Use held sources exactly. These are open response checks of fictional-source reasoning, not compulsory performance/physical tests. No single correct new question, arrangement, feeling or creative response. Accept concise source-bound meaning in any mode. Read/described source access and unchanged scribing are access; leading hints/teaching are noted later support. More words or precise measured drawings are not better evidence by themselves.
Check AL
Fixed source criteria: Same named visible side; before tall/rounded, while pressed lower/wider, release as hand left partway above pressed/below before. Prior prediction specifically said release stays as low as while pressed. Reported release differs from prediction; its partial rise is enough, no exact millimetres. A folded labelled polyester cloth remains that same material in this fictional case. No actual observer/test supplied; no universal rebound/elasticity/comfort claim.
Possible response: “It was tall, got lower while pressed, then rose some when the hand left. The idea said it would stay low, so that release note is different. I wonder what it would look like a bit later.” This is an illustration, not required wording or the only next question. “Would the other edge change?” or a source/access question can also be useful. Next physical action is optional and locally approved.
Next teaching: If stages confused, present three broad source outlines in order and ask about one side. If prior prediction rewritten, point to its exact quoted line then compare with release separately. If “all polyester bounces,” ask which one fictional item/moment the note actually describes. If no next question yet, offer a neutral “What is still unknown?” after first capture, not a required answer.
Check AM
Fixed source criteria: A and B share released-side-above-pressed/below-before as hand left. It is a small pattern in those two fictional notes, not every possible material or an AB decorative repeat. C’s release look is after a short conversation, and its outline is reported like its before. Observation time differs; the notes do not isolate a material explanation, prove timing caused the result, or guarantee future return. Material UNKNOWN; no prior predictions recorded. Missing predictions are not wrong; no comparison with a nonexistent prior idea. No exact force/real matching measurement/actual observer supplied.
Possible response: “A and B both look higher than pressed but not as high as before when the hand leaves. C is looked at later. I don’t know what C looked like straight away, or what A and B looked like later. I’d like to ask about another later look.” Another useful question about source/material/part/action/access also meets the open criterion. No fixed wait or repeat required, and no sole correct next check.
Next teaching: If child groups all three without time, read the ordinary time phrases side by side after first response. If child says “C proves a new material,” return to same cloth N/material UNKNOWN and named different moment; form/time is not material identity. If child gives an invented prior prediction, mark it later idea and use “not recorded.” Pattern uncertainty can be accurate if source relation is retained.
Record what the response actually demonstrates
These sources can sample guided questions, source-based representations/comparisons and shared ideas. They do not establish SFI02 direct physical sensory investigation, full SFU03 composition breadth, a full Science standard, human benefit or local programme approval. An independently child-authored drawing/director-created artefact has child authorship; adult enactment/report and unmade plan are separate status/contribution facts, not denial of authorship. One small-group real observation with relevant individual response/support may complement these sources if actually available.