 THE HEARING / FACILITATOR GUIDE / REVIEWED VERSION



 One class. An explanation on trial.
 Who Holds the Advantage | Created by Yoav Duman | Revised 30 October 2026

 Students curate two supporting observations and one complication, connect an action to another actor's
 options, face objections, and use a second country to test the explanation. Historical outcomes are visible
 from the start. They investigate what can be defended, rather than change the election result.

 Prepare before class
 Open The_Hearing.html in a modern browser, or use the hosted preview. The downloaded file contains its
 graphics, evidence and sources; the core needs no internet. Choose For class and assign a main case,
 repeating all four across the room. Original-source links are optional. For class blocks pasted text; built-in
 frames and backup import remain available.

 For individual assessment, use one browser/device per student. Give each partner a brief private thinking
 turn, then alternate proposer/skeptic roles while keeping their own final account. A shared device
 produces one shared record. Do not treat it as two independent submissions.

   Minutes       Work and consequential choice


   0-4           Open the hearing. Explain evidence versus an inferred connection with the bus example.


   4-7           Choose the main case and a provisional account. Record an initial hunch.


   7-16          Inspect the table and all headings. Select two supporting cards and a distinct complication.


   16-23         Name a short target; build the actor/action/option connection and begin the explanation.


   23-30         Use the two-question agenda: answer each source challenge and record its own decision. Swap
                 roles.


   30-35         Apply board decisions; review the paragraph. Name a rival explanation and useful further evidence.


   35-45         Choose a second country to test the account. Read its table and relevant cards; compare.


   45-52         Finish the brief, inspect the record and export. If assigned, give or rehearse a 40-second briefing.


   52-55         Discuss what survived scrutiny and what new evidence would help.




THE HEARING / WHO HOLDS THE ADVANTAGE / FACILITATOR USE                                                                 1
 FACILITATION / KEEP THE REASONING, REDUCE THE FRICTION



 What to say, what to watch
 The timetable is a design estimate. Protect the final explanation and comparison.

 A thirty-second opening
 "Buses arrived late is an observation. A bridge closure forced them onto a congested route proposes a
 connection. Drivers starting late is another explanation. Arrival times alone do not choose between them.
 In your case, name an action and explain whose options it changed."

 The game constraint
 All evidence is freely readable. Three board spaces represent limited public attention: two supporting
 cards and a complication. More cards do not automatically make a stronger account. Replacing one can
 leave an earlier claim without its original support. Ask students to inspect the revision trail.

 When a student stalls
 Ask who held an advantage, which action or rule affected whose opportunity, and which part is recorded
 or inferred. Keep directly recorded facts; compare accounts of an unresolved motivation, implementation
 or effect. Do not manufacture disagreement about an established event.

 During the hearing
 Both source-use challenges remain required. The agenda shows one at a time or both; recorded attempts
 are not correctness. Each decision names a phrase or link in the learner response. Keeping, narrowing and
 replacing need reasons. The rival and evidence request carry the stronger assessment work.

 Keep writing bounded
 Aim for 60-85 words in the main explanation; 50-120 is accepted for completion. The comparison remains
 30-45 words. Short responses name a shared uncertain link, competing accounts and differing expected
 observations. Board changes do not rewrite paragraphs; students must reconcile them. The source limit
 belongs in the paragraph; a separate callout is optional. A human judges quality.

   If you have...      Adapt the session


   50 minutes          Shorten opening discussion and oral reports. Keep both source challenges, revision and the
                       comparison. Use the opening/evidence table and the most relevant cards for the second
                       case.


   60 minutes          Use the extra five minutes for paired challenge and a whole-class comparison. Do not add a
                       new essay.


   Longer              Release the evidence early or extend completion. No countdown or speed score is needed.
   accommodations      Do not remove the source, mechanism or alternative requirement.


 Closing question
 "Two cases show retention and two show turnover. Does a shared result establish a shared cause? What
 could actors actually change?" Carry one unresolved observation into Levitsky and Way. These selected
 cases are a primer, not a controlled test of the entire article.




THE HEARING / WHO HOLDS THE ADVANTAGE / FACILITATOR USE                                                             2
 ASSESSMENT / HISTORICAL SCOPE



 Look for an accountable explanation
 Assess the evidence and reasoning, rather than agreement with a favored interpretation.


   Look for              A substantive response


   Evidence              Two distinct, precise observations, cited with valid item IDs. Repeating a table fact in a card is
                         still one observation.


   Connection            A named action, rule or advantage affects another actor's option. Mark an inferred baseline; a
                         result is not a mechanism.


   Scope                 A claim-specific limit: measurement, population, sequence, source role or an unobserved
                         causal link.


   Challenge             Competing accounts of a shared uncertain link, a meaningful complication, and a reasoned
                         decision to retain, narrow or replace.


   Comparison            A named event/period, second-case evidence and a process difference that tests or bounds
                         the claim; the analogy may fail.

 Suggested participation scale: 100 for a substantive attempt across these operations; 70 for meaningful work with a
 major operation incomplete; 0 for no substantive attempt, subject to course policy and accommodations. Neither speed,
 length, confidence nor a preferred political explanation belongs in the score.

 Russia, January to March 2024
 The Levada percentages are survey responses with different denominators, not official returns. Reported
 support and restricted challenger opportunities can coexist. No OSCE mission establishes a missing check,
 not a fabricated-vote total. The file cannot recover an unrestricted campaign that never occurred.

 Malaysia, 2013 and 2018
 PR and PH were different alliances. Cooperation already existed in 2013; PAS remained outside PH in
 2018. PH's 113 seats exclude Warisan's eight. A vote-seat gap does not alone establish fraud. DOJ
 complaints documented allegations, and the late-2018 reform episode cannot cause an earlier victory.

 Malawi, 2019 to 2020
 Separate reopening the contest, implementing the ruling and explaining its different winner.
 Constitutional interpretation changed the rule applied; the constitutional text was not newly amended.
 Adding former rivals' shares does not establish individual voter transfer. The annulled 2019 figures are not
 a corrected count.
 Two official MEC publications report slightly different 2020 totals, with the same shares at one decimal; the discrepancy
 remains unexplained. The game preserves the audited rounded presentation and source limitations. Do not explain the
 difference away as simple rounding.

 Serbia, October 2023 to 6 February 2024
 The SNS-led list won its own majority, 129 of 250 seats. This was a parliamentary contest; President Vucic
 campaigned but was not a parliamentary candidate. Genuine alternatives can coexist with unequal
 conditions. One investigation cannot estimate nationwide vote effects.



THE HEARING / WHO HOLDS THE ADVANTAGE / FACILITATOR USE                                                                      3
 DESIGN BASIS / FIRST CLASSROOM PILOT



 What this version can establish
 A playable, research-informed design still needs an observed classroom trial.

 What the review covers
 Three AI first-use review rounds and a later focused homework review are documented separately. The
 latest adds nine fresh roles across preparation levels, including a high-school student, nonstudent and
 Instagram creator lens. Three used the interface to varying extents; six cold-read student materials. Setup
 exclusions and informed retests are separate. None is human evidence of timing or learning gains.

 What to collect in the first class
 Record when learners reach the exhibit, finish the hearing, begin comparison and file their account. Note
 misunderstood words and repeated source errors. Compare the initial hunch with the final explanation,
 and review first attempts as well as retries on source checks. Do not infer an effect merely because a later
 response is stronger after more evidence and scaffolding.

 A useful follow-up
 Use a new short case a week later if retention matters. Ask for one observation, an action/options
 connection and a source limit. If estimating effectiveness, use an appropriate comparison design; ordinary
 pilot notes establish usability and observed performance.

 Research informing the design
 The translations below are design inferences. None of these studies tested this political-evidence game.
 Schwartz, D. L., and Bransford, J. D. (1998). A Time for Telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475-522.
 doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1604_4. Three classroom studies combined contrasting psychology cases with later explanation.
 Design inference: use comparison to prepare an explicit closing discussion, rather than assume unguided exploration is
 enough. Author-hosted full text.

 Kuhn, D., and Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic Argumentation as a Vehicle for Developing Young Adolescents' Thinking.
 Psychological Science, 22(4), 545-552. doi:10.1177/0956797611402512. The multiyear dialogic intervention is not
 equivalent to a scripted skeptic in one lesson. Design inference: make objections specific and inspect the eventual
 individual account. Primary publisher abstract consulted.

 Butler, A. C. (2010). Repeated Testing Produces Superior Transfer of Learning Relative to Repeated Studying. Journal of
 Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(5), 1118-1133. doi:10.1037/a0019902. Four experiments
 examined retention and inferential transfer one week later. Design inference: include a fresh application task, not only
 identical retries. An immediate check does not establish durable transfer. Primary article abstract.

 Wineburg, S., Breakstone, J., McGrew, S., Smith, M. D., and Ortega, T. (2022). Lateral Reading on the Open
 Internet: A District-Wide Field Study in High School Government Classes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(5),
 893-909. doi:10.1037/edu0000740. A cluster-randomized study taught open-web evaluation. This curated file practices
 only selected source judgments; it does not train or establish full lateral-reading competence. Authors' study summary.

 Political reading: Levitsky, S., and Way, L. A. (2020). The New Competitive Authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 31(1),
 51-65. doi:10.1353/jod.2020.0004. Kept separate from the historical case evidence.




THE HEARING / WHO HOLDS THE ADVANTAGE / FACILITATOR USE                                                                       4
 HUMAN ASSESSMENT / A SHORT CALIBRATION EXAMPLE



 Facts are a beginning. Check the link.
 Use this invented example to calibrate feedback, without supplying a country answer.

 Fictional evidence: L1: a library extends evening opening hours. L2: recorded evening visits rise
 afterward. L3: the last bus still leaves before the new closing time. The file does not record visitors' work
 hours or reasons for attending.

 Accurate observation, unsupported jump
 "Evening visits increased after the hours changed, so the new hours solved access for everyone." The
 sequence is observed. The universal access claim and the cause of each visit are not established.

 A stronger, limited explanation
 "Longer hours (L1) gave late workers another opportunity to visit. L2 records more evening visits, but not
 visitors' reasons. A new event is a competing explanation; L3 limits access for people needing the last bus.
 I would compare ordinary and event evenings: added-hours visits on ordinary evenings would favor the
 hours account; an event-night concentration would favor the event account. Both could contribute, so
 these records do not isolate their effects."

   Criterion             What the stronger version does


   Evidence              Uses specific observations and their IDs, without turning a count into a motive.


   Action and option     Names an institutional action and a group with a changed opportunity.


   Limit                 States what the attendance record does not measure.


   Rival or              Names another possible cause and a transport constraint.
   complication


   Further evidence      Names observations and contrasting expected patterns, while acknowledging that causes
                         may combine.


 Participation calibration
 100 means substantive engagement with the reasoning moves, even when a conclusion remains
 debatable. 70 fits a meaningful attempt with a major move missing, such as accurate facts but no
 action/options link. 0 concerns no substantive attempt, subject to ordinary policy and accommodations.
 These are participation judgments, not an automatic measure of analytical mastery.

 A later application check
 A week later, offer a new fictional file: an opposition list gains seats despite unequal news coverage. Ask
 students to explain one possible action/options connection, identify what the result cannot show, and
 name evidence that could distinguish two accounts. Review the reasoning; neither immediate practice
 success nor a later single item establishes a learning effect by itself.




THE HEARING / WHO HOLDS THE ADVANTAGE / FACILITATOR USE                                                          5
 TEACHER PILOT / OBSERVE THE THINKING



 Check feasibility and understanding.
 A practical observation sheet. Use learner codes and existing work; completion is distinct from
 learning.

 Intended learning: identify an action or rule and an affected opportunity; distinguish recorded evidence
 from an inferred link; test a competing account and a bounded comparison. The research target is a short
 label outside the paragraph word count. Optional frames need every bracketed instruction replaced.

   Phase / planned minutes                                 Actual finish / help needed

   Opening and roles / 7                                   ________________________________

   Evidence selection / 9                                  ________________________________

   Target, connection and paragraph / 7                    ________________________________

   Two challenges and revision / 12                        ________________________________

   Comparison, save and debrief / 20                       ________________________________


 Use the learner response
 Ask for the target, a supported statement, its uncertain link and a differing expectation under a rival. Use
 the saved optional reflection; selecting a supplied answer is weaker evidence of independent reasoning.

   Human criterion                                                   0 absent / 1 partial / 2 clear

   Distinct supporting observations                                  _____ clause supported: __________________

   Actor/action/option and named target                              _____ inferred link: ______________________

   Source limit relevant to that claim                               _____ claim narrowed: ____________________

   Competing accounts share an uncertain link                        _____ target: ___________________________

   Evidence distinguishes their expectations                         _____ pattern: __________________________

   Second-case difference tests or bounds the claim                  _____ difference: ________________________
 These codes organize pilot notes; they are not a validated learning scale or an automatic participation grade. Keep
 substantive participation and analytical quality distinct.

 If the timetable slips
 Preserve both challenges, comparison and debrief. Save after the board/connection and resume in a
 second session if needed. Use paired 40-second rehearsals and sample public reports; do not delete
 reasoning to meet the clock.

 Voluntary exploration and classroom assessment
 Casual users may save drafts; complete records retain the research work. In class, assign PDF upload or
 Canvas Text Entry. Print / Save as PDF opens the browser dialog; Copy grading summary supplies text.
 The .json file is a backup. Explain accommodations. A substantive draft is assessable, but an unfinished
 format checklist is not a completed analysis.
 Later independent check: use unfamiliar material and another evidence type: observation, inference, limit and
 distinguishing evidence without supplied options. Delayed work can probe retention; causal learning claims need a
 suitable comparison design.




THE HEARING / WHO HOLDS THE ADVANTAGE / FACILITATOR USE                                                                6
