# Meaningful Scenario Choice Worksheet Use this worksheet to write and review one learner decision before you build its Routes or produce its media. The Move, Motive, Price method, Same Altitude pass, clue audit, and cold-read review are original Interakly editorial tools. They are not validated assessment scales. A Motive entry is an authoring hypothesis used to distinguish options. It is not a diagnosis of a learner who selects that option. ## How to use this worksheet 1. Define one real decision and its standard. 2. Record the evidence a learner can see before choosing. 3. Draft an author-only Move, Motive, Price record for every option. 4. Turn each Move into learner-facing copy. 5. Review the complete set for alignment and accidental clues. 6. Ask cold readers to interpret the choices without seeing the answer key. 7. Obtain domain approval where law, safety, policy, finance, health, or professional standards matter. 8. Test the final set in the real learner surface on desktop and phone. --- # Blank worksheet ## A. Decision boundary | Field | Author notes | |---|---| | Scenario title | | | Learner role | | | Immediate situation | | | Decision moment | | | What the learner is choosing first | | | Visible facts | | | Missing or uncertain facts | | | Time constraint | | | Authority constraint | | | Resource constraint | | | Real-world standard | | | Source for that standard | | | Exact learner prompt | | ### Decision line Complete this sentence: > At **[moment]**, the learner must choose **[first action]** to protect **[standard]** under **[constraint]**. Decision line: > ### Fairness check - [ ] Every fact needed to judge the choices appears before the options. - [ ] The learner has enough authority to take each proposed action. - [ ] The question names the relevant action horizon. - [ ] The standard has been verified rather than invented by the writer. - [ ] A qualified reviewer will approve regulated or organization-specific guidance. --- ## B. Move, Motive, Price ledger Duplicate this record for every proposed option. ### Choice [ID] **Learner-facing Move** What observable action does the learner choose? > **Author Motive hypothesis** What reasonable priority might make someone consider this action? > This entry is a writing hypothesis. Do not use it as a learner label. **What the action protects** > **Price or risk introduced** What does the action give up, narrow, delay, or place at risk? > **Evidence available before choosing** > **Next Scene proof** What visible change will demonstrate that this action mattered? > **Evaluation under the documented standard** - [ ] Required - [ ] Preferred - [ ] Acceptable - [ ] Recoverable but weak - [ ] Unsafe or prohibited - [ ] Not scored **Domain reviewer note** > --- ## C. Choice-set comparison | Review field | Choice A | Choice B | Choice C | Choice D, if needed | |---|---|---|---|---| | Leading verb | | | | | | Unit of action | | | | | | Time horizon | | | | | | Information density | | | | | | Distinct priority | | | | | | Distinct tradeoff | | | | | | Distinct next state | | | | | | Facts available in the scene | | | | | | Authority to act is established | | | | | | Policy or domain approval | | | | | ### Same Altitude pass - [ ] Every option answers the same learner question. - [ ] Every option represents the same unit of action. - [ ] Every option uses a comparable time horizon. - [ ] Each choice is specific enough to support a Route. - [ ] Parallel grammar helps comparison where appropriate. - [ ] Similar information density avoids a conspicuous preferred answer. - [ ] Options are not forced to identical word counts. Decision after review: > --- ## D. Clue audit Review the learner prompt and all visible option copy. | Possible clue | Found? | Where? | Revision | |---|---|---|---| | One option is noticeably longer or more polished | | | | | A moral adjective reveals approval or disapproval | | | | | One option copies words from the policy or objective | | | | | Only one option uses specialist terminology | | | | | A needed fact is hidden inside one option | | | | | An option uses an implausible always or never | | | | | A joke or villain makes elimination easy | | | | | An option is a vague catch-all | | | | | One choice contains several steps while another is one move | | | | | Tone or politeness reveals the author's preference | | | | | Option order, color, or position implies a ranking | | | | | Two options are wording variants of the same action | | | | ### Clue-audit result - [ ] No accidental clue substitutes for judgment. - [ ] Any unavoidable wording difference has been reviewed. - [ ] The preferred choice, if one exists, is supported by situation evidence and a documented standard. Notes: > --- ## E. Plain-language and accessibility review - [ ] The prompt uses direct language and a clear question. - [ ] Options begin with observable verbs. - [ ] Sentences are as short as the decision allows. - [ ] Specialist terms are explained before the Choice Moment. - [ ] There are no double negatives or nested conditions. - [ ] Meaning does not depend on color or option position. - [ ] Complete labels are available to assistive technology. - [ ] The interaction states that only one option may be selected when needed. - [ ] Keyboard focus order and focus visibility have been tested. - [ ] The option set has been checked at zoom and on a narrow phone screen. - [ ] Captions or transcripts preserve the context needed to choose. - [ ] Any timed presentation gives the learner enough opportunity to read and act. Issues and revisions: > --- ## F. Cold-read record Give reviewers only the learner-facing situation and choices. Do not show the objective, answer key, Routes, Motive notes, or feedback. ### Reviewer [name or ID] **What priority seems to drive each option?** | Choice | Reviewer's interpretation | |---|---| | A | | | B | | | C | | | D, if used | | **What do you expect to happen after each choice?** | Choice | Expected change | |---|---| | A | | | B | | | C | | | D, if used | | **Which option does the author appear to prefer?** > **What wording created that impression?** > **What fact would you need before choosing?** > **Did any two options feel equivalent? Why?** > **Revision decision** > Repeat the cold read with a new reviewer after material revisions. --- ## G. Interakly translation and route check | Worksheet object | Interakly object | Status | |---|---|---| | Learner prompt | Choice Moment question | | | Choice A Move | Choice Moment option and Route | | | Choice B Move | Choice Moment option and Route | | | Choice C Move | Choice Moment option and Route | | | Choice D Move, if used | Choice Moment option and Route | | | Next Scene proof A | Destination Scene or Outcome | | | Next Scene proof B | Destination Scene or Outcome | | | Next Scene proof C | Destination Scene or Outcome | | | Next Scene proof D, if used | Destination Scene or Outcome | | | Documented standard | Feedback, scoring, and reviewer notes | | ### Product checks - [ ] Only learner-facing Moves appear as options. - [ ] Every option has the intended Route destination. - [ ] Route labels preserve exact option meaning. - [ ] Preview pauses and displays the complete choice set correctly. - [ ] Every Route has been followed in Preview. - [ ] Desktop presentation has been reviewed visually. - [ ] Phone presentation has been reviewed visually. - [ ] Keyboard and assistive-technology behavior has been checked. - [ ] The uploaded-video requirement has been confirmed where complete segment branching is needed. Product notes: > --- ## H. Signoff | Responsibility | Name | Decision | Date | |---|---|---|---| | Scenario writer | | | | | Domain reviewer | | | | | Plain-language reviewer | | | | | Accessibility reviewer | | | | | Route tester | | | | | Product owner | | | | Version: > Open issues: > --- # Completed example: the incomplete client deck ## A. Decision boundary | Field | Author notes | |---|---| | Scenario title | The incomplete client deck | | Learner role | Project lead | | Immediate situation | A client deck is incomplete the afternoon before its scheduled review | | Decision moment | Thursday at 3:00 p.m. | | What the learner is choosing first | The first action to reduce delivery risk | | Visible facts | Review is Friday at 9:00 a.m.; three slides depend on changed data; Jordan cannot validate the figures; the shared analyst was reassigned | | Missing or uncertain facts | Which figures can be validated, what scope is essential, and whether the analyst can return | | Time constraint | Eighteen hours remain, including overnight time | | Authority constraint | Project lead may narrow scope and request escalation, but cannot claim unverified figures are valid | | Resource constraint | Shared analyst is assigned elsewhere | | Real-world standard | Reduce delivery risk without presenting unvalidated information | | Source for that standard | Demonstration standard created for this editorial example; replace with the organization's verified operating standard | | Exact learner prompt | The client review starts at 9:00 tomorrow. Three slides still use figures Jordan cannot validate because the dataset changed after the shared analyst was reassigned. What do you do first? | ### Decision line > At 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, the project lead must choose the first delivery-risk response to protect the accuracy of the client presentation under a hard deadline and incomplete data support. ## B. Completed Move, Motive, Price ledger ### Choice A **Learner-facing Move** > Ask Jordan to send the draft, take over the remaining work tonight, and review the handoff after the client meeting. **Author Motive hypothesis** > Protect the deadline through personal control. **What the action protects** > Immediate ownership and momentum. **Price or risk introduced** > Jordan's context and ownership are sidelined. The project lead may inherit uncertainty that cannot be resolved alone. **Evidence available before choosing** > The deadline is close and Jordan cannot validate three slides. **Next Scene proof** > A later data mismatch appears that the project lead cannot explain confidently. **Evaluation under the demonstration standard** - [x] Recoverable but weak ### Choice B **Learner-facing Move** > Review the changed sections with Jordan, confirm what can be validated by 6:00, then decide what to cut or escalate. **Author Motive hypothesis** > Reduce uncertainty before committing scope or resources. **What the action protects** > Accuracy, evidence-based escalation, and a defensible delivery decision. **Price or risk introduced** > The delivered deck may need to be smaller and the review consumes time immediately. **Evidence available before choosing** > The problem is concentrated in three slides, but the exact validation gap is unknown. **Next Scene proof** > The review finds two removable slides and one essential figure requiring escalation. **Evaluation under the demonstration standard** - [x] Preferred ### Choice C **Learner-facing Move** > Ask the analyst's manager to restore support for the evening, keep the full scope, and tell Jordan to coordinate the handoff. **Author Motive hypothesis** > Preserve the original commitment by restoring the missing resource. **What the action protects** > Full scope and access to specialist support. **Price or risk introduced** > Escalation disrupts another team's plan, and the analyst may return too late to rebuild context. **Evidence available before choosing** > The analyst was reassigned and changed data still needs validation. **Next Scene proof** > The analyst returns late and must first reconstruct what changed. **Evaluation under the demonstration standard** - [x] Acceptable only if the escalation and return time can be confirmed quickly ## C. Same Altitude result - All three choices describe a first response by the project lead. - All three commit to an observable action during the remaining workday. - The wording uses comparable detail and direct verbs. - No option contains a fact unavailable in the scene. - The choices protect different priorities: direct control, validated scope, and restored resources. ## D. Clue-audit result - “Planning failure” was removed from Choice A because it morally loaded the option. - Choice B was expanded from “ask Jordan to explain” into an observable review and decision boundary. - Choice C no longer assumes the missing analyst will solve the problem. Its wording requests support while the consequence tests whether support arrives in time. - The preferred option is supported by the demonstration standard and visible uncertainty, not by a kindness label or copied policy phrase. ## E. Cold-read prompts for this example Ask reviewers: 1. Which option appears to prioritize deadline control? 2. Which appears to prioritize validation before commitment? 3. Which appears to prioritize preserving scope? 4. Which option does the author seem to prefer? 5. What phrase created that impression? 6. Is any fact still missing before a project lead could choose responsibly? 7. What should the next Scene show after each selection? ## F. Method limit for this example This is a constructed writing example, not universal project-management guidance. Its standard and consequences were created to demonstrate option contrast. Replace them with the organization's verified delivery, data-quality, escalation, and client-communication rules before using a similar scenario for training or assessment. --- # Final release gate - [ ] One decision line controls the set. - [ ] Every option is plausible, distinct, observable, and consequential. - [ ] Motive notes remain author hypotheses. - [ ] Prices are visible in destination Scenes. - [ ] The set passes the Same Altitude review. - [ ] Accidental answer clues have been removed. - [ ] Multiple defensible actions are represented honestly. - [ ] Plain-language and accessibility review is complete. - [ ] At least one new cold reader has reviewed the final copy. - [ ] Domain approval is recorded where needed. - [ ] Every Route has been tested in the real learner experience.