# Two new own-response briefs

An adult may read or describe exact source facts; use your usual communication. One meaningful first part can be captured before another part. You can choose an own question/source, vary or reject the idea. No unique wording, numerical shadow calculation, actual trial or finished project required. Apparatus work is optional and needs ordinary local review. An unfinished response means **not yet observed**; another short sitting is available, with **no completion-speed score**. These do not certify a whole code or Science year.

## Fresh C — a new shadow question

**Source S5-NEW-QUESTION-C-05.** Original computer-created ideal point-source model, SubjectNest by NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd with Codex assistance, 30 September 2026. Purpose: offer a new setup for an own investigable question/prediction/plan. No actual experiment, person/community account or achieved effect supplied.

The [new C picture](print/fresh-c.pdf) has point light source `(0,0)`, opaque vertical bar at `x=2` from `y=-1` to `y=1`, and receiving screen at `x=6`. These are **arbitrary model units and ideal rays**, not centimetres or instructions for a room/body. No screen shadow answer or actual lamp observation is drawn. A real lamp may have a wide source/ambient light and unclear edges. Exact no-print description is in [alternatives](print/TEXT-ALTERNATIVES.md).

**First:** “What would you like to find out? What might you change?” Give one own question/change, prediction/reason or plan part, using any available mode. An own source/question or rejecting this model is welcome. The adult captures your first response/help before teaching examples or another component.

**After first capture, if wanted:** say what would stay and what you would notice, make a prediction/model, plan a locally reviewed actual try, or return in another sitting. No actual trial, measurement or permission comes with this brief. A plan stays a plan if unperformed; actual observations/operators are separately recorded when they occur.

## Fresh D — a new comparison plan

**Source S5-NEW-PLAN-D-06.** Original computer-created ideal point-source proposal, same creator/date. Purpose: invite an own revision/reason about a new comparison. It is unperformed; no earlier child/adult trial, measured result, person/community account or local permission supplied.

The [new D picture](print/fresh-d.pdf) shows two configurations in the **same arbitrary model scale**:

| Configuration | Point source | Vertical opaque bar | Receiving screen |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Before idea | `(0,0)` | `x=3`, endpoints `y=-1` and `y=1` | `x=9` |
| Proposed after idea | `(0,0)` | `x=2`, same endpoints/size | `x=6` |

Proposed claim: **“It will be bigger because the bar is closer.”** This is a claim about the idea, not a supplied observation. The drawings do not show a completed shadow answer. Ideal model rays do not promise actual lamp measurements, and these numbers dictate no real body direction/range/room distances.

**First:** “What could you change in this plan? Why?” Offer one own revision/question/reason or identify what evidence is missing. Several valid comparisons/own choices are possible; no particular position, left/right choice, numerical calculation, phrase or all-conditions checklist is required. Capture the first available component before further prompts/examples.

**After first capture, if wanted:** choose what would change/stay, predict or describe what to observe, make an own model, or plan an approved actual comparison later. Keep actual observations and operator roles separate. You can stop with a useful question/plan and return another time.

Teacher key and exact model data are separate teacher resources. A first independent/support-attributed response is not rewritten as if later teaching had already happened.