Useful job: Compare what was observed with what a game rule asks for, without inventing a player’s experience.
Target opportunity: AC9S1U03 / AC9S1H01 / AC9S1I01 / AC9S1I05 / AC9S1I06. Complete ordinary sources: C17/C18; their full original fictional bodies and separate worked/next accounts are in ORDINARY.md. Use the full curriculum/reference module for scope; code labels are not attained criteria.
Six teaching moves
-
Read C17’s two complete descriptions of the same resting card and the written boundary rule. Ask whether the observations agree and whether the rule settles the score.
-
Keep observing position, interpreting a rule and preferring a game separate. Both supplied descriptions can be true without proving how a real child feels.
-
Model C18’s untried invitation. The proposed spoken rule and paper stand are next ideas, not an observation or guaranteed improvement.
-
Choose a clue interview, a boundary-rule designer or a private player question. An actual willing reader/player is optional; no fabricated peer comparison or mandatory social performance.
-
Invite a question that would make the record or rule clearer. Let the child choose a new proposed rule, while preserving the original one as original information.
-
Check agreement, ambiguity and status. If a learner invents a winner or universal preference, return to the source’s missing rule detail or response. A useful question can finish the activity.
Three engagement choices
Route59.1 · Ask the clue-makers. Using C17, child asks imaginary note-makers one question about their shared observation. Adult answers from the source only. No real disagreement, dishonesty or social deficit is inferred.
Route59.2 · Boundary-rule designer. Read C17. Child proposes whether touching the boundary counts and gives a reason linked to the wanted game. Mark this as a new rule; the old source had not decided it.
Route59.3 · Private player question. Use C18 or a genuinely available own invitation. Child makes a useful question about instructions or experience. Keep any reply empty until an actual reply exists; no account, contact or public sharing is required.
Small check: Distinguishes agreeing position reports from an unresolved rule/experience question and labels a new proposal honestly.
Targeted next teaching: Use C17 for observation-versus-rule confusion; use C18 for proposed-versus-tried claims. Missing reply is unknown, not proof the game failed.
Finish invitation: “Would you keep this, change something, ask a question, or finish?”