PBS/PBT · September 17 · D08 · Case A STATIC · Period 1-2
K1: separate kitchen practice report
Optional worked support. This is the existing illustrative kitchen example, not Case A or Case B. No part of this model is a new required submission or evidence for your assigned case.
Start: Read the model, then return to your own-case report. Digital deadline: September 17, 11:59 PM.
K1. Separate kitchen practice report
Optional worked support. This is the existing illustrative kitchen example, not Case A or Case B. No part of this model is a new required submission or evidence for your assigned case.
A reddish smear is described on a wooden cutting board in a kitchen where someone reported a bad cut. The record has three swabs. It identifies photo C-01 for the cutting-board smear and mentions two location measurements, but supplies no numerical coordinates. C-01 is a listed reference, not a photograph shown here. The other descriptions are a brown spot on the sink rim and a red spot on the counter.
The supplied kitchen narrative classifies the cutting-board smear and counter spot as presumptive positives and the sink-rim spot as negative. Its colors are part of that illustrative narrative, not observations you made. This paper model uses its reported classifications. It gives no operating instructions and supplies no new result for your case.
A worked report row
- Record
- cutting-board smear, separate kitchen practice.
- Documentation
- the record names C-01 and says the location was documented. The two measurement values are not reported here.
- Reported result
- presumptive positive.
- Qualified phrase
- presumptive positive for blood; confirmatory testing required.
- Recorded route and reason
- the practice record sends this item forward because the surface was reportedly used by the injured person. That is the reason given in the record, not proof of the person's identity or where an injury occurred.
- Limit
- the referral supplies no follow-up result. Species, donor and time remain unestablished.
For the sink-rim spot, the model uses “no indication of blood by presumptive screen” and records that this example stops further routing for that item. It does not change the phrase to “no blood.” The counter spot retains the qualified positive phrase while waiting under this example's budget.
Worked classroom accounting
The kitchen example has three swabs and two allowances per swab:
- Starting allowances: 3 × 2 = 6.
- Recorded screens: 3. Remaining after screens: 6 − 3 = 3.
- Separate follow-up allowance: 1.
- Reported positives: 2. One can proceed under this limit; the other waits.
The remaining total allowance and the follow-up cap answer different questions. The example uses the one follow-up place for the cutting-board smear and leaves the counter spot waiting. This illustrates how a stated constraint affects a paper-record choice. It is not a universal rule about sample consumption.
Worked short memo
The separate kitchen record routes the cutting-board smear forward and leaves the counter spot waiting. Both are reported positives, but the practice budget allows only one follow-up. The source gives priority to the cutting board because it was reportedly used by the injured person; this is a stated reason, not proof of the event. Using that one allowance leaves no follow-up place for the counter spot now. Both records still need qualified positive language because no follow-up result is supplied.
Use the structure, not the answers
For your assigned report, return to your four own-case IDs, documentation references and budget. Your case has four swabs and two follow-up allowances. Decide from that record whether anything waits. Do not transfer C-01, the kitchen locations or the one-place limit into your case. F1 and R1–R6 provide the same report method without requiring a second example response.
Select your case and evidence ID.
Keep the documentation references with it.
Reported positive → use the qualified positive phrase.
Reported negative → use the qualified negative phrase.
Missing observation → write not reported.
Summary inference → state its condition and source.
Check the classroom allowances.
Give an evidence reason and say whether anything waits.
A route supplies no new test result or identity.
Keep your case, evidence ID, source and limit together.
Find your case and evidence ID, then retain its documentation references. Check whether the record supplies an individual positive, an individual negative, a missing observation or a conditional inference. Do not collapse those four statuses into two. Copy the supported qualified phrase or state the missing item or inference. Next, check the classroom allowance record and explain a proposed route with an evidence reason, including whether any reported positive must wait. Finish by stating the limits. A route does not produce a new result or identify a donor.
The qualified positive phrase is “presumptive positive for blood; confirmatory testing required.” The qualified negative phrase is “no indication of blood by presumptive screen.” Both keep the limits explained in R3. The rust row keeps the exact conditional status provided in your case data.
Optional check
If two entries disagree, record the disagreement or missing information. Do not fill a gap with the other case, the kitchen example or an expected color. In this exercise, no new test is required to finish the report.
Connection to PLTW
Related PLTW reference:
- Activity 1.1.4 Blood Evidence
This John Hay original record exercise practices careful reporting, limited-resource reasoning and evidence limits connected to PLTW Activity 1.1.4, Blood Evidence, in Lesson 1.1, Investigating the Scene. It does not certify completion of the official activity. The retained PLTW activity link is supporting access, not an extra task for this report. If it does not open, the required explanation and records are here.
Before any separate teacher-directed hands-on task, complete the existing Kastle-Meyer preparation gate and follow your teacher's approved instructions. This paper report does not provide bench clearance or certify practical performance. No extra DNA simulation is required for the report.
Local John Hay practice connected to the activity, not certification of official completion.
Turn in one report
Complete one presumptive test report, Parts A–E. Hand the paper report to Mr. Mendoza before leaving, or submit one PDF to this section's Schoology assignment by September 17 at 11:59 PM. Use your period and investigator code. Do not submit the same report twice; keep notebook pages in your notebook.
Keep notebook pages in your notebook. You may copy F1 and update a line in your evidence log as support; do not upload a second product.
Case A: submit to Wk4 D08 · Maybe Is a Result (PLTW 1.1.4)Carry forward your evidence IDs, reported classifications and limits. A later lesson needs its own supplied evidence; today's report does not supply a DNA result.
Sources and optional background
For A1–A2, use R2. For the four rows, use R3 and the F1 record workflow. For the budget and memo, use R4–R5 and the separate kitchen model. For a documentation question, use R6. Guided notes can help organize your thinking; they are not another submission. The explanation above contains the required background, so the source links are not an additional reading assignment.
- S1. NIJ screening background
cited in R2.
- S2. NIST definition
cited in R2.
- S3. NIST, §§4.6.2–4.6.3
cited in R5.
- S4. NIJ DNA-result background
cited in R5.
- S5. NIST-hosted 2017 draft, §§4.2.9–4.2.12
cited in R6.
Today's records do not establish species, donor or time of deposition. A DNA comparison would be separate evidence; none is supplied here. A route does not produce a new result or identify a donor.