WATER Check · Independent practice · Sept. 14, 2026 · Version 1.0

Did the displays work?

Classroom simulation: All records, posts, and summaries below are invented. No real library or student is described.

Source packet

Item 1, community post: “Library attendance tripled after the new displays. The displays made every student read more.”

Item 2, library announcement: Staff logged 6 program visits in March and 18 in April.

Item 3, scheduling record: The program was open for 3 sessions in March and 9 in April. Visits are not unique visitors. Reading time was not recorded.

Item 4, repost: “Multiple independent sources prove the displays work.” It links only to Items 1 and 2.

Your editorial decision

1. Wait: Record your initial reaction.
2. Ask: Separate the numerical claim from the causal claim and the claim about every student.
3. Trace: Map the linked sources. Identify what would count as independent evidence.
4. Examine: Calculate visits per session. Explain what cannot be inferred about individual students.
5. Respond: Write a fair two-sentence brief with attribution, state what remains unknown, and name a next reporting step.

Optional summary audit: The following is an instructor-written simulation, not actual AI output: “The announcement proves displays tripled attendance per session and increased reading for every student. Independent coverage confirms the result. More displays will guarantee further gains.”

Label each claim supported, contradicted, or not established. Explain your labels using the packet.

Framework: Eric Jourgensen. Adapted from Case B in the Sept. 6, 2026 News Media and AI Literacy course design, with AI assistance. Version 1.0.

Teacher guide. Print this page using your browser’s Print command.