Pack the right inputs

For design a differentiated fraction mini-lesson while keeping assessment judgment with the teacher, assemble only what changes the answer: learning target, prior knowledge, reading level, allowed representations, misconception patterns, time, and accessibility needs. Label each item by authority and date. A source-of-truth document outranks a memory-based note; a current error log outranks a description of last month's behavior. State conflicts instead of letting the model blend them.

Use a four-part packet: task, evidence, constraints, and output contract. Put untrusted content inside clear delimiters and say that it is data, not instruction. Include representative examples, especially one normal case and one boundary case. Omit irrelevant history; excess context can hide the one line that controls the result.

Learning target: compare fractions with unlike denominators. Create a three-minute explanation using a pizza model, one worked example, four practice items from easy to challenging, and an answer key naming likely misconceptions. Use fictional learners only. Keep the target fixed and do not make grading or placement decisions.

Before sending, annotate the packet. Mark which values are verified, which are illustrative, and which are unknown. If a screenshot is involved, transcribe critical small text. If structured data is involved, include headers, units, software version, and null behavior. If creative material is involved, record ownership and permitted use. This is how context becomes operational rather than decorative.

A useful response would look like this: An age-appropriate explanation, a correctly solved example, practice that measures the same target, and a misconception note about comparing denominators directly. That description is intentionally observable. “Looks good” is not acceptance. The operator must solve every item, confirm support versions assess the same target, check reading load and cultural assumptions, and have the teacher approve classroom use. Keep the source material beside the draft so review means comparison, not memory.

The privacy boundary is specific: never submit names, grades, disability details, behavior records, private writing, or any identifiable student information to an unapproved system. Create the smallest synthetic example that preserves the problem. Replace names and identifiers consistently so relationships remain testable. Redaction is not merely drawing a box: crop surrounding notifications, remove metadata where relevant, and check that hidden sheets, comments, or revision history are not included.

Poor packets lead to predictable failures: wrong answer keys; difficulty changed by changing the target; accidental answer reveal in hints; biased examples; automated grading or discipline recommendations. Another common failure is silently changing the source packet mid-run. Save a version or hash of the inputs beside the output, especially when another person will reproduce the work.

Rate a packet from zero to two on six dimensions: relevance, authority, recency, completeness, privacy, and reproducibility. A score below two on authority or privacy blocks the run. A low completeness score does not invite invention; it creates a question for the owner.