# PWR-174 — Intent inference: learner worksheet Release: Revision 7T · Full Tutorial Edition Estimated time: Estimated 29 min reading and worksheet pass Difficulty: Intermediate Equipment: Common household or practice equipment — Declared Intent inference fixture: A fictional colleague, Sam, does not reply to a meeting message for one day. Later case cards reveal a calendar outage and Sam’s own explanation.; Setup aid for List three intentions: Remove protected characteristics and any cue that invites identity-based stereotyping.; Intent inference log: Accuracy, uncertainty and correction against declared resolvable intent evidence; retain Intent inference errors, assistance, stop and fallback.; Intent-inference source card: record the intervention and hostile-attribution outcome from “Can Self-Persuasion Reduce Hostile Attribution Bias in Young Children?” Then use “Assessing Deception Detection Accuracy with Dichotomous Truth–Lie Judgments and Continuous Scaling” to note how judgment format and calibration affect accuracy. Neither source converts Sam’s missing reply into detectable intent, and the worker-monitoring guidance forbids consequential profiling.; Supplied six-card intent pack; reveal text stays covered until after observation, three alternatives and a neutral check are written. 1 Sam: no reply for 24 hours; reveal—calendar notifications failed 08:45–10:15 and Sam says no alert arrived. 2 Priya: does not wave back in a corridor; reveal—her headphones were playing an audio lesson and she later says she did not see the wave. 3 Luis: exits a shared document before commenting; reveal—the session log records an automatic sign-out and Luis asks for a fresh link. 4 Chen: cancels a lunch plan with “cannot make it”; reveal—the venue unexpectedly closed and Chen proposes another day. 5 Jordan: a chat ends mid-sentence; reveal—the device battery log reaches zero and Jordan reconnects from a charger. 6 Ari: moves chairs before a club meeting; reveal—the room booking card requires a clear aisle and Ari shows that instruction.; Intent-pack answer rule: no reveal proves private motive or honesty. Credit a response only when it records the visible event, keeps at least three explanations live, asks about a resolvable event without accusation, updates the original estimates visibly, and chooses a reversible communication action. Space: Desk / seated Automated structural checklist: 10 of 10 structural checks present Evidence quality/context: G6; Detailed research depth Automated method-quality band: Comprehensive Method-rating basis: Structure coverage, instruction/check specificity, alternative distinctness, source troubleshooting, comparison depth and whether purpose/check fields are authored rather than derived. Editorial review: Pending manual editorial sign off ## Before you begin - [ ] I read the tutorial authority and stop conditions. - [ ] I have the required equipment/space or a declared accessible alternative. ## Canonical source context Sam’s unanswered message is deliberately ambiguous, so the task is to keep observation, possible motives and resolvable evidence in separate columns. Generate alternatives, open the supplied reveal cards, update confidence and select a proportionate communication step. The method manages uncertainty; it never detects or proves Sam’s intent. Target outcome: The learner distinguishes action from motive, generates at least three plausible intentions, updates confidence from resolvable evidence, and avoids accusation. ### Authority and setup conditions - Use a fully fictional case and a prepared evidence-reveal card. - Remove protected characteristics and any cue that invites identity-based stereotyping. - Start check for Intent inference: The observation can be checked without knowing Sam’s mind. - Top-of-sheet stop for Intent inference: Stop if a real person is being accused, screened or investigated. ### Required or supplied materials - Declared Intent inference fixture: A fictional colleague, Sam, does not reply to a meeting message for one day. Later case cards reveal a calendar outage and Sam’s own explanation. - Setup aid for List three intentions: Remove protected characteristics and any cue that invites identity-based stereotyping. - Intent inference log: Accuracy, uncertainty and correction against declared resolvable intent evidence; retain Intent inference errors, assistance, stop and fallback. - Intent-inference source card: record the intervention and hostile-attribution outcome from “Can Self-Persuasion Reduce Hostile Attribution Bias in Young Children?” Then use “Assessing Deception Detection Accuracy with Dichotomous Truth–Lie Judgments and Continuous Scaling” to note how judgment format and calibration affect accuracy. Neither source converts Sam’s missing reply into detectable intent, and the worker-monitoring guidance forbids consequential profiling. - Supplied six-card intent pack; reveal text stays covered until after observation, three alternatives and a neutral check are written. 1 Sam: no reply for 24 hours; reveal—calendar notifications failed 08:45–10:15 and Sam says no alert arrived. 2 Priya: does not wave back in a corridor; reveal—her headphones were playing an audio lesson and she later says she did not see the wave. 3 Luis: exits a shared document before commenting; reveal—the session log records an automatic sign-out and Luis asks for a fresh link. 4 Chen: cancels a lunch plan with “cannot make it”; reveal—the venue unexpectedly closed and Chen proposes another day. 5 Jordan: a chat ends mid-sentence; reveal—the device battery log reaches zero and Jordan reconnects from a charger. 6 Ari: moves chairs before a club meeting; reveal—the room booking card requires a clear aisle and Ari shows that instruction. - Intent-pack answer rule: no reveal proves private motive or honesty. Credit a response only when it records the visible event, keeps at least three explanations live, asks about a resolvable event without accusation, updates the original estimates visibly, and chooses a reversible communication action. ## 1. Write the observable event Record “no reply for 24 hours” and the message time. Remove labels such as rude, deceptive or hostile. Why: The observation can be checked without knowing Sam’s mind. Success check: The observation can be checked without knowing Sam’s mind. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Record “no reply for 24 hours” and the message time. Remove labels such as rude, deceptive or hostile.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “The observation can be checked without knowing Sam’s mind.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 2. List three intentions Write at least one benign, one neutral and one concerning possibility: busy, message not delivered, avoiding the meeting. Why: Three alternatives remain live before new evidence. Success check: Three alternatives remain live before new evidence. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Write at least one benign, one neutral and one concerning possibility: busy, message not delivered, avoiding the meeting.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “Three alternatives remain live before new evidence.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 3. Mark prior information Note only verified context, including the calendar system status and usual response agreement. Do not use stereotypes or protected traits. Why: Every context item has a source. Success check: Every context item has a source. Accessible alternative: Complete “Note only verified context, including the calendar system status and usual response agreement. Do not use stereotypes or protected traits.” in shorter passes, or use keyboard input, dictation or a support person, while preserving this success check: “Every context item has a source.” If percentages are inaccessible, use low, medium and high ranges while keeping multiple alternatives visible. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 4. Set low initial confidence Give each hypothesis a 0–100 confidence range and explain why the evidence is ambiguous. Why: No single intention exceeds 60 before direct evidence. Success check: No single intention exceeds 60 before direct evidence. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Give each hypothesis a 0–100 confidence range and explain why the evidence is ambiguous.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “No single intention exceeds 60 before direct evidence.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 5. Seek resolvable evidence Check the delivery log or ask “Did my message reach you?” rather than “Why are you ignoring me?” Why: The question can confirm an event without accusing Sam. Success check: The question can confirm an event without accusing Sam. Accessible alternative: A supported, seated, reduced-range or slower version of “Check the delivery log or ask “Did my message reach you?” rather than “Why are you ignoring me?”” is equivalent only when it keeps the same trained or measured target, declared configuration and success check: “The question can confirm an event without accusing Sam.” If any of those change, record it as a related alternative rather than an equivalent repetition. Alternative relationship: Conditional equivalence requires target and configuration check Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 6. Update, do not rewrite Add the new evidence beside the old estimate and revise all three hypotheses. Keep the original visible. Why: The record shows which fact changed which estimate. Success check: The record shows which fact changed which estimate. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Add the new evidence beside the old estimate and revise all three hypotheses. Keep the original visible.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “The record shows which fact changed which estimate.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 7. Choose a reversible action Resend through the agreed channel or offer a new meeting time. Escalate only through an existing rule tied to behavior, not inferred motive. Why: The action solves the communication problem without declaring intent. Success check: The action solves the communication problem without declaring intent. Accessible alternative: Complete “Resend through the agreed channel or offer a new meeting time. Escalate only through an existing rule tied to behavior, not inferred motive.” in shorter passes, or use keyboard input, dictation or a support person, while preserving this success check: “The action solves the communication problem without declaring intent.” If percentages are inaccessible, use low, medium and high ranges while keeping multiple alternatives visible. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 8. State what remains unknowable Write that the vignette cannot prove honesty, danger, criminality or private motive. Why: The conclusion separates resolved delivery facts from unresolved intention. Success check: The conclusion separates resolved delivery facts from unresolved intention. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Write that the vignette cannot prove honesty, danger, criminality or private motive.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “The conclusion separates resolved delivery facts from unresolved intention.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## Reflection What changed? ________________________________________________________________________________ What remains difficult? ________________________________________________________________________________ What will I repeat, adapt, ask for help with, or stop? ________________________________________________________________________________ --- Completion of this worksheet demonstrates tutorial participation only. It does not establish capability, qualification, safety clearance, diagnosis, treatment or independent validation.