Recover the evidence pack
Lesson 7 handover · Four-minute readiness check
Place the Lesson 7 triple draft, fact matrix, register annotations, Lesson 6 constraint, six-sentence recording and two revision goals together.
Confirm that today begins with evidence-based revision rather than three texts rewritten from zero.
- Name the exact local stretch attached to each revision goal and the source-record fact it must preserve.
- Read the three openings in sequence. State what relationship and discourse job each one signals.
- If an item is missing, mark it missing and use the relevant fallback in the assessment brief; do not invent evidence that it existed.
Two products, one principle of control
Written product · 450 words combined
Submit the Lesson 7 project record as three finished pieces: A, a 130-word familiar personal email to Rafa; B, a 150-word neutral community update; and C, a 170-word formal update to cultural services. Revise the two named local goals from Lesson 7 and retain the fact matrix. This is a final version of the existing triple piece, not a new topic.
Spoken product · one unfamiliar record, three audiences
After a short preparation, deliver the same decision update to a close collaborator, a community audience and an institutional officer. A listener must recover the stable facts and identify the intended relationship from interacting lexical, grammatical, discourse and delivery cues.
What counts as comparable evidence
| Requirement | Written triple piece | Spoken demonstration |
|---|---|---|
| Meaning stability | The same eight Lesson 7 facts, permissions and safeguards remain recoverable in A, B and C | The same six unfamiliar facts remain recoverable in all three deliveries |
| Audience adaptation | Each opening, information path, request and closing serves its named reader | Each delivery establishes relationship and action without announcing a register label |
| Register control | Lexical, grammatical and discourse choices form a coherent local bundle | Wording works with chunking, prominence, full forms or reductions where meaning requires them |
| Flexibility | Targeted revision improves a documented local consequence while preserving successful choices | The speaker shifts after a new audience cue and can repair drift without restarting the whole turn |
Choose the action that produces valid evidence for this assessment.
1. A learner dislikes the personal version and wants to replace all 130 words during the final revision window. What should happen?
2. Before the spoken task, may the learner prepare three complete scripts?
3. A speaker self-corrects a weakened prohibition and continues. What should the observer record?
Judge six dimensions separately
Use evidence labels: not yet · emerging · secure
| Dimension | Secure written evidence | Secure spoken evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Proposition and ethics | Participants, certainty, permission, prohibition, attribution, privacy and dates remain exact across all three pieces | The six new facts remain stable; no audience receives a stronger promise, wider permission or identifying detail |
| Audience and purpose | The reader can identify relationship, reason for writing and required action from the text itself | The listener identifies recipient and action without hearing a register label |
| Register bundle | Address, vocabulary, grammar and politeness choices cohere locally and avoid caricature | Lexical and grammatical choices work together; the shift is more than one marked word |
| Discourse organization | The opening, fact order, paragraph boundaries and closing reflect what that reader needs first and next | Chunking and sequencing reveal the decision, boundary, action and next review point |
| Delivery | Punctuation and layout support the intended reading path | Prominence, pace, full forms and reductions support meaning and relationship without equal stress throughout |
| Flexibility and repair | The two named revisions improve the target consequence without unnecessary global rewriting | The speaker responds to an audience switch or clarification, repairs local drift and continues |
Match each observation to the dimension it directly supports or challenges.
P Proposition and ethics
A Audience and purpose
R Register bundle
O Discourse organization
D Delivery
F Flexibility and repair
1. All three listeners recovered that no decision had yet been made.
2. The public version gave the consultation process before telling visitors what to do.
3. A close collaborator heard ceremonial vocabulary and an impersonal passive throughout.
4. The institutional listener could not tell what response was requested.
5. Selective stress made the contrast between a proposal and a decision immediately recoverable.
6. After a clarification request, the speaker restored the deadline and continued without restarting.
Protect the decision boundary
Make the smallest repair required by the note. Say which evidence dimension the original would weaken.
1. Most contributors have approved the heading. — the record says all four
2. Noor’s recording will be available on Saturday. — preserve the two-minute and room-only scope
3. Dear Rafa, I hereby wish to notify you that the heading has secured unanimous approval.
4. Hey, just ping us whenever about any accessibility stuff. — neutral public instruction; participation form by Friday 12:00
5. We HAVE made the decision and we MAY consult contributors next. — no decision yet; consultation comes first
6. Sorry, let me start all three versions again. — one deadline drifted
Submit the writing, then shift live
Part 1 · Final written triple piece · 8 minutes
Return to the 130 + 150 + 170-word Voices of Harbour Street draft from Lesson 7. Complete the two local revisions named in its handover brief.
Submit one traceable 450-word portfolio piece in three audience versions with successful earlier choices preserved.
- Minutes 1–4: complete only the two documented revisions. If one goal is no longer supported by the local evidence, write “not evidenced” and replace it with one source-record discrepancy you can cite.
- Minutes 5–6: audit the eight facts across A, B and C against the Lesson 7 matrix. Check every permission, prohibition, participant, day and time before checking style.
- Minute 7: confirm the visible counts: A 130, B 150, C 170, combined 450 words. Use the same counting convention recorded in Lesson 7.
- Minute 8: attach the before-and-after stretches and one sentence explaining the audience or listener consequence improved by each revision.
- If the Lesson 7 draft is missing, use these eight minutes to reconstruct the fact matrix and opening/action/closing plan. Complete the triple piece after the lesson and mark the written assessment incomplete until all three texts and revision evidence exist.
Unfamiliar spoken record · Reveal at the start of Part 2
- The feedback form received 27 responses.
- Nineteen respondents requested an evening listening period.
- The venue is available the following Thursday from 18:30 to 20:00.
- No change has been decided.
- The four contributors and the access lead will be consulted before any decision.
- The team will publish its decision on Friday at 12:00; no individual response will be quoted without that person’s consent.
Spoken audience cards
| Round | Recipient | Discourse job |
|---|---|---|
| A | Rafa, the close collaborator who helped design the listening room | Share the response pattern, think aloud without implying a decision and ask what practical issue he sees |
| B | Community members following the project | Report what the feedback shows, explain the consultation and tell listeners when a decision will appear |
| C | A cultural services officer responsible for venue support | Give a concise evidence and process update, distinguish availability from authorization and confirm the reporting point |
Part 2 · Spoken register-flex demonstration · 18 minutes
Work with an observer or record yourself. The speaker sees the unfamiliar record and all three audience cards but may prepare facts and priorities only, not complete scripts.
Deliver the same six facts to A, B and C, then respond to one audience switch and one clarification without losing the proposition.
- Minutes 1–3 · preparation: make one six-fact grid. Add a first/next/final discourse path for each audience and mark the decision-versus-possibility contrast. Do not write sentences.
- Minutes 4–9 · three deliveries: speak to A, B and C for 60–75 seconds each, with no register labels. Pause briefly between rounds to reset relationship, purpose and delivery.
- Minutes 10–13 · listener reconstruction: the observer records the six facts recovered, identifies each recipient and cites two cues. The speaker listens without defending the performance.
- Minutes 14–16 · live switch: the observer selects one 20–30-second stretch and names a different audience. The speaker adapts it immediately while preserving the facts.
- Minutes 17–18 · clarification and repair: the observer asks either “Has the evening period been approved?” or “Can individual responses be quoted?” The speaker answers, repairs any drift locally and completes the turn.
Part 3 · Evidence record · 4 minutes
Use the six criteria once both products exist. Keep written and spoken evidence separate before describing the overall unit profile.
Label each dimension not yet, emerging or secure and cite one exact observation.
- For writing, cite a local stretch, fact-matrix item, discourse position or documented revision consequence.
- For speaking, cite a recovered fact, audience inference, cue, switch response or self-repair. Avoid unsupported labels such as natural, advanced or good accent.
- Record one demonstrated strength and one next condition to test. Missing evidence remains missing; do not average it into another dimension.
Build the unit profile from cited evidence
Unit 37 evidence record
| Dimension | Written label + evidence | Spoken label + evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Proposition and ethics | ||
| Audience and purpose | ||
| Register bundle | ||
| Discourse organization | ||
| Delivery | ||
| Flexibility and repair |
Choose the conclusion the evidence can support.
1. All three written pieces preserve the record, but two use the same discourse path and relationship cues. What is secure?
2. Listeners identify all three audiences and recover all facts, but the live switch changes no decision to a decision before a successful repair. What should be logged?
3. One learner uses few reductions in the formal delivery and more in the familiar delivery, while both are intelligible. What can the observer conclude?
Close the portfolio entry
Attach the evidence record to the final written and spoken products.
Write one bounded can-do claim and one next test.
- Complete: “I can adapt the same content for ___, ___ and ___ while preserving ___; this is visible in ___.”
- Complete: “Under ___ pressure, I still need to test whether ___.”
Archive the evidence and keep the input habit
Choose the evidence set that closes Unit 37.
1. Which portfolio entry supports the unit can-do claim?
Standing informal-input bridge
Keep one legally accessible The Allusionist episode concerned with register and one London Review of Books essay in the portfolio record. Cite the episode time stamp and essay paragraph opening, then record one proposition adapted for two relationships, the interacting cues and their effect; do not reproduce the source passage.
Bridge to Unit 38
Choose one of those source moments and note what changes across the longer stretch: voice, time, viewpoint, tension or relationship. That sequence becomes evidence for studying how long-form stories hold together.