Reopen the midpoint decision
Retrieval · Lesson 4 briefing
Place the 180–220-word midpoint briefing, recording and listener trace beside the retained focus trajectory and local retest hypothesis.
Recover one gain, two risks, three conditions and the focus sequence that made one condition easy to follow.
- Say the recommendation in three neutral clauses before looking at the text.
- Name the marked sentence that improved listener recovery and the prior question or rival that earned it.
- Name the seam that still needs a live retest: formation, warrant, sequence, evidence strength, prominence or release to given topic.
- Keep the written briefing closed during the main discussion; use its evidence map rather than memorised sentences.
Choose the response that updates rather than repeats the discussion’s common ground.
1. Everyone now accepts that the cabin itself is step-free. A participant asks whether that settles accessibility. What response moves the discussion forward?
A discussion changes the information state every turn
Five responsive moves
| Move | Discourse job | Possible packaging |
|---|---|---|
| Acknowledge | Place a valid prior point into common ground | The step-free cabin would remove a substantial physical barrier. |
| Correct | Select the value that replaces a stated rival | It is the proof rule, not the two-credit price, that may exclude some residents. |
| Expose a gap | Name what the current evidence or proposal does not supply | What the consultation record lacks is a count of unique participants. |
| Limit a claim | State exactly what evidence can do before restoring uncertainty | All the rent comparison does is identify a pattern requiring investigation. |
| Convert focus to action | Let the selected value become the topic of an accountable condition | That pattern requires tenant monitoring and a published response trigger. |
Match each live challenge to the move the next speaker most needs.
A Acknowledge
C Correct a rival
G Expose a gap
L Limit a claim
X Convert focus to action
1. A trader has just supplied a valid relocation concern that your earlier position ignored.
2. A speaker says the eight-credit visitor fare is the reason informal tenants may be excluded from the resident rate.
3. A participant treats 438 meeting attendances as 438 distinct, representative residents.
4. A speaker says the larger nearby rent rise proves the route announcement caused displacement.
5. Everyone now agrees that post-return market rent is unresolved, but the discussion has not specified a remedy.
Responsiveness test
A prepared cleft may become unnecessary after another speaker has already established its value. Listen for what has changed: a value can be new, contrastive, accepted, disputed or superseded. Repackage the next turn around the audience’s current question, not the sentence you planned two minutes earlier.
Keep focus, stance and evidence strength aligned
Live-choice matrix
| Information state | Form choice | Prosodic choice |
|---|---|---|
| New neutral fact | Direct finite clause | Broad or final prominence on the new predicate/value |
| Explicit rival needs correction | It-cleft with the rival named where useful | Nuclear prominence on the replacement value; rival deaccented after contrast |
| Open or missing value | What/where/why pseudo-cleft | Given wh-frame lighter; strongest prominence on the value |
| Required value should lead | Reversed pseudo-cleft | Prominence on the fronted value without splitting its noun phrase |
| Evidence needs narrowing | All-cleft or direct limiting clause | Contrast what the evidence does with what it does not establish |
| Accepted focus becomes next topic | Neutral reference or precise lexical repetition | Reduce corrective prominence; stress the new consequence or action |
Match each discussion context to the response that preserves both focus and evidence status.
Portuguese–English live-focus check
Review one repeated packaging or prominence choice from your own Unit 39 recordings and, if possible, how you would make the same correction in Brazilian Portuguese.
Form one individual transfer hypothesis that can be tested during the live discussion.
- Name the observed feature and at least two English examples; do not infer from intuition alone.
- Predict one listener outcome, such as misplaced contrast or failure to release an accepted topic.
- If evidence is insufficient, label the hypothesis untested and focus on the English listener result.
Respond to the claim that was actually made
Order the moves into a coherent response, then deliver them as one 45-second turn.
- Release the missing route as given information and propose a whole-journey audit.
- Identify the assumption that cabin access completes the whole journey.
- Name the drawings still needed before the audit can support approval.
- Acknowledge that the step-free cabin removes a serious physical barrier.
- Use a marked structure to foreground the missing upper-station-to-clinic route.
Challenge carousel · Five quick turns
Respond to five claims from the Lesson 1 dossier: cabin access settles accessibility; comment support represents the district; rent data prove causation; the resident fare reaches all residents; temporary units settle trader risk.
Give five 30-second responses whose packaging changes with the information state.
- Use at least two different cleft families across the carousel, but keep a neutral clause where it works better.
- In each turn, acknowledge one valid element, focus one gap or correction, then state a consequence or evidence need.
- A listener labels the responsive move and focal value; discard any planned cleft that does not answer the actual claim.
Negotiate a mobility-justice recommendation
Pushed output · Live critical-geography panel
A final review panel must recommend approval, conditional approval, redesign pause or rejection of the Vista Line. Participants represent everyday mobility, disability access, market livelihoods, housing, public finance and the visitor economy, but every claim must remain inside the shared dossier.
Sustain a responsive discussion and agree on a decision whose benefits, burdens, evidence limits and accountable conditions remain recoverable.
- Minutes 1–3 · prepare: choose a provisional decision, one priority group, one serious counterargument and three dossier facts. Use noun phrases only; do not script clefts.
- Minutes 4–8 · opening round: give 60–90-second positions. State who gains mobility, who bears risk, who decides and which evidence limits your conclusion.
- Minutes 9–13 · challenge round: use the five prompts “Who benefits?”, “Who pays?”, “Who decides?”, “What does that evidence not show?” and “What changes if this point is accepted?” Respond to the current claim, not a prepared sentence.
- Minutes 14–18 · negotiate: agree on a decision and three enforceable conditions or refusal grounds. Use at least two earned marked structures from different families across your contributions; return to neutral clauses when focused values become shared topics.
- Minutes 19–20 · decision statement: one speaker gives a two-minute synthesis covering access chain, distributional burden, procedural legitimacy, causal limits and responsible actors.
- Minute 21 · listener map: record the final decision, three conditions, two major focus shifts, their implied rivals and the language or prominence that carried them. Working alone, record a six-to-eight-minute staged panel with timed challenge prompts, then reconstruct after a delay.
- Minute 22 · save: preserve the unedited audio, preparation notes, decision statement and listener map for Lesson 6. Mark exact time stamps for one successful shift and one failed or effortful seam.
Panel evidence record
| Dimension | Required evidence |
|---|---|
| Critical geography | Access, cost, power and place change connected rather than listed |
| Source integrity | Vista Line claims remain within the dossier; authentic-source lenses are attributed if used |
| Responsiveness | Turns acknowledge or challenge the preceding claim and update common ground |
| Marked focus | Two different earned families select recoverable values or limits |
| Release | Accepted focal values become neutral topics leading to consequence or action |
| Prosody | Nuclear prominence identifies new/contrastive value; given frames recede |
Judge the focus by the discussion it enabled
Choose the feedback claim supported by the panel record.
1. A what-cleft makes the missing proof route clear, and the next speaker proposes an eligibility process. What succeeded?
2. A prepared it-cleft repeats a contrast settled three turns earlier, and the discussion stalls. What should be logged?
3. The listener hears the intended rent focus but infers proven causation. What repair is needed?
Evidence log · Prepare Lesson 6
Compare the listener map with the exact audio time stamps.
Record one retained live-focus sequence and one local repair hypothesis.
- For the success, cite prior claim, responsive move, focal value, next action and listener recovery.
- For the repair, classify formation, gap, warrant, sequence, evidence drift, prominence or failure to release.
- Keep the first performance untouched; Lesson 6 will repair only evidence-supported seams.
Carry exact seams into refinement
Choose the strongest Lesson 6 repair package.
1. What should the learner bring to form-refinement work?
Standing informal-input bridge
Continue the same long 99% Invisible episode and long-form urban-geography essay. Find one moment where a speaker or writer revises, limits or releases a previously prominent claim. Save the exact time stamp or paragraph opening, describe the information-state change in your own words and compare it with one time-stamped seam from today’s panel. Bring both to Lesson 6 without copying extended source wording.