Each is a distinct 8–12 minute extension or support. All inputs are supplied ordinary fiction. Choose after an observed need or interest, not by a fixed learner label. They are not additional mandatory lessons or fresh checks. Paper, spoken/sign/AAC or directed marks all work; no purchase, printer, account or living-organism experiment.
X01 · Choose a graph for the question
Input: fictional height at Days 0/2/4 is 10/14/18 mm; final alive count is 3 of 4. Job: decide which representation helps show change over time and which helps show final count. Make a line/table for day/height and four labelled count marks for alive. Model: line/table preserves times; count marks preserve denominator; one bar labelled “18” does neither alone. Next: add labels to an unlabelled graphic. This is representation reasoning, not an enacted experiment.
X02 · Equal totals can hide different individuals
Input: four fictional heights are set A 20/20/20/20 mm and B 10/10/30/30 mm. Job: compute or use supplied mean 20 mm for both, then show the individual values. Model: each total is 80 mm; divide by four. Same mean does not mean identical plants/variation. Next: recommend keeping individual rows alongside the mean. No biological reason for the difference is supplied.
X03 · One unit across the record
Input: a fictional stem starts 2 cm and finishes 28 mm after three days. Job: convert before calculating and make a correct heading. Model: 2 cm = 20 mm; increase 8 mm over three days. 28 − 2 = 26 mixes units and is invalid here. Next: rewrite both in mm, or both in cm, with units. This supports inquiry measurement interpretation, not full mathematics mastery.
X04 · A repeated reading is not a new plant
Input: one paper stem measured three times gives 29, 30, 29 mm. Job: say what repeating readings can help assess and what sample size it does not create. Model: readings differ by 1 mm; check placement/rounding. There is still one paper stem, not three biological replicates. Next: make separate columns object identifier / repeated reading. Use actual own readings only if a safe ruler job occurs.
X05 · A missing control log
Input: a fictional plan says “equal water daily”, but its delivery log has two blank days. Job: rewrite a conclusion claiming water was controlled. Model: the plan intended equality; actual adherence is unknown on those days. Request the log or a future reviewed test, without filling blanks. Next: add plan-followed/deviation/unknown columns to a neutral record. No blame or fabricated failure of real people.
X06 · Growth can stop without being measured alive
Input: a fictional stem is 12 mm on Day 0, 12 mm on Day 4 and 12 mm on Day 8. No alive-at-check record. Job: distinguish no recorded height increase from death. Model: zero height increase over eight days by this measure; survival status is unknown. Height alone does not answer it. Next: define a separate appropriate alive-status observation for adult review. Do not ask a child to diagnose real plants.
X07 · Earlier data and a changed question
Input: an invented trial measured only height; a new reader asks about alive count at Day 10. Job: decide whether an old graph can answer the new question. Model: no survival records exist; do not relabel height as survival. Create a proposed future count record with starting sample/time and all cells not observed. Next: name the additional evidence before the new recommendation.
X08 · Predict and disagree carefully
Input: fictional record A at Day 0/2/4 is 10/13/16 mm; B is 10/12/15 mm. Day 6 is withheld. Job: make a reasoned prediction or a qualified uncertain prediction, then name evidence that could change it. Model: A has greater increase at the recorded points; continuing that trend is plausible but not guaranteed. B’s later interval increased 3 mm, so constant-rate assumptions need care. Next: write the prediction before any invented future outcome is supplied. This ordinary example never serves as a reserved assessment.
X09 · Distinguish a role and an impact
Input: an invented report states “a recorder used a consistent ruler rule; a designer made the table”. It says nothing about improvements in plant survival. Job: explain how each contribution could help the enquiry, then reject “the team saved all plants”. Model: method consistency and organised data help interpretation; saved-plant impact is unrecorded. Next: compare this fictional role model with a real fact card’s named contribution evidence. Do not turn a role allocation into actual learner collaboration or ecological success.
X10 · Recheck a teacher replacement
Input: fictional replacement starts four stems at 11 mm; final heights 17/19/21/19 mm on Day 5, three alive. Job: audit a draft key saying mean 19 mm, increase 19 mm, four alive. Model: mean (17+19+21+19)/4 = 19 mm; increase 19−11=8 mm; 3 of 4 alive at Day 5. Keep all four heights for the stated mean rule. Next: change both task and checked key together if a sample/period changes; no public local source is actually verified by this exercise.