# SLOP4408 — Week 9: Play the Part

Campus / printable lab pack · Semester 1, 2027

## The task

Reach an agreement among Neri, Pell and Sen without treating their different responsibilities as an obstacle to click away.

In-person teaching is preferred. The paper route is a complete conceptual activity when apparatus is unavailable; online students use the equivalent controls and keep the same learning record.

The investigation, experiment, agreement or revision is this week's practical output. A staged field handover is optional and cannot replace the reasoning record.

## Learning outcomes

- Check specific claims without inferring honesty from appearance.
- Compare feasible proposals with distinct costs and responsibilities.
- Negotiate and revise explicit custody, verification, responsibility and timing terms.

## Equipment

Three named role cards, comparison log, custody mandate, cart certificate and an agreement sheet. Acting and costumes are optional.

## Facilitator setup

Print the three role cards and capacity, mandate and timing records. Each role first records its responsibility privately, then shares its terms in council. Actors may explain preferences but may not invent decisive evidence. Change the mandate between rounds.

## Complete supplied rules

**RP-01** gives responsibilities and claims. **RP-02** gives comparison, mandate, capacity and timing records.

- Neri needs useful access and claims the copies are identical. Comparison log: A=M-42, B=M-99.
- Pell must maintain named, recorded custody. Independent verification against the current authority is required for any agreement.
- Sen claims the cart can carry the original unaided. Certificate: cart capacity 8 units; original 11 units; certified cradle support raises capacity to 12.
- Options: verified copy, monitored stabilisation, or supported original with custodian escort. Unsupported immediate movement cannot exceed the published capacity.
- Timing/roles: a copy can be received and verified this shift; stabilisation needs a responsible monitor and scheduled review; certified support crew with custodian escort arrives next shift.
- Practice mandate: enable access while protecting provenance; a documented deferral may be negotiated.
- Skill-check mandate: the original must remain on site today.
- Transfer mandate: original provenance is required; a digital copy alone does not fulfil it.
- For each mandate, compare at least two feasible agreements. Specify custody, verification, responsibility and timing. Explain a real cost and a concession; feasibility is not an automatic academic ranking.

## Two-hour schedule

These are the teaching session's time blocks, not six compulsory game objectives. Adjust timing as needed; reasoning matters more than speed.

| Time | Activity |
| --- | --- |
| 0–10 minutes | Assign roles; each records a legitimate concern and limit. |
| 10–30 minutes | Review the alternate council and separate corroboration from general trust. |
| 30–60 minutes | Check assigned records and propose two feasible agreements. |
| 60–80 minutes | Hold the council: challenge a term and revise an offer while an observer records costs. |
| 80–105 minutes | Apply the changed mandate, preserve the earlier offer and renegotiate. |
| 105–120 minutes | Keep agreed terms, a rejected feasible alternative, remaining obligation and contribution record. |

## Worked example · a different scenario

In the separate conservatory council, two twelve-section copies both match R-4, supporting Rin's specific identical-copy claim. The seven-unit original fits the certified nine-unit cart. Under the first request, a recorded physical handover to Mira is feasible. Before dispatch, a replacement request asks for remote access while the original stays with Ada. The agreement therefore changes to a verified Cedar copy, even though the cart still works. The demonstrator preserves the unexecuted first plan and does not turn one corroborated claim into a judgement about Rin's general honesty. The first council also considers a verified copy: feasible, but weaker for its stated physical-provenance priority. The later access request changes which cost matters, rather than making the first agreement universally wrong.

[Watch this separate example and inspect its finished record](/demonstrations/lab-09/).

The example explains a method. Its completed decisions are not the assigned task. Use the materials above for your own choices.

## Practice

Verify records and compare two feasible offers. Each role names a concern; revise one term and agree responsibilities.

## Skill check

Keep the original on site under the new mandate. Compare two remaining feasible proposals and their different costs.

## Transfer challenge

Apply the provenance requirement. Negotiate an acceptable arrangement without assuming the previous objective still fits.

## Student record

**Named output: claim-verification.**

Record two feasible proposals, who gains or bears costs, the term another role challenged, its revision and named obligations. A feasibility tick does not establish that a negotiation happened.

Record your name/role, phase and scenario, prediction before action, evidence requested, result, decision, alternative and remaining uncertainty. Include assistance, format used and any physical-model limitation. Keep a failed attempt that explains a revision.

The investigation, experiment, agreement or revision is this week's practical output. A staged field handover is optional and cannot replace the reasoning record.

## Explanation — reveal after an attempt

Several agreements can meet a mandate. Their costs differ: immediate copy access preserves the original but transfers no physical provenance; monitoring delays service and occupies a role; supported transport waits for the crew. Explain whose obligation is changed and obtain agreement. The software checks feasibility, not fairness or negotiation quality.

A facilitator judges the reasoning. The record's existence and the model's successful result do not by themselves establish learning.

## Facilitator evidence cards · reveal on request

A proposal is feasible only with recorded custody and independent verification. Copy: receiver verifies this-shift receipt; the original stays with its custodian. Stabilisation: named monitor and scheduled review; service is delayed. Supported original: custodian escort and certified support next shift; the support crew is occupied.

Practice admits all three arrangements when their terms are complete. Skill check admits copy or monitored stabilisation because the original stays on site today. Transfer admits monitored stabilisation or supported-original handover because a copy alone cannot serve the provenance requirement. Both remaining options have different costs; do not rank an ending automatically.

Listen for an actual challenged term and resulting concession. A constraint-complete form without exchange is an individual feasibility analysis, not evidence of a group negotiation.

The full pack remains available for accessible and solo study. Label assistance if you inspected all cards before choosing a test. No hidden rules or secret grading are involved.

## Reflection and later use

Which assumption about a person did you replace with a question about evidence?

The final team must defend a recovery objective and agree custody and monitoring obligations. This lab practises the judgement behind that agreement.

## Evidence and limitations

Save **claim-verification** with your explanation. Physical activities are proposed teaching designs, not hardware-tested equipment. Distinguish model-card results from actual measurements. Neither browser success nor paper completion establishes physical dexterity or classroom enjoyment. A dated station record is sufficient; a duplicate browser run is not required.