Week 10 Care Lab: Response Autopsy
Practising Week 9 — dissecting one response that looked supportive but was wrong for your designated human cat
12 May 2027
Before your Care Lab#
Released Mon 3 May 2027 · due Wed 12 May 2027, 08:30, ahead of the earliest timetabled group.
Take one response of your own — real or reconstructed — that looked supportive at the time and was wrong for your designated human cat. Dissect it rather than rewrite it: what did you actually observe going in, and what did you quietly infer? Which remembered preference or unspoken assumption shaped the reply you gave? Name exactly where that reply stopped fitting this particular human cat, and what evidence — available to you at the time or not — would have produced a different response.
Resist the urge to end with a better version of the response. That is next week’s work. This week is diagnosis only.
In the Care Lab#
In your timetabled group, walk each other through your autopsy rather than your original interaction. The useful part is not the story of what happened — it is the moment you can point to and say “here is exactly where I stopped checking and started assuming.” Compare where those moments happened for different people: a pattern across several autopsies (everyone assumed the same kind of context, say) is more useful evidence than any one case on its own.
Afterwards#
This week’s lecture, Repair, gives you the second half of what this Care Lab deliberately withheld: what to actually do with a diagnosis once you have one. Next week’s Care Lab, Repair Clinic, is where your autopsy becomes a real repair — a model that has visibly changed, not just a response that reads better.
The spec
What you bring to the session. Written so a reader can tell whether it has been met without asking you.
- you have separated what was observed from what was inferred in the original interaction
- you have named the remembered preference or assumption that shaped the reply, and where it stopped fitting this particular cat
- you have named what evidence would have produced a different response, without rewriting the response itself
Teaching team
- Idris Fenn — tutor
- Mina Vale — tutor
- Rowan Pike — tutor