiers, LX001–LX140, rather than relying only on the header. That is a structural identity check, not a fresh semantic validation of every definition. The verified RP continues to designate this lexicon and Master v0.3 as its source editions. [L; RP]

C01-R02-N02 — 8. Review limits and continuation; raw line 77

Preserved source wording:

> The next proposed story can revisit Mina, Leo and Jo with a changed responsibility, such as checking a message for another team. Carry forward their actual fictional history of correction, not permanent personality labels. Any Chapter 2 remains unwritten here. Preserve this edition and add a dated revision when evidence changes it. This pair is one manuscript unit in two planned books, not either completed book or the nine-publication family.

Dated disposition: Both Chapter2 v0.1 manuscripts now exist. The proposed changed-message continuation was developed as The Message That Changed. Preserve the proposal and unwritten-here sentence as edition context; do not recreate Chapter2. The surrounding warning that two full books are not complete still applies in the verified checkpoint.

Evidence: The complete source snapshots are `E2_Elementary_Student_Chapter_02_v0.1.md` (149 raw lines) and `E2_Elementary_Teacher_Chapter_02_v0.1.md` (83 raw lines). Their headers name The Message That Changed and date the manuscripts October 9, 2026. Their complete bytes were compared with the retained source copies. RP 2.12 records eight authored pairs and completion of all nine source-review tasks. No new Chapter 2 authoring or source review occurs here. [S2; T2; RP; V]

C01-R02-N03 — Sources and editorial crosswalk — final paragraph; raw line 89

Preserved source wording:

> Existing Curriculum Pathways, Primary Education materials and the opening part of legacy Training Modules were inspected for context. Historical formulations on the Primary Education page combine or define Self-Respect/Self-Esteem differently; this chapter follows S1 instead and does not silently amend that older page. Its legal/compliance assertions and linked downloads were not validated or imported. The current dated ledger notice, not its older Stars example, governs this chapter. Broader legacy-language reconciliation and the expanded relational lexicon remain tracked work, not implied completions.

Dated disposition: Separate the completed expansion to a 140-entry reference from still-open original-source recovery and broader reconciliation. The dated Primary Education crosswalk and completed nine-task elementary review do not constitute complete H5 traceability, a legal/standards audit, or all-book consistency clearance.

Evidence: RP 2.12 retains Preliminary Glossary NOT_RECOVERED, Project Index v14 and Source Register v16, plus open H5, H3 and other implementation work. It records the elementary sequence review as complete while keeping remediation, assembly and the other publication work open. The wording “tracked work” in the old paragraph must therefore be read item by item; it is not permission to recreate the completed lexicon, and it is not a declaration that all reconciliation is finished. [L; RP]

3. What this status clarification does—and does not—establish

| Subject | Evidence-supported disposition at the cutoff | Limit retained | |—|—|—| | Expanded relational lexicon | The stored v0.1 reference contains 140 uniquely identified entries. | Not an adopted standard, newly validated construct, or substitute for an unrecovered source. | | Chapter 2 | Both original student and teacher v0.1 manuscripts exist. | Existing authoring is not another completion earned by this addendum. No fresh live publication check was performed. | | Elementary source-review program | Eight chapter-pair reviews and the sequence synthesis are complete in the verified RP. | The 38 selected criteria and their review do not exhaust all earlier project requests or establish classroom effectiveness. | | Chapter 1 support companion | R01’s separate smaller-number/loop-aid source companion was completed in verified RP 2.12. | It is not recreated, incorporated into the old chapter, or declared website-applied by R02. | | Original Chapter 1 answer analysis | CH01-R03 remains the next separate source task after this addendum’s verified commit, subject to the RP’s website route. | R02 does not amend A01–A12 or close their analytical follow-up. | | Preliminary Glossary and broader reconciliation | The glossary remains NOT_RECOVERED; H5’s broader audit remains open. | Neither lexicon entry count nor an elementary review proves recovery or complete original-source comparison. | | Two elementary books | Zero completed books are recorded. | Existing chapters, review reports and separate companions are not assembled and accepted books. | | Website, school use and permissions | This run makes no website request or change and creates no school-use authority. | Original permissions, publication gates, legal/standards qualifications and empirical limits remain unchanged. |

The chapter’s statements that its results are fictional, its grade placement is unvalidated, and classroom effects are untested are not removed or reclassified as obsolete. The same applies to material-use restrictions and the separation of observation from inferred private Self-Esteem. This is a correction to how readers route development, not a new educational result or a fresh legal determination. [T1; L; RP]

4. Integration and continuation instructions

Retain the original October 9 teacher manuscript byte-for-byte. Store this dated addendum beside it as a separate source. At assembly, provide the editorial note near the introduction and link the three passage-specific dispositions to their preserved text; identify the source edition rather than inserting the note into every quoted historical passage. A single note and source-aware navigation are sufficient unless the actual layout shows a further need.

Use `E2-SEQ-A02-PAIRED-BOOK-ASSEMBLY` for book integration, `E2-SEQ-A03-FINAL-BOOK-ACCEPTANCE` for artifact and coverage acceptance, and H3 for presentation verification. These are existing obligations, not new tasks created here. A later publication operation must establish the actual target before inserting once, preserve all earlier content, and verify the saved text and rendered note. This file contains no live form, automated updater, subscription, or external commitment. [RP]

Do not use any retained “unwritten” or “unverified” sentence as a trigger to redo the completed Chapter 2, lexicon, R01 companion, or S01–S09 reviews. Conversely, do not use this addendum as evidence that an unfinished requirement vanished. Changes after the stated cutoff belong to the newest verified timestamped RP; this file is not a self-updating status page.

On successful persistent verification, close only `E2-CH01-R02-DATED-STATUS-ADDENDUM` as a source-development deliverable. Its website application and book integration remain unperformed. The next source-development task is `E2-CH01-R03-SOLUTION-ANALYSIS-SUPPLEMENT`; eligible website work may regain priority only under the current RP’s fresh-allowance and verification rules. No task is started merely by naming it here.

5. Source identities and verification boundary

The identifiers below locate stored source evidence. File names and dates identify editions, not claimed website freshness. The companion JSON manifest retains exact hashes, passages and disposition IDs. The original source text, lexicon, earlier review judgments and remediation definitions remain unchanged.

[T1] E2_Elementary_Teacher_Chapter_01_v0.1.md — backing `file_0000000098988230bb8452f934776da4`; 17,630 bytes; SHA-256 `03c828228b883076cbc54a6a002e5508e1f4cd74aa37487dc50ec50f031e5ffb`.

[L] PA_Relational_Lexicon_140_v0.1.json — backing `file_0000000085bc823082f5653490579ebb`; 106,861 bytes; SHA-256 `75f8d8c5c873006371c34feeceeca9f164fe2bd378950c301308e27a6f9ec276`.

[S2] E2_Elementary_Student_Chapter_02_v0.1.md — backing `file_00000000249c81f8b63d27e95394336c`; 15,287 bytes; SHA-256 `d2993ecfc9fc9fb08058797d50b601a3af0380a0a9e4ba51628a9e30dec0e1e8`.

[T2] E2_Elementary_Teacher_Chapter_02_v0.1.md — backing `file_00000000c65c81f5878c23e216303c7c`; 16,491 bytes; SHA-256 `ec8e5b4e7f02e17397b96ae000ed99a05f326fcd3f56f94ef46cbaab9b60ceca`.

[RP] RP-2026-10-10_00-40-41_PDT.md — backing `file_0000000064c48230b1d08c7bec53036d`; 691,144 bytes; SHA-256 `fa0b5d7ff594526767db41a536c2c58e60ee59b49d21db3a9d4c80fa957f0505`.

[V] RP-2026-10-10_00-40-41_PDT_verification.json — backing `file_00000000ad148230a665e6de6deea17b`; 14,752 bytes; SHA-256 `d1bf7404e6069e2ea2c61b795141a3ab56d23e710e21672fc459c2d1ebf2348d`.

[T1] supplies all three verbatim passages and the unchanged conceptual, use and evaluation limits. [L] supplies the developed-reference status and missing-source limit. [S2] and [T2] establish the later chapter manuscripts. [RP] supplies current recorded development and still-open work; [V] is its matching persistence receipt. The current task separately verifies stored source identity and produces a new source artifact; it does not rerun historical publication tests.

Change register: Edition 0.1 creates three dated passage annotations, one concise reusable edition note and this evidence ledger. No source paragraph, question, answer, canonical definition, permission or previous completion record is overwritten. The full original teacher manuscript was inspected for the targeted lexicon/Chapter 2 continuation statements; this is not an audit of all legacy website language.

Chapter 2 teaching support

Chapter 2 teaching-support supplement

One team, a changed note, and one shared record

Reference companion v0.1 — October 10, 2026 Task: E2-CH02-R01-TEACHING-SUPPORT-SUPPLEMENT For: The Message That Changed, student and teacher manuscripts v0.1, October 9, 2026.

This is a separate, newly authored teaching-support companion. It preserves the original Chapter 2 story, all Q01–Q12/A01–A12, and the teacher manuscript. It addresses the earlier review’s two identified support gaps: a completely specified smaller-number changed-message activity, and explicit connections between the named learning aids and the existing six-part handoff note. It does not carry out the separate CH02-R02 review of all original answer analyses. [R1; S1; T1]

All people, notes, quantities, responses and deliveries below are fictional case facts. The activity is a proposed resource, not a classroom result, tested grade placement, completed book or new permission for use. Existing Guidepost material-use restrictions remain unchanged. Actual reproduction, adaptation, school use and identifiable records require their applicable permissions and arrangements. This companion is not applied to the website or integrated into a book by its source authoring. [M §§0,16,21; T1 §§3,6 and Sources]

1. Purpose, prerequisites and preparation

The literacy task is to compare an earlier and a current message, identify its source, and explain what a receiver would do. The counting task stays within five physical tokens, with one receiving team: distinguish five present from four usable, compare two with three, and keep a replaced request from being added to the current one. The handoff task distinguishes placing a note, a person reading it, a checked interpretation, an approved action, and later usefulness. A correct count is not evidence of all five. [S1 Q01–Q08; T1 §§1,4,7]

Check one-to-one counting through five, the meanings of before/after, one receiving team, and a named destination. Use readable words, an exact read-aloud, labeled places, blank counters, pointing, dictation, speech or an appropriate assistive method. Record when grouping, an answer, or a strategy was supplied; access support is not automatically answer-giving, but its actual content matters. Neither speed nor fluency establishes the other relationships. No child must disclose private feelings, health, home experiences or a real disagreement.

For the represented case, provide five drawn or paper tokens labeled t1–t5. Tokens t1–t4 are usable; t5 is marked unavailable by stipulation, not made physically hazardous or hard to see. Two drawn destinations are Mat A and Mat B. The recipient is one fictional team, Team Pine. Its adult coordinator is Rena; the fictional receiver is Kit. These names identify a parallel practice case, not new events in Mina, Leo and Jo’s original story. No supplies are borrowed from other chapters or actual classroom activities.

Use one sheet or existing work sample with the original six headings: message and source; intended receiver; receiver’s explanation; any correction; what was actually done; next check. The teacher can ask the Loop Board prompts orally and add brief revisions to this same sheet. There is no requirement for seven additional boxes, a second daily ledger, or recording every spoken sentence. The six-part pupil note also does not replace the separate nine-field teacher event record when that record is needed. [S1 Q10; T1 §6; M §20]

An adult may model the activity with one learner, but that is not a completed three-person rotation. For a triad, all three learners retain their learning roles; an adult portrays Kit or reads the receiver card. Do not remove a learner from a role to supply the receiver. The teacher chooses this smaller-number activity instead of a named portion of Chapter 2 practice when appropriate, records the substitution, and checks what was omitted. No additional fixed lesson duration or teacher-time saving is claimed.

2. Roles and release rules

| Round | Learner A | Learner B | Learner C | |—|—|—|—| | 1 | Mentor | Scribe | Referee | | 2 | Scribe | Referee | Mentor | | 3, including the later evidence cards | Referee | Mentor | Scribe |

The Mentor explains a proposed account, its assumptions and missing support. The Scribe records reasoning, evidence, assistance, gaps and revisions. The Referee asks which evidence supports a claim, which relationships are missing, and what consequences need checking. Mentor → Scribe repairs details not articulated in the prior explanation; Scribe → Referee questions from a clearer record; Referee → Mentor explains from a broader perspective. All learners practice every function through a suitable channel. Role names on a sheet do not prove the work occurred. The roles confer no authority to punish, approve supplies or decide another person’s honesty. [M §3; T1 §4]

Initially give the three round-one slips separately to A, B and C, then make all released information available to everyone before the group answers. Later cards are also shared through suitable reading or listening methods. The temporary information difference creates a reason to contribute; it must not become a lasting access barrier. The letters identify learners, not permanent owners of facts or fictional expertise. This is conditional reasoning from staged fiction, not a blind experiment. A learner who has seen the full case may name later facts as later facts; do not require pretended ignorance.

3. The complete case and assigned prompts

Round 1 — Earlier checked request; placement only

Slip 1A — request and source: Rena checked this earlier note for one receiving team: “Team Pine needs two usable tokens altogether at Mat A, after reading.” No alternative instruction has been supplied in this round.

Slip 1B — inventory: The represented box contains five physical tokens, t1–t5. Four, t1–t4, are usable; t5 is unavailable for this activity. All four usable tokens may be used for this represented request with Rena’s direction. No tokens have been moved, lost, acquired or reserved for another request in this case.

Slip 1C — observed handoff: The note was left at Mat A. Nobody has checked whether Kit or any other intended receiver read it. “After reading” has not yet occurred.

P1. State the applicable request on these cards, the physical and usable counts, and whether the stated usable supply can meet that request. Say what placement proves and what remains to be checked. Do not report unused tokens as already left over from a delivery that has not happened.

Round 2 — Confirmed replacement, not an extra order

Card 2: Rena confirms a changed instruction for the same one team and the same activity: “Team Pine needs three usable tokens altogether at Mat B, after reading. This replaces the earlier two-token request; it is not an additional order.” The physical and usable counts are unchanged. No tokens have moved, no receiver response has been checked, and “after reading” has still not occurred. The new instruction is confirmed by its responsible source in this fiction, not merely inferred from newer-looking paper.

P2. Identify what changed and what stayed the same. Compare current need with usable inventory. Mark the earlier practice note as replaced without erasing it or leaving it as a current instruction. Name the next handoff check. Does the current source-confirmed request require two plus three tokens?

Round 3A — The new note is read; its meaning is not yet aligned

Card 3A: Kit reads the new note and says, “I will take three to Mat B and two to Mat A, because both notes were checked.” This is Kit’s proposed arrangement, not an action. No token has moved. The source-confirmed request is still three altogether at Mat B after reading. The box still contains four usable tokens and one unavailable token.

P3. Compare Kit’s proposal with the current request and supply. Explain the discrepancy without describing a completed mistake, dishonesty or a general inability. Offer a clarification and ask for a receiving explanation that would reveal the intended amount, destination and time. Record the actual explanation offered in any real rehearsal; do not assume the scripted response below was supplied by the learner.

Round 3B — Later receiving evidence, still no delivery

Release this only after P3 has been answered and its support recorded.

Card 3B: In the fictional demonstration, the adult points out Rena’s replacement instruction and models one group of three. With that reasoning help and an exact read-aloud recorded, Kit explains, “Three altogether for Team Pine, one group at Mat B, after reading. The old two-token note is replaced.” Kit points to Mat B. No tokens have been delivered, and “after reading” has not yet occurred. This response is supplied by the case; it is not evidence of any actual learner’s independent performance.

P4. What has the new response checked? Which assistance must remain in the account? What is still unfinished? Can “Kit said the right plan” be recorded as “three tokens delivered” or “independent mastery”?

Round 3C — A separate later delivery card

Release this only after P4. It belongs to the same exercise and third role round; it is not another rotation or an actual classroom event.

Card 3C: Later, after reading, Rena directs the represented delivery. Tokens t1, t2 and t3 are taken to Mat B. Kit counts those three usable tokens for Team Pine. Token t4, usable, and token t5, unavailable, remain in the box. No tokens have been added, lost or changed in condition. No follow-on activity has yet established whether the delivered tokens suit its purpose.

P5. State what this new evidence supports. Account for all physical and usable tokens by location, distinguish remaining usable supply from the unavailable token, and name the remaining usefulness check. Did the earlier explanation itself establish this later delivery?

A short individual response from the same case

P6. Each learner, separately and through a suitable channel, compares Card 3B with Card 3C: “What was checked before the delivery, and what evidence arrived later?” Name the current amount, destination and time. Record any supplied answer or reasoning. Then distinguish this case’s scripted outcome from the result of an actual rehearsal that has not been run. A group answer is not three individual observations.

4. Complete staged key and teaching analysis

K1 — P1

The available request is two usable tokens altogether for Team Pine, Mat A, after reading. There are five physical tokens and four usable. Four can meet the stated need of two. If a permitted delivery later used two with no other change, two usable would remain; at this stage all five are still in the box. Only note placement is established. Personal receipt, interpretation, delivery and usefulness remain unchecked; ask whether the intended receiver has read the applicable note and can explain it.

This assumes the supplied classification and request, not a claim that any five objects in a real box are usable. Treating an unread note as complete can send later work to the wrong place. Count representation, a patient response to uncertainty, coordinated source checking and readable access operate together. Another representation or adult model may help but its effect requires a response; the later confirmed instruction can revise the active request without making the earlier note false when written. [M §§1,15–16]

K2 — P2

The total changes from two to three, an increase of one; Mat A changes to Mat B. One receiving team, “altogether,” “after reading,” and four usable out of five physical tokens remain unchanged. Current demand is three, so four usable can meet it; one usable would remain after that delivery, not yet. The confirmed replacement does not require five. Keep the old note, marked “earlier — replaced,” separate from the current instruction. Check Kit’s interpretation of the changed amount, place and unchanged time.

The evidence is Rena’s explicit confirmation, not handwriting style, a vote or the number of copies. When a real note’s authority or applicability is unclear, pause the affected action and seek clarification; unrelated already-permitted work may continue when appropriate. Reasoning about the changed fields, accepting correction, sharing the updated note and making it accessible are intertwined. Merely rewriting a note could leave Kit using the old one; the next response is the needed feedback. A later genuine change could reduce the amount or leave it unchanged—the lesson is not “new always means more.”

K3 — P3

Kit proposes three plus two, five usable tokens for two destinations. This exceeds the four usable by one under Kit’s proposal, and it conflicts with the actual request. It is not evidence that the authorized three-token request has a shortage. Current need remains three at Mat B only; neither the replaced two-token order nor the unavailable fifth physical token supplies an extra current allocation. No movement or loss occurred.

A suitable clarification is: “Rena replaced the first note. The whole current request is three for Team Pine at Mat B after reading. Show or explain what you would do.” Other accessible wording is valid; agreement alone may not expose the amount or destination. An adult may read or model it, but retain that help. Kit’s use of two checked notes suggests a replacement-versus-addition confusion; the wording and simultaneous display may contribute, and motive is unknown. Clarification can support participation and coordination without ranking the receiver. Taking an extra token from another activity would displace resources and is not authorized. A new explicit request or a changed receiving explanation would change the next decision; no unique teaching phrase is proved best.

K4 — P4

Card 3B supports Kit’s stated and pointed interpretation in that supported demonstration: three altogether, Mat B, after reading, with the old note replaced. The modeled group, pointing to the replacement instruction, exact read-aloud and earlier discussion remain relevant. It is neither an independent transfer result nor evidence about all future tasks. No tokens have moved, so delivery is still uncompleted; the time condition is not yet met. Seek the authorized later action and receiver count rather than marking it complete now.

Quantity and source reasoning, reaction to clarification, coordination with Kit and usable presentation coexist. Removing ordinary help to manufacture “independence” is not the remedy. A separate explanation without newly supplied reasoning may add bounded evidence later, but prior instruction is not erased. A correct response followed by a changed request, an access problem or no permitted move could still leave the delivery unfinished. Preserve that possibility instead of treating the expected next step as an outcome.

K5 — P5

Card 3C is new later evidence: after reading, an authorized movement of three usable tokens to Mat B and Kit’s count for Team Pine. That meets this stated delivery criterion. Three usable are at Mat B; one usable and one unavailable remain in the box. There are still five physical tokens altogether, four usable altogether, and two physical tokens in the box. The unused usable token is not a newly created reserve with new permission conditions. The earlier explanation did not itself prove any movement.

The count assumes no additional movements or condition changes, explicitly supplied in Card 3C. The follow-on activity’s suitability remains unknown: ask what that activity requires and examine its actual use before claiming the wider goal. Counting, willingness to retain an unfinished question, receiver coordination and material condition are related. A tidy successful delivery may still be unsuitable later; copying the example into a real record would conceal missing evidence. A new condition check or actual feedback can alter the next action without erasing this fictional delivery.

K6 — P6

An adequate individual explanation distinguishes Card 3B’s supported account of the plan from Card 3C’s later directed movement and receiving count. The current instruction is three usable altogether at Mat B after reading. Equivalent oral, drawn, pointed or written explanations are acceptable. No individual answer is established until that learner responds; record missing responses and help rather than assigning the shared answer to everyone.

For an unrun real rehearsal, the actual outcome is “not tried” or otherwise accurately unobserved—not the case’s delivery. The fictional key cannot determine an actual learner’s result. The relevant calculation is the same three-token requirement, not a new independent arithmetic trial. Accessible individual responses may reveal a gap hidden by fluent group agreement, but do not establish private feelings or universal capability. Follow up on the specific difference; refrain from repetitive reporting when an existing work sample is enough. Later evidence may support a revised account, including continuing uncertainty. No single exact wording is required. [M §§15–16,20]

5. The seven-prompt Loop Board, using the same note

Use these prompts as questions about the currently available evidence, not seven independent forms or seven successive PA dimensions. The worked responses below refer to the whole released case. Before a later card is released, retain “not yet known” for its event. Each prompt can return to earlier information when necessary. [M §4]

| Loop Board prompt | Worked case response and existing note location | |—|—| | What happened? | An earlier two-token note was left at Mat A; Rena later confirmed three at Mat B. Record the source messages under message and source, and placement under what was actually done. | | What do we know? | There are five physical, four usable; Kit’s response becomes known only at its release. Keep each quantity and its source with message and source; record the actual words under receiver’s explanation. | | What might it mean? | Kit may have treated replacement as addition. Mark that as an interpretation, not a proven motive, beside the quoted response in receiver’s explanation or the question in next check. | | What could we do? | Clarify the current instruction, keep the old note visibly replaced, and request an explanation. Describe this as proposed in any correction and next check until performed. | | What happened next? | Card 3B supplies a supported response; only Card 3C supplies the later movement and count. Use receiver’s explanation and what was actually done, preserving those different points. | | What changed? | The amount and destination changed; the receiver’s later stated plan differs from the combined proposal. Put the versions, reason and support in any correction, without deleting the earlier response. | | What do we know now? | After Card 3C, the specified delivery is evidenced within the fiction, while suitability for the following activity is not. Keep that boundary in what was actually done and next check; repeat when new feedback arrives. |

The intended receiver remains explicit in its own existing field even when several prompts concern other fields. This mapping shows that seven reasoning questions can use six record locations; it does not merge sending, interpretation and delivery into one checkbox. Oral use or pointing to existing text can be sufficient. An unanswered prompt remains unanswered rather than generating a compulsory fictional entry.

6. STOP → CHECK → CHANGE → CHECK AGAIN

| Corrective step | Application to the same changed-message case | |—|—| | STOP | Pause the affected proposed five-token/two-destination move. No token has moved at Card 3A. Stop an unsuitable exchange, not ordinary help, belonging or all unrelated learning. Put the pause in what was actually done. | | CHECK | Compare both notes, Rena’s confirmed current request, four usable tokens, Kit’s stated interpretation and the unchanged time condition. Ask rather than assume intention. Use message and source, intended receiver and receiver’s explanation. | | CHANGE | Separate the marked old note from the current one and clarify three altogether at Mat B. Record the actual wording/model/support under any correction. A proposal to clarify is not evidence that Kit has yet understood. | | CHECK AGAIN | Obtain the receiving explanation and record its help; later verify authorized movement and receipt separately. Card 3B alone cannot stand for Card 3C. Retain usefulness as the next check. If a check fails or no response comes, revise or pause without inventing success. |

This aid names the correction process already present in Chapter 2; it does not imply the earlier story lacked repair. The steps do not guarantee a good result, resolve every consequential decision, or authorize children to override real safety procedures. Rechecking uses attention, and its workload must be considered. [R1 CH02-F02; M §4; T1 §§3–7]

7. One completed fictional six-part note

This example is filled only from the released case. It is a model for checking the form, not a record to submit as a real learner’s work.

| Existing field | Example entry after all cards are released | |—|—| | Message and source | Rena’s earlier request: two usable altogether, Mat A, after reading. Rena’s confirmed replacement: three usable altogether, Mat B, after reading, same Team Pine. Five physical tokens, four usable. Old note retained as replaced. | | Intended receiver | Kit receives the instruction for Team Pine. Mat A/Mat B name destinations, not proof that a person has read the note. | | Receiver’s explanation | Initially unchecked after placement. Card 3A: Kit proposes three at B plus two at A. Card 3B: Kit explains three altogether at B after reading, following the recorded adult model, instruction pointing and exact read-aloud. | | Any correction | Rena confirms replacement rather than addition; the old note is marked and separated. Adult clarification/model precedes Kit’s changed response. “May have combined orders” is an interpretation, not an established motive. | | What was actually done | Note placed first; no token delivery through Card 3B. Card 3C: after reading, Rena directs t1–t3 to B; Kit counts three for Team Pine. Box retains t4 usable and t5 unavailable. All events are stipulated fiction. | | Next check | Whether the three delivered tokens meet the follow-on activity’s actual requirements. No such activity or usefulness result is supplied. For real practice, record only the actual event and identify an appropriate receiving check. |

Keep any relevant first individual explanation and support beside that learner’s existing work sample, not a second class-wide log. When an observer needs the full nine-field record, preserve its separate functions—observation, interpretation, uncertainty, conveyed response, participant clarification and later evidence—without calling this six-part pupil note a substitute. [S1 Q10/A10; T1 §6; M §20]

8. Teacher review, model boundaries and continuation

Check the demonstrated relationships separately: physical versus usable quantity; comparison of current and older instructions; replacement versus addition; source and time; placement versus person-reading; supported interpretation versus delivery; individual versus group evidence; and a retained next check. Use descriptions such as shown under these conditions with no answer/strategy newly supplied, shown with the named reasoning help, or not yet evidenced. Prior teaching and suitable access remain part of the conditions. These are draft descriptions, not validated cut scores, a diagnosis or a combined PA grade. [M §§15–16]

Every state retains Critical Reasoning, Emotional Acumen, Social Acumen and Physical Health together. Comparing a message, responding to a correction, coordinating with its recipient and using readable reachable information are mutually related. A clearer note may change several relationships, but the exercise establishes no unique causal effect or private state. Professional Acumen remains analytical and developmental, not an ethical doctrine or a grade of human worth. [M §§0–2]

A specific response can be: “Your explanation showed that we had not made the replacement clear.” Offer only a bounded next supported opportunity, such as checking one approved note with its source and a receiving-response review. This conveyed appreciation is not the contribution itself, a measurement of accumulated Self-Esteem, or proof of universal Trust. A statement such as “I can compare the counts; I still need help reading the note” can express Self-Respect through capability and vulnerability; it does not measure an internal trait. Self-Efficacy remains task-specific expectation. Do not replace these meanings with popularity or confidence maximization. [M §§2,17]

If one learner has not performed a role, keep it uncompleted and provide an appropriate later opportunity; do not enlarge this source task by assuming an actual classroom session has occurred. Record selected omissions and preparation/review burden. No classroom validation, teacher-time benefit, new resource reservation or final book acceptance is established.

The present repair ends with this separate companion and its checked source representations. Original Chapter 2 Q01–Q12/A01–A12 remain unchanged. The next queued repair, CH02-R02, concerns their analytical mapping; it is not completed here. Later website application, book integration, permissions and broader presentation checks retain separate gates. No new chapter is inferred from this supplement.

Sources and provenance

M. PA_Curriculum_Master_v0.3.docx, October 7, 2026. Complete twelve-page parsed text read for this task; original bytes fingerprinted. Sections 0–4, 15–18, 20–23 govern the model, roles, exact named aids, keys and limits. No new visual/layout review or original-PDF audit was performed.

S1. E2_Elementary_Student_Chapter_02_v0.1.md, October 9, 2026. Complete 149-line manuscript read, including every question and answer. Q10 supplies the six fields; the story and Q06/A06 distinguish handoff evidence stages. Original bytes remain unchanged.

T1. E2_Elementary_Teacher_Chapter_02_v0.1.md, October 9, 2026. Complete 83-line manuscript read. Sections 3–7 supply preparation, role purposes, receiving checks, record distinctions and the one-team/up-to-five-token adaptation that this new companion specifies.

R1. E2_Elementary_Coverage_Register_v0.20.json, Chapter 2 review findings CH02-F01/F02 and original E2-CH02-R01 task scope/acceptance. These identify support gaps, not missing mandatory original answers. The review and original ticket wording are preserved; this is implementation, not a repeated review.

The Team Pine case, released facts, worked keys, note example and prompt-to-field mapping are new editorial developments dated October 10, 2026. Source titles, file identities, full fingerprints and acceptance checks are recorded in the accompanying source/acceptance record. No unseen Preliminary Glossary wording was reconstructed. The existing material-use notice is an inherited reference, not a fresh legal finding or new live permission check. No website request was required or performed for this source-only task; publication requires fresh source, rights, target and rendering checks.

Chapter 2 solutions

Chapter 2 — Solution Analysis Companion v0.1

Task: `E2-CH02-R02-SOLUTION-ANALYSIS-SUPPLEMENT` | Source-only working edition: October 10, 2026

Purpose and boundaries

This reviewed additive companion maps all twelve unchanged Chapter 2 answer keys against PA Curriculum Master v0.3 §15. It distinguishes story facts from predictions, alternative interpretations, incomplete evidence and possible consequences. It is not a replacement answer key, a new classroom license, a posted website change or validated pedagogy. The original A01–A12 remain the authoritative student answers.

Every situation contains Critical Reasoning, Emotional Acumen, Social Acumen and Physical Health together; separate phrases are lenses on simultaneously interacting relationships, not separate scores. Do not infer diagnoses, private emotions, personal worth or automatic causal effects.

Twelve complete analytical mappings

A01 / Q01

Evidence: Original: 2 teams × 4, Table Two; changed: 3 teams × 4, Table Three, both after reading. Ana checked the current note. Assumptions: The second instruction actually came from Ana and applies to this same activity. Intrinsic C/E/S/P relationship and pathway: Comparing source and conditions (reasoning), allowing correction (emotional), sharing the revision (social), and keeping readable notes (physical access) interact. Calculation / justified N/A: 8 originally; 12 now. Uncertainty and alternative interpretation: A later valid revision remains possible; mere newest-looking paper is not authoritative. Feedback, possible unintended effect, revision evidence: A receiver repeating a former destination could misroute materials. Check the receiver’s current explanation, then revise the working note while preserving the previous version.

A02 / Q02

Evidence: The first note was accurate when checked; Ana later changed it without verifying Leo had received the change. Assumptions: A prior verification is time- and scope-bound. Intrinsic C/E/S/P relationship and pathway: Reasoning about timing, a response without blame, responsibility for follow-through and accessible version markings all matter together. Calculation / justified N/A: N/A: the disputed claim is about applicability, not a calculation. Uncertainty and alternative interpretation: Leo may reasonably rely on an old note because he did not receive the update; no deception is evidenced. Feedback, possible unintended effect, revision evidence: Mark the first note replaced and confirm the source with the receiver. Watch for a wrong delivery after a superficially valid prior approval; revise if new evidence changes applicability.

A03 / Q03

Evidence: Two groups of four change to three groups of four. Assumptions: Each team still receives four and the groups are disjoint. Intrinsic C/E/S/P relationship and pathway: Counting with objects and notes, hearing revisions without disdain, coordinating the allocation and providing reachable materials are simultaneous. Calculation / justified N/A: 2×4=8; 3×4=12; 12−8=4 additional. Uncertainty and alternative interpretation: An unconfirmed inventory is not established as available merely because demand is calculated. Feedback, possible unintended effect, revision evidence: Count usable squares separately before any authorized move; detect shortage or wrong allocation on receipt and update the plan.

A04 / Q04

Evidence: Current note states 12 altogether, 4 per each of three teams; receiver initially asks whether 12 are for every team. Assumptions: Altogether means the sum over the three teams; the receiver’s question is not consent or understanding. Intrinsic C/E/S/P relationship and pathway: Semantic reasoning, a constructive response to confusion, teach-back and accessible diagrams influence the same state. Calculation / justified N/A: 3×4=12 total; 12 each for 3 teams would be 36 if that alternative request were made. Uncertainty and alternative interpretation: The original A04 does not have to calculate optional 36; omission is not an error. Feedback, possible unintended effect, revision evidence: Show three groups of four and request a receiving explanation. The risk is 36 being mistakenly planned; verify actual allocation later and revise ambiguous wording.

A05 / Q05

Evidence: Two versions were compared, Ana acknowledged a missing check, and readable groups enabled clarification. Assumptions: Examples are story-specific; no internal feeling is directly observed. Intrinsic C/E/S/P relationship and pathway: Reasoning, emotional responsiveness to correction, shared responsibility and physical access are intrinsic rather than independent pupil types. Calculation / justified N/A: N/A: no uniquely posed numerical result. Uncertainty and alternative interpretation: A helpful display might have influenced both calculation and coordination, but unique causation is unknown. Feedback, possible unintended effect, revision evidence: Ask whether the representation worked, offer another response method, and revise if later work shows persistent misunderstanding; do not infer health or Self-Esteem.

A06 / Q06

Evidence: First note merely placed; later receiver explains changed instruction; only afterward receiving teams count delivered squares. Assumptions: Each statement belongs to its recorded stage. Intrinsic C/E/S/P relationship and pathway: Evidence calibration, avoiding premature praise/blame, interaction with receivers and the physical possibility of delivery coexist. Calculation / justified N/A: 12 delivered in the final story stage; neither earlier stage establishes delivered quantity. Uncertainty and alternative interpretation: Receipt, interpretation, action and later usefulness differ; future application remains unchecked. Feedback, possible unintended effect, revision evidence: Document each check in sequence. A prematurely closed task can deprive receivers of supplies; reopen only the unsatisfied stage when evidence warrants.

A07 / Q07

Evidence: Three students copy the same earlier Table Two note. Assumptions: Their three repetitions share one source. Intrinsic C/E/S/P relationship and pathway: Source reasoning, non-accusatory reception, group information coordination and actual access to newer notes affect interpretation. Calculation / justified N/A: N/A: three claims are not three independent validations. Uncertainty and alternative interpretation: A copied note may remain well transcribed while no longer current. Feedback, possible unintended effect, revision evidence: Trace provenance to Ana and check current applicability; avoid counting repetition as replicated evidence. Later independent source confirmation could revise the conclusion.

A08 / Q08

Evidence: Round A gives earlier 8/Table Two; B adds verified change 12/Table Three; C adds question “twelve each?” with no delivery. Assumptions: Each round has only released facts and its own evidence boundary; group response is not individual mastery. Intrinsic C/E/S/P relationship and pathway: Mentor explains, Scribe repairs gaps, Referee challenges; all rotate while reasoning, response to uncertainty, coordination and usable representation coexist. Calculation / justified N/A: 8→12; 4 per group; no delivered count during pretend rounds. Uncertainty and alternative interpretation: The receiver might ask about quantity, not destination; both require checking. Feedback, possible unintended effect, revision evidence: Ask for explicit total, team amounts and destination; record explanation and support, then a distinct permitted action check. Prevent a polished group result from obscuring individual gaps.

A09 / Q09

Evidence: Two notes conflict and the responsible adult is temporarily unavailable. Assumptions: No note is assumed authentic merely because it looks later. Intrinsic C/E/S/P relationship and pathway: Decision reasoning, tolerance of uncertainty, safe coordination and practical time/resource limits interact. Calculation / justified N/A: N/A: no sufficient fact set specifies a new amount. Uncertainty and alternative interpretation: Pause affected action and seek authority; alternatively continue separate preapproved work. Neither is universally optimal. Feedback, possible unintended effect, revision evidence: Unverified selection could waste or misdirect resources. Preserve both notes; reopen affected action when the responsible source clarifies and document downstream consequences.

A10 / Q10

Evidence: Rehearsal six-part note: source, receiver, explanation, correction, actual action, next check. Assumptions: Observed outcomes cannot be supplied in advance; a fictional example is not real evidence. Intrinsic C/E/S/P relationship and pathway: Clear task reasoning, response to feedback, role interaction and accessible media coexist; do not add a second daily log. Calculation / justified N/A: As performed; no preset numerical answer. Uncertainty and alternative interpretation: Recipient assent alone may hide semantic confusion; different support channels may alter the result. Feedback, possible unintended effect, revision evidence: Retain first and revised responses, support and next check. Hiding missing receipt or prompting history could overstate achievement; later work can revise the record.

A11 / Q11

Evidence: New task: 2 teams ×3 at Shelf A after art; changed 3 teams ×3 at Shelf B after art. Assumptions: Three per team and timing are unchanged; source revision is confirmed. Intrinsic C/E/S/P relationship and pathway: Calculation, reception of changed instruction, team coordination and legible/available records are mutually linked. Calculation / justified N/A: Original 6; current 9; increase 3. Uncertainty and alternative interpretation: A learner can calculate nine yet keep old destination; the independent dimensions of the task must not be collapsed. Feedback, possible unintended effect, revision evidence: Have recipient explain quantity and Shelf B; check actual receipt separately; correct only evidenced gaps and retain support.

A12 / Q12

Evidence: A learner asks more than once what altogether means; a worked group explanation supports a checked clarification. Assumptions: Repeated questions alone do not reveal capacity, motive or inner state. Intrinsic C/E/S/P relationship and pathway: Meaning-making, helpful acknowledgment, supported participation and practical representation coexist. Calculation / justified N/A: Three groups of four illustrate total 12. Uncertainty and alternative interpretation: Understanding this example is not verified skill across domains or lasting confidence. Feedback, possible unintended effect, revision evidence: Convey specific appreciation for identifying ambiguity; offer bounded next practice. Do not label the learner or infer Self-Esteem; revise support from later evidence.

Cross-answer checks and instructor use

Use the actual staged source and current note. The story’s checked receiving explanation is not a delivered-resource event; the final delivery does not establish readiness for the next activity. Repeated copies of one note are not independent source confirmations. The optional number 36 for “twelve each” is a valid extension, not a missing required calculation in the original A04. Avoid padding each answer with speculative psychological or physical consequences; the contextual relationships above have bounded relevance.

In Teams of Three everyone rotates Mentor → Scribe → Referee → Mentor; the former Mentor fills gaps as Scribe, former Scribe questions with a clearer record, former Referee approaches as Mentor from a broader perspective. Preserve attributable individual explanation, offered help and unresolved records.

Sources and rights

Source editions preserved: Chapter 2 student and teacher v0.1 (October 9, 2026); PA Curriculum Master v0.3 §15 (October 7, 2026). This companion is editorial analysis, not a new claim of observations or validation. Existing Guidepost.us material-use restrictions remain unchanged, including any applicable exceptions under law. No new reproduction, adaptation, classroom-use or commercialization permission is created.

Publication boundary

The companion is stored as a source artifact. Any future website insertion or book integration requires its own current rights, target and preservation checks. H3 presentation and E3 classroom/research evidence remain open.