# T2 — simulated high-school student first-use review

## Scope and setup

This is a blind AI simulation of a curious 16-year-old with adequate reading, no comparative-politics background, and no research vocabulary. It is not a real minor’s participation, a measured reading-time study, or evidence of learning effects. I used only the visible site at http://terminal.local:4173/?reviewer=T2, not code, external research, teacher materials, previous reviews, or the fallback text files.

A preview-routing problem initially displayed The Order Was Given. That material is excluded completely from these findings and preserved separately in T2_route_incident.md. After the parent confirmed the repair, I used one ordinary reload and verified The Hearing · Who Holds the Advantage and all four case choices. Mouse dispatch then failed twice; keyboard activation worked throughout. Those protocol problems are not game defects. The correct review used Malaysia, class mode, solo, with Malawi as the comparison.

## My first interpretation, before Help

“I think my job is to explain how one political side’s advantage limited someone else’s choices, using two supporting pieces of evidence and one that makes the story less simple. I know the election outcome already; I expect to defend an explanation rather than change it. ‘What your evidence can carry’ still feels vague.”

The opening looked calm and serious. “Your choices change the analysis, not history” prevented a mistaken expectation that I could win the election. The three board spaces seemed manageable. I understood “complication” as a reason my first story might be incomplete after the evidence page explained it; the word alone would not have been enough.

## What I did and understood across the six stages

| Stage | First-use observation |
|---|---|
| 01 Opening view | I chose Leadership and cooperation and recorded it. Defining incumbent and coalition beside the question helped. The opening states the final writing lengths, but both acronyms and “claim-specific source limit” arrive before I know the people or how to write such a limit. |
| 02 Choose evidence | I skimmed all six previews, opened full MY3, MY5, MY4 and their source details, and chose MY3/MY5 as support and MY4 as complication. The explicit explanation that three spaces limit use, not reading, worked. The shared-source warning made clear that two cards are not automatically two independent checks. |
| 03 Make a connection | I filled actor, action, affected option, and the optional inference, then wrote the main paragraph. The invented library example made the structure concrete. I could distinguish choosing Mahathir from assuming voters trusted him, although I remained uncertain whether that was the intended kind of “advantage.” |
| 04 Take questions | I answered both source-use challenges and recorded reasons for keeping my paragraph. The correct-reading feedback was clear and did not pretend to grade my interpretation. Choosing an answer and then recording a board decision are two separate tasks; the page is long enough that this distinction needs attention. |
| 05 Test another case | I selected Malawi and Compare routes to a result, opened full MW3/MW4 and their source details, and entered a comparison. The brief explains the court-created opportunity separately from the later winner. “A failed analogy” and “what they imply about the same observation” remained harder than the historical story. |
| 06 Finish & save | I read the requirements and inclusion checks. The app correctly showed my 72-word main paragraph and 39-word comparison. It explained that finishing is local saving, not teacher submission. I left the two self-checks unticked and did not finish, export, print, or hand in a record. |

Afterward I read in-game How to play, then returned to open MY2’s full card for the political-power context. I did not open external source links. Optional supporting-card notes, source attachments, the fresh Vale test, and closing briefing were not completed.

## Is the political context sufficient?

It is sufficient once I unfold and read the relevant material. BN held government before 2018; PH challenged it; winning enough local seats determined control. The terms panel explains Najib, Mahathir, PR, PH, PAS and 1MDB. MY2 adds concrete powers: investigations, prosecutions and party registration. MY3/MY5 show opponents could choose a former insider, reorganize alliances, or contest separately.

The difficulty is placement. Before opening the terms panel and MY2, “advantaged incumbent” feels like a label I am expected to accept. My selected leadership route did not itself explain the government’s practical advantages. A student could write about cooperation without fully understanding what made the contest unequal. The visible evidence carefully avoids claiming that restrictions measured a particular number of changed votes; retain that distinction.

## Comprehension probe after use

What I think I learned: a government can lose despite holding useful powers, and an opposition victory does not prove those powers were irrelevant. A result table records what happened; it does not explain every choice. Different opponents also need not become one organization to defeat a government.

Concrete example: MY3 says PH chose Mahathir, who had governing experience. MY5 says PAS remained outside PH. I can therefore suggest that PH offered an experienced alternative without saying every opponent united. I cannot tell from those cards how many voters changed because of Mahathir rather than living costs or 1MDB.

Still unclear: how the source would show that governing experience actually changed voters’ confidence, and how strongly I may use “more possible” when that confidence is inferred. I can propose interviews with switchers, but do not yet know what would make that evidence convincing. This is a probe of this simulated reading, not a demonstrated learning gain.

## Seven prioritized recommendations, retaining rigor and information

1. **Make the basic power map visible in 01.** Show BN/Najib holding government, PH/Mahathir challenging, and local seats determining control. Add one sourced sentence pointing to MY2’s legal and registration pressures. Keep the full people-and-terms panel, all dates and qualifications; do not require opening it to identify the main actors.

2. **Translate research language at its point of use.** Pair “claim-specific source limit” with “what this source cannot tell you about your explanation”; pair “causal effect” with “whether, and how much, this change produced the result.” Explain civil forfeiture and misappropriation briefly beside MY4. Keep the technical terms and full definitions available.

3. **Layer source detail by relevance.** Lead with source maker/date, the observation it supports, and one relevant limit. Put full titles, page locations, upload history, decimal discrepancies and methodological details in a clearly labeled deeper disclosure. Preserve every detail and link. Label “Card MY3” versus “Original source MY-B” consistently.

4. **Show a compact, complete task list before writing begins.** Include the required complication reason, three connection fields, two answer-plus-decision cycles, main paragraph, comparison, competing account, evidence request, and final confirmations. Keep optional items explicitly optional. The required complication phrase should also appear in the main evidence-selection flow, alongside its board slot.

5. **Extend the existing neutral example with a before/after check.** For the library example, show what workers could do before and after, then mark the unmeasured reason for attendance. Let the student ask, “Did I name someone whose choices changed?” This teaches the missing reasoning step without supplying a Malaysia answer.

6. **Make each hearing cycle visibly sequential.** Label the controls “1 Choose a source reading,” “2 Read feedback,” and “3 Keep or change your own explanation, with a reason.” Keep practice separate from human judgment and retain attempt history. A correct radio answer should never look like the entire hearing task is finished.

7. **Make next-step language and comparison prompts concrete.** Replace “Next required item: You confirmed…” with an action such as “In Finish & save, confirm that your paragraph states a source limit.” For comparison, offer empty prompts for same step, changed option, and important difference. Keep the warning against comparing unlike vote/seat measures and all existing evidence.

Browser work ended with tab 77 closed. I inspected all six stages but did not verify export, resume, pair work, or final completion behavior.


## Exact entered responses and recorded selections

**Opening selection:** Leadership and cooperation. Confidence remained “A first idea · I expect to test it.” No optional name or own-opening text was entered.

**Board:** Supporting evidence 1 MY3; Supporting evidence 2 MY5; Complication MY4. Optional role selections remained their defaults. No optional supporting-note phrases or connection evidence attachments were entered.

**Complication reason**

Anger about costs and 1MDB might explain the change more than choosing Mahathir.

**Who acted or held the advantage?**

PH, the opposition alliance

**What did they do or hold?**

It chose Mahathir, a former prime minister from the old governing camp, to lead it.

**Whose options changed, and how?**

Voters could choose an opposition led by someone with governing experience. I infer this made changing government feel more possible, but the cards do not measure that feeling.

**What might that help explain?**

Why PH could win despite BN already holding power.

**Current explanation — app count 72 words**

MY3 shows PH chose Mahathir, an experienced former prime minister, to lead its challenge. That gave voters an opposition option with government experience, which I think could make replacing BN seem more possible. MY5 shows PH won without every opposition party joining it. But MY4 suggests living costs and 1MDB anger also mattered. These records describe events; they do not show how many voters changed because of Mahathir rather than those concerns.

**Source-use question 1 choice**

Leadership and alliance membership changed, while PAS contested outside PH; an opposition alliance had also existed in 2013.

**Question 1 decision:** Keep it, with a reason.

MY5 already shows PAS stayed outside PH; I did not claim that all opponents united.

**Source-use question 2 choice**

It records pre-election allegations and a legal action; connecting that controversy to voting requires evidence about voters' responses.

**Question 2 decision:** Keep it, with a reason.

MY4 is only a possible rival in my paragraph; I still need evidence about voters.

**Competing explanation**

Voters rejected BN mainly because of living costs and 1MDB, even without Mahathir’s experience.

**Needed evidence**

If leadership mattered, switchers would name trust in Mahathir; if costs mattered more, they would name bills. I would want interviews with people who changed from BN to PH in 2018.

**Comparison selections:** Malawi; Compare routes to a result.

**Comparison — app count 39 words**

In both Malaysia in 2018 and Malawi in 2020, opponents changed leadership cooperation. MW4 shows former rivals offered voters one joint ticket. But Malawi first needed a court-ordered new election (MW3); leadership changes alone could not create that opportunity.

**Not entered:** the two final confirmation checkboxes, optional limitation highlight, fresh Vale inference answer, closing briefing, or any final completion/export command.

