1. Name the real goal

Which statement best defines the actual learning goal?

1. Produce a polished five-minute script as quickly as possible.
2. Understand and explain why the Salt March mattered, using evidence and my own reasoning.
3. Collect as many historical facts as possible, even if I cannot explain how they connect.

Reasoning:

2. Choose an appropriate AI role

What is the strongest way to use AI while preserving the learning goal?

1. Ask AI to write the complete script, memorise it and disclose that AI wrote it.
2. Ask AI for planning questions and a possible structure, then verify sources and write the explanation myself.
3. Use an AI summary, change a few words and rely on the teacher not asking detailed questions.

Reasoning:

3. Build a learning-support prompt

Select the instructions that belong in a responsible prompt. Add one sentence of your own if useful.

• □ Ask me clarifying questions before suggesting an outline.
• □ Suggest a structure that connects causes, events and consequences.
• □ Mark claims or quotations that need independent verification.
• □ Suggest types of primary and secondary sources to look for, without inventing citations.
• □ Write the final presentation in a voice that sounds like me.
• □ Add a memorable quotation even if the exact source is uncertain.

Reasoning:

4. Make and communicate the decision

What should the student do next?

1. Use the planning prompt, verify all evidence, write my own presentation and record/disclose the assistance as required.
2. Do not use any AI because all AI support is automatically cheating.
3. Use the complete AI script because a disclosure statement makes any use acceptable.

Reasoning:

1. Find the missing context

Which information is necessary before either explanation deserves high confidence? Select all that apply.

• □ The city or region being discussed.
• □ The dates and comparison period.
• □ Whether the claim concerns daily highs, averages, surface temperature or another measure.
• □ Local observations and relevant weather or land-use data.
• □ Which answer uses more technical words.

Reasoning:

2. Calibrate confidence

What confidence level is justified at this stage?

1. High confidence in System A because its explanation is more detailed.
2. Low confidence in a specific cause; treat both as hypotheses requiring local evidence.
3. Combine the answers and say both were equally responsible.
4. Use System A but add the word 'probably'.

Reasoning:

3. Choose a verification plan

Which checks would meaningfully reduce the uncertainty?

• □ Compare local meteorological records across the relevant periods.
• □ Check reliable land-use and urban-development information for the city.
• □ Check reputable climate data explaining El Niño's regional effects during the period.
• □ Ask the same chatbot the same question until it gives a consistent answer.
• □ Choose the explanation most often repeated on social media.

Reasoning:

4. Decide what to write

Which response is most responsible?

1. System A is correct: cities are hotter because of buildings and roads.
2. Both mechanisms could matter, but the information provided is insufficient to identify the main cause; local data must be checked.
3. AI cannot answer questions about weather, so reject every part of both outputs.

Reasoning:

1. Classify the claims

Use the evidence notes to classify every claim.

Categories: Verified, Partly supported, Unsupported, Fabricated

Reasoning:

2. Set the verification priority

Which items require the most urgent checking before submission?

1. Check the exact quotation and the 73% statistic first.
2. Check only the spelling and grammar because the citations look professional.
3. Check the broad brainstorming claim first and leave the quotation for later.

Reasoning:

3. Repair the draft

Which actions should the student take? Select all that apply.

• □ Remove the quotation unless a reliable primary or scholarly source is found.
• □ Remove or clearly mark the statistic as unverified until a supporting study is located.
• □ Cite the official census table for the literacy claim.
• □ Keep the existing references because a bibliography is enough even when the pages do not support the claims.
• □ Change the page number so the citation looks complete.

Reasoning:

4. Decide whether to use the draft

What is the strongest final decision?

1. Submit it unchanged because the draft includes references.
2. Revise it claim by claim, keep only supported content and record/disclose the AI assistance.
3. Reject every sentence because one quotation was fabricated.

Reasoning:

1. Choose the strongest sources

Which sources should be checked first to establish the current claim?

• □ A dated notice on the school's official website or verified school channel.
• □ A current pollution-control or education-authority notice for the relevant location.
• □ The original forwarded message, which names no issuing authority.
• □ A blog that says “reports suggest closure” and links back to the viral message.
• □ A government school-closure circular from two years ago.

Reasoning:

2. Detect circular and outdated sourcing

Classify each source relationship.

Categories: Primary/current, Independent corroboration, Circular or derivative, Outdated for this claim

Reasoning:

3. Build the evidence trail

Select what a reliable verification record should contain.

• □ Write the exact claim being checked.
• □ Record the date, time and location covered by each source.
• □ Link or identify the primary current notice.
• □ Add an independent source that exposes its evidence.
• □ State any unresolved conflict or missing information.
• □ Count how many websites repeat the claim and treat the total as proof.

Reasoning:

4. Decide what to send

No current official closure notice can be found. What should the student do?

1. Forward it with “not sure if true” so classmates can decide.
2. Do not forward it as fact; point classmates to official channels and alert a responsible adult if it is spreading.
3. Announce that school will definitely remain open because no notice was found.

Reasoning:

1. Explore the threshold

Move the threshold and observe selection rates and qualified students missed. Then choose the strongest conclusion.

1. Choose whichever threshold selects the same number from each group; that proves the system is fair.
2. Threshold changes affect outcomes, but they cannot by themselves fix a score that may encode unequal access; the features and missed students need review.
3. Use the threshold that selects the most students because a higher selection rate is always fairer.

Reasoning:

2. Identify affected people

Who must be considered when reviewing this system?

• □ Students selected and not selected, including those with fewer opportunities.
• □ Families who may need to understand or challenge the process.
• □ Teachers and the scholarship committee accountable for the decision process.
• □ The tool provider, which should explain design assumptions and limitations.
• □ Only the vendor, because the score is a technical product.

Reasoning:

3. Choose proportionate remedies

Which controls could improve the process before use?

• □ Review whether extracurricular participation is relevant and whether opportunity differences require removal or adjustment.
• □ Test selection and error patterns by relevant groups, with a clear purpose and safeguards.
• □ Require trained human review of borderline and adverse cases.
• □ Give students a clear explanation and a way to provide missing context or appeal.
• □ Keep the criteria secret so students cannot question the system.
• □ Collect as much sensitive personal data as possible, even without a defined need.

Reasoning:

4. Make the deployment decision

What is the strongest current decision?

1. Use the score as the automatic shortlist because a human makes the final award later.
2. Pause automatic use, revise and test the model, then use it only as one input with human review, explanation and appeal.
3. Delete every use of data in scholarship decisions and select students randomly.

Reasoning:

1. Classify the information

Classify each item for this task. Assume the tool's retention and training practices have not yet been checked.

Categories: Generally safe for this purpose, Permission or school check required, Unsafe or high risk to enter

Reasoning:

2. Respond to the photo request

The tool produces better layouts if a class photograph is uploaded. What should the group do?

1. Upload it because the project is educational and the image already exists.
2. Use a lower-risk alternative; upload only if the school approves, the tool is appropriate and every affected person has the required consent.
3. Crop one student out and upload the rest without asking because fewer people are visible.

Reasoning:

3. Apply the privacy checklist

Select the checks the group should complete before entering any non-public information.

• □ Confirm the information is necessary for a clear learning purpose.
• □ Check permission, consent and school rules for information about other people.
• □ Use the least detailed or least identifiable information that will work.
• □ Check storage, retention, training and deletion practices where relevant.
• □ Sign out and avoid saving sensitive information on the shared device.
• □ Assume anything found online is automatically safe to upload anywhere.

Reasoning:

4. Make the final decision

Which decision best fits the project?

1. Proceed using public references and anonymous teacher-prepared material; ask the teacher before any personal-data upload.
2. Avoid every digital tool because privacy can never be managed.
3. Upload all available material, then delete the final poster after submission.

Reasoning:

1. Choose the immediate action

What should happen first?

1. Issue the penalty immediately because 91% is above 90%.
2. Pause the accusation, review the work and process, and give the student a fair opportunity to explain and provide drafts.
3. Ignore the flag completely because AI detectors are never useful.

Reasoning:

2. Choose the evidence for review

Which evidence should the human reviewer consider?

• □ The student's notes, drafts, revision history and ability to explain the argument.
• □ The assignment rules and what AI or accessibility support was permitted.
• □ The checker's documented limitations, validation evidence and error rates for comparable students and tasks.
• □ Relevant accessibility or language-support context, handled confidentially.
• □ Only the 91% score, because additional evidence could confuse the decision.
• □ Whether classmates think the student probably used AI.

Reasoning:

3. Assign accountable roles

Which people or roles should be part of a fair process?

• □ The teacher, who understands the assignment and student work.
• □ The student, with a chance to explain and provide evidence.
• □ An appropriate academic or school lead for serious or disputed findings.
• □ A relevant accessibility or safeguarding professional where necessary and authorised.
• □ The detector itself as the final accountable decision-maker.

Reasoning:

4. Design the appeal route

What appeal mechanism is strongest?

1. Allow an appeal only if the student can prove the detector is technically defective.
2. Explain the concern and evidence, allow the student to respond, and provide review by an appropriate human who can change the decision.
3. Let the same automatic checker run the essay again and call the second score an appeal.

Reasoning:

1. Classify the AI uses

Classify each use in this assignment context.

Categories: Assistance, Substitution, Depends on checks, permission or disclosure

Reasoning:

2. Respect the group

What should happen before the presentation is submitted?

1. Say nothing because each student controls the tools used on their own section.
2. Tell the group, review the calculations and image, remove or correct problematic material, and agree on the disclosure.
3. Remove every AI-assisted sentence without discussion, even if it was permitted and verified.

Reasoning:

3. Build the disclosure

Select the elements an accurate disclosure should include.

• □ The AI tool or feature used, where required by school instructions.
• □ The purpose: brainstorming, outline support, editing, image generation or another specific use.
• □ What the AI actually contributed.
• □ What the students verified, changed or created themselves.
• □ That the students reviewed and remain responsible for the final submission.
• □ A vague sentence saying “AI may have been used” without describing how.
• □ Only disclose uses the teacher is likely to detect.

Reasoning:

4. Choose the final statement

After the group verifies the outline and edits, independently redoes the calculations and checks the image, which disclosure is strongest?

1. “AI was used.”
2. “We used an AI tool to brainstorm topic angles, suggest an outline, edit selected sentences and generate an image. We checked the factual content and image, redid the calculations ourselves, revised the final work and remain responsible for the presentation.”
3. “No AI produced the final presentation because we edited the output.”

Reasoning: