From identity to decisions and data

A rule needs a reason—and a way to challenge it

Finish the workbook's OPC–NIST source comparison first. Then inspect this third perspective: a regulator explaining a policy.

Source window · Australian eSafety Commissioner

New regulatory guidance released to support social media industry ahead of minimum age law · 16 September 2025.

The guidance describes a layered approach to age assurance, alternatives to government identification and review for people wrongly flagged. Use this dated Australian policy example to examine design choices. It is not a rule for Canada, a rule for every online service, or proof that a particular system works well.

1. Locate a passage about review or an alternative method. Record its heading or a short location note.
2. Connect it to one power relationship and one system dependency.
3. What evidence would you need to judge whether the approach achieves its aims?

12-minute hearing

Consider a proposal to use an age check for access to a youth discussion space. Do not assume that the Australian platform law applies to it.

1. 2 minutes: choose roles: young service user, service designer, rights advocate, decision-maker. Identify a concern to investigate; do not assume everybody in that group thinks alike.
2. 4 minutes: each person proposes one design condition and a reason. Refer to a source or clearly label an assumption.
3. 3 minutes: challenge a dependency or trade-off in another proposal.
4. 3 minutes: each person independently writes a revised recommendation and one uncertainty.

Your teacher will then release a separate 20-minute independent task. Read the success criteria beforehand. Keep indicative answers out of the discussion until the task has been collected.

What can four observations tell us?

Source window · TikTok Help Center

For You · undated provider explanation, checked 27 September 2026.

TikTok describes a personalized feed and gives examples of signals, including interaction with similar posts, local popularity and recent publication. Its explanation gives reasons a post may be recommended; it does not reveal precise weights or independently demonstrate fairness.

Identify one stated signal. Separate what the provider says from what you would need to test. Our next model is invented for learning; it is not TikTok's algorithm.

Synthetic data lab · 20 minutes

One fictional session has the following records. No personal account is needed.

Declared topic preference: science. Download Table A · Download Table B.

1. 7 minutes: join the tables using Clip ID. Build columns for topic, duration, watched and completion = watched ÷ duration. Keep completion as a decimal. What happens if an ID is missing from the catalogue?
2. 7 minutes: map collection → storage → use/reuse → deletion. Name one access or retention decision. Which fields describe events, which describe the clips, and which are derived?
3. 6 minutes: explain why these would be primary data for the platform collecting the session but secondary data for a researcher receiving the table. In our lab they are synthetic, not measurements of a real person.

Independent interpretation · 15 minutes

Use one row to support two plausible interpretations of the person's interests. Distinguish observation from inference. Name additional evidence that could help decide between them. Avoid making a confident personality claim from a few events.

Class 3 also includes 5 minutes retrieval, 12 minutes explicit teaching, 8 minutes source inspection and 10 minutes repair: 70 minutes total.

A small rule can change the order

After the chapter check and an introduction to variables, conditions and loops, use your joined table.

Ranking lab · 25 minutes

For this finite classroom model:

• topicMatch = 1 if the clip topic equals the declared preference; otherwise 0.
• completion = watched / duration. Reject or flag rows with missing data, duration ≤ 0, or watched outside 0…duration.
• score = 2 × topicMatch + completion.
• Order clips by score, highest first. For a tie, use ascending Clip ID.

1. 8 minutes: trace each valid row. Show topicMatch, completion and score. Produce the resulting order.
2. 9 minutes: represent the algorithm in pseudocode and a flowchart. Include a loop through the finite list, a conditional, a variable update, the validity check and the sorting step. Explain when it stops.
3. 8 minutes: change the rule to score = topicMatch + 3 × completion. Recalculate and compare the order. Whose content becomes more visible? Explain how a designer's choice expresses a priority.

A high completion ratio is an observation, not proof of enjoyment or benefit. A ranking weight is a design decision, not a natural fact.

Independent changed-input check · 15 minutes

Your teacher supplies a fresh row or rule. Trace it without copying a classmate's calculation, explain the effect on order and identify one limitation. Keep the first attempt before making a repair.

Class 4: 12-minute chapter quiz + 5-minute correction; 8-minute teaching; 25-minute lab; 15-minute independent check; 5-minute exit = 70 minutes. Quiz coverage is confirmed by your teacher before release.

Bring forward

One accurate mechanism sentence. One source-backed claim with a limitation. One next action from feedback. This is the same Operation Get a 7 progression: explain, support, weigh, judge and transfer.