Wanted outcome: a sourced reason for collaboration, beyond “teamwork is good”. Prepare: FACT1 and FACT3 full cards, contribution headings and blank paper.
0–3: ask what a biologist and sensor designer might each contribute. 3–9 model: use FACT1’s historical project to join biological questions, comparable environmental measurements and sensing/computing design. Explain why no single contribution supplies all the evidence. It was a reported prototype plan at its stated date, not proof of today’s installation. 9–21: choose a route. 21–27: compare interpretations against the exact source card; distinguish an invented role from an actually named contribution. 27–30 exit: give a contribution and why another contribution mattered. If only “more people”, join an expertise to the problem it helps address.
- Route 6A · Contribution chain. From FACT1 connect Jane Wasley’s earlier monitoring, Krystal Randall’s measurement/comparability work and Johan Barthelemy’s smart-sensing role to the shared moss-health question. Explain how later work builds on earlier monitoring and why measurement and biological interpretation need each other. No individual’s thoughts are invented.
- Route 6B · Historical revision timeline. From FACT3 arrange initial prototype → ground testing → water-management difficulty in space → three revised designs reported in 2019. Describe the contributions of Howard Levine, the Techshot team and fluids experts, and explain why a ground success did not settle performance in microgravity. Do not add a harvest result absent from this historical account.
- Route 6C · Missing-expertise argument. Choose either fact card. A fictional adviser says “a camera alone can decide the best habitat”. Explain which measurements, biological knowledge and design knowledge are missing. Give two source-backed contributions and one further question; do not claim an AI or sensor automatically approves an ecological decision.