Wanted outcome: a real-source problem/response chain with a local limit. Prepare: FACT2 and FACT4 and a three-box problem / possible response / evidence still needed record.
0–3: ask how a community can act without pretending it knows every result. 3–9 model: FACT4 identifies a light-related turtle problem at nesting beaches. Source guidance supports reviewing unnecessary coastal light; it does not prove your school’s lights affect a turtle population. Adults decide lawful safe action; children do not alter electrical devices or visit a beach. 9–21: choose a route. 21–27: mark provider fact, your recommendation and unknown separately. 27–30 exit: name a scientific idea used in a response and a remaining question. If factual card becomes a local forecast, put date/place back beside the claim.
- Route 8A · Problem-response-evidence. Use FACT4 to explain how knowledge about artificial light and turtle behaviour informs a reviewed coastal response. Choose an adult enquiry or review step, not an unauthorised switch-off. State what local place/season/lighting and permission would need checking.
- Route 8B · Limit a local inference. FACT2 concerns reef stress. A fictional leaflet claims “every reef near us is bleached today”. Correct it using the card’s historical scope and unequal impacts. List evidence needed for a named local reef, date, observation method and living-thing response; no invented readings or field visit.
- Route 8C · Compare two responses. For a fictional council deciding what to investigate, compare “assume every reef is equally affected” with “ask for dated, place-specific monitoring and review possible responses”. Give a scientific reason and one missing condition. Separately explain which knowledge supports the turtle light enquiry and why the reef source does not supply turtle guidance.