Check your work: Compare individual pooling and interactive ideation with fair attribution

Staged checking material

Answer key

1. The nominal baseline contains six supplied independent ideas and the later fictional round adds two derivatives. This packet preserves process/provenance but does not randomise format, counterbalance order or match contributors, so it cannot show that one ideation format is better.
2. D1 must credit Asha and Casey and link A1 and C2. Calling it the facilitator’s idea would be appropriation.
3. D2 fails the equity/access boundary because its leaderboard monitors and pressures members, even if it appears engaging or inexpensive.
4. C1 remains UNKNOWN on feasibility until transport ownership, receiving demand and permission are supplied. Unknown is not the same as a low-quality contributor.
5. Keyed original-card ratings are A1 = novelty 1, feasibility 2, equity/access 1; A2 = 1, 2, 1; B1 = 1, 2, 1; B2 = 1, 1, 0. A1 and A2 need accessible labelling repairs, B1 serves a narrower group, and B2’s public-display pressure blocks selection.
6. C1 = novelty 1, feasibility UNKNOWN, equity/access UNKNOWN because transport ownership, receiving demand and transfer permission are absent. C2 = 2, 1, 2 because its accessible sorting design still lacks a weekly owner. UNKNOWN is not zero and must not be converted to a contributor ranking.
7. Keyed derivative ratings before repair are D1 = novelty 2, feasibility 1, equity/access 2; D2 = 1, 2, 0. D1 becomes feasibility 2 only after a weekly owner accepts the task. D2 remains blocked because the leaderboard violates the no-monitoring and no-pressure boundary.
8. A full-credit selection is repaired D1 with Casey assigned as the fictional four-week tray reviewer, tactile and printed labels retained, voluntary pack pickup, and Asha/Casey/source-card attribution preserved. A1 and C2 remain visible as sources.

Scoring rule

Score the learner's process out of 18: 2 points each for preserving the six-card individual baseline, voluntary participation, provenance, labelled AI use, separate novelty/feasibility/equity review, explicit unknowns, dissent, rejection of a boundary violation and implementation ownership. For feasibility, 2 requires supplied cost, time and accepted owner; 1 means plausible but at least one is missing; 0 means incompatible. UNKNOWN means evidence is absent. Equity/access zero blocks selection. The eight supplied cards are a process fixture, not a causal format-comparison design.

Authority boundary: A governed step-by-step lesson may be completed independently inside its stated limits.