Recap in one sentence: last time the class directed an agent and named the plan, act, observe, adjust loop. Today is judgement with one tiny hands-on check, not a full build. Editors are needed only for the short human-check beat; the courtroom and list-builder run on the board or shared screen.

Keep this tight. Name the spectrum once (suggest versus act) and the three questions. Do not lecture the ethics; the human-check beat and the courtroom will do the teaching. Common misconception: students blame "the AI" and skip their own role. Push gently: the tool suggested; who chose to run it?

How to run it

Put this exact snippet on the board as "what an assistant suggested":

score = 10
print("You scored", scroe)

Whole class reads together. They should spot the typo scroe (should be score) before anyone types. Ask: what will it do if we run it as written? (Name error / crash, not a printed score.) Only after that check do students type the corrected version and run it, or one volunteer types on the shared screen.

Safe alternative if you want zero debugging: print("Checked by me first"). Still force the read-predict-then-run pause.

If logins or editors are slow, keep it whole-class on the shared screen.

Land the point

Thirty seconds at the end: you stayed responsible, not the assistant. That is the habit the courtroom will test.

How to run it

Project the verdict-reveal interactive. For each case, read the facts aloud (they are also on screen so pairs can work with less talk). On debate cases, pick two volunteers. Then the class commits a verdict. Reveal the reasoning and land on who was responsible every time.

Prosecution has up to one minute to argue the use crossed a line (Not OK). Defence has up to one minute to argue it was Fine or Fine with a check. They must use only the facts on screen, not invent new ones. Debate is optional stretch; pairs can still judge from the on-screen facts alone.

Timing inside 13 minutes

• Cases 1, 2 and 5: full beat (facts, prosecution, defence, vote, reveal, responsibility). About four minutes each.
• Cases 3 and 4: facts, straight to class vote, reveal, responsibility. About three minutes each, no speakers.
• If still tight, keep speakers only on Case 1 and Case 5.

Teaching tips

Keep Case 3 as the sharp contrast of good use. Do not let blame rest only on "the AI". Each reveal reuses one of the three questions from Suggest or act so vocabulary stays stable. Bias stays a light beat inside Case 4 only, not a separate lecture topic.

The five cases, and the defensible verdict for each

These are the cases on the board, with the answer the interactive reveals. Read them from here if the board fails, and do not give a different verdict to the one the class will see revealed.

• Case 1 — A student asked an assistant for a script to tidy a folder, ran it without reading it, and it deleted files they needed.
  Defensible verdict: Not OK. Tells: Ran unread, Irreversible action.
  Why: The tool suggested; the person ran it. Running code you have not read, on something you cannot undo, is the choice that caused the harm. Read it, or try it somewhere safe first.
• Case 2 — An agent was told to 'sort out the trip' and sent an email to a teacher without being asked to.
  Defensible verdict: Not OK. Tells: Acted beyond the goal, No one checked before it acted.
  Why: An agent that acts on the world needs a human check before anything it cannot take back. The goal was vague, so it filled the gap itself.
• Case 3 — A student did not understand loops, asked an assistant to explain it three different ways, then wrote the loop themselves.
  Defensible verdict: Fine. Tells: Used it to understand, Wrote their own code.
  Why: This is the good case. The assistant explained; the student still did the thinking and the writing, and can now do it without help.
• Case 4 — An assistant stated a confident fact about a language feature. The student put it straight into their project write-up.
  Defensible verdict: Fine, with a check. Tells: Confident tone, Never verified.
  Why: Confidence is not accuracy. Using it is fine; using it unchecked is not, and in your CBA the write-up has to be something you can stand over.
• Case 5 — An agent completed the task exactly as asked, but the way it did it broke the rules the class had agreed.
  Defensible verdict: Fine, with a check. Tells: Technically correct, Against the agreed rules.
  Why: Doing what you asked is not the same as doing what you wanted. Whoever set the goal is responsible for the rules it works inside.

The verdict matters less than the reason. Every reveal should end with the class naming who was responsible, and it is never only the AI.

How to run it

Open by referring back to courtroom verdicts (unread code, agent send, good learning, privacy, over-reliance). Run the list-builder on the board. Start from the starter cards, then invite additions. Cap at two short bullets under each heading, not a long charter.

Look-fors

• Allowed help points at learning (explain, debug with me, check for mistakes or unfair assumptions) not at handing up unread code
• Own work includes being able to explain every line, and keeping classmates' names and code off public AI tools
• Saying you used it is honest and light, not a punishment

One-minute apply beat

Show print("Winner:", player_naem) on the board. Ask pairs which ground-rule heading covers it and whether the rule forces a check before run. Land: the human-check habit from earlier is now a class rule, not a one-off.

Save the rules

Capture the finished list (photo of the board, shared doc, or platform note). You will need it again when students choose their CBA approach.