HCD.6.1:5.4 - Reading what changed in a claim across projects

Two permitted project excerpts describe the same observation. One concludes, “The indicator increased under these measurement conditions.” The other concludes, “Increased resistance caused the indicator change.” The learner is asked to mark what the second statement adds and what evidence would be needed for that added claim under the supplied subject account. The correct distinction concerns observation and causal attribution; the text’s length or confidence of tone is incidental.

The learner then inspects two reports from another project. Both use different wording but derive from the same original observation. Calling them two independent observations would miss a different consequential relation: the provenance is shared. The supplied task criterion determines whether one observation suffices for the receiving use; another report does not create another observation.

A changed pair reverses which excerpt is longer and makes the cautious-sounding version overstate the evidence. Another pair contains genuinely separate observations under the stated independence conditions. The learner must use the grounds rather than choose the cautious tone or reject every strong claim. Feedback addresses the missed relation, followed by an own-case action: preserve, narrow or return the claim for the needed support.

HCD.25 develops how to select and connect such permitted project cases; HCD.24 uses discernible differences in peer judgement. The contrast here prepares recognition. Neither identifying an overclaim nor reading the other project’s report establishes competence to conduct its full investigation.

These are teaching designs, not reports of observed learning.