Optional paired challenge / Evidence cabinet

The ORACLE Control Room

Recover a safety briefing before the governors consider ORACLE.

Return to investigation
This is extra, not a replacement. The fictional governors need an incident-response briefing, but three safety panels are still locked. Use evidence from the five-stage Ethics Audit to test fairness, configure a limited proposal and trace responsibility. This is an extra challenge; it does not replace your case-file notes or decide the school's verdict. Work in pairs: one investigator reads a clue, the other connects it to the idea. Swap roles at each lock. No written response, timer, or computing lesson is needed.
Cabinet status0 of 3 locks opened
01The opportunity warning
02The schoolwork safety console
03The missed-checks circuit
Panel 01 / Fairness

The opportunity warning

Trace the pilot results to a concern and a way to investigate it.

The idea behind the lock

General ethics clue: a proxy can affect fairness

A proxy is a measure that stands in for something else. Home access and club attendance might partly reflect opportunity, not just interest. A difference between small groups is a reason to investigate, not proof that every individual decision was unfair.

Source evidence / Read before deciding

Audit file 2 / Enrichment programme score

The score gives points for a home computer, online practice and after-school club attendance.

Audit file 2 / Pilot review

Fourteen of 20 pupils with reliable home access qualify, against four of 20 without it. Average class-work marks are similar.

Audit file 2 / Selection panel discussion

Staff propose considering class work, checking outcomes and letting applicants explain barriers. Those changes have not yet been retested.

Open the original investigation: The ORACLE Ethics Audit
Connect each piece of evidence to what it means.
Open a small hint

Separate the score's inputs, the small pilot's results and the panel's proposed response.

Lock opened / token recovered

The fairness panel is ready for review. The small pilot raises a question rather than settling every case.

Panel 02 / Data

The schoolwork safety console

Remove data unrelated to schoolwork and choose whether to pause or revise the proposal.

The idea behind the lock

General ethics clue: data minimisation

Collect only information needed for a clear purpose. Even relevant records can miss offline work. If a system sends an alert, limit who sees it, set a deletion plan, allow corrections and have a person check it before action.

Source evidence / Read before deciding

Audit file 3 / Proposal

The purpose is a schoolwork check-in. Besides recent assignments and sign-ins, the proposal requests school messages, search history, location, private social-media posts, friendship information and past safeguarding records. It gives no reason these extra sources would help.

Audit file 3 / Privacy review

A sign-in record can miss offline work. Access and deletion rules have not been set.

Audit file 3 / Meeting note

Staff need a way to correct a mistaken record and review an alert before it affects a pupil.

Open the original investigation: The ORACLE Ethics Audit
Which requested information would you refuse for this schoolwork check-in? Recent assignments can still be used; sign-ins are optional and need checking.

Select every option that belongs in your evidence-based answer.

Choose a route. Holding collection is valid; revising it needs working controls.
If you chose staff review, which controls would you put in place?

Select every option that belongs in your evidence-based answer.

Open a small hint

The proposal gives no reason for six extra sources beyond assignments and sign-ins. If you choose staff review, an alert needs access, deletion, correction and human checks.

Lock opened / token recovered

The console releases its report. This proposal is paused or ready for staff review, not approved for deployment.

Panel 03 / Responsibility

The missed-checks circuit

Route each missed check to someone who can take responsibility for fixing it.

The idea behind the lock

General ethics clue: accountability

A system cannot apologise, correct a record or suspend itself. Different people may be responsible for fixing a technical fault, deciding whether school use should pause, and checking a particular decision before it affects a pupil.

Source evidence / Read before deciding

Audit file 5 / Warnings and missed checks

The developer knew records could be falsely matched; the school had not tested its own records.

Audit file 5 / Incident timeline

Staff sent a recommendation without checking the match. A family questioned it two days later.

Audit file 5 / Repair meeting

The developer offers a fix; staff will correct the record and tell the family. The governors still need named owners who can pause use.

Open the original investigation: The ORACLE Ethics Audit
Connect each necessary action to an accountable role.
Open a small hint

The person who repairs software is not the same as the person who authorises its use or checks an individual decision.

Lock opened / token recovered

The accountability panel is restored. The safety report can now name who must act.

Final cabinet / All three tokens required

Release the safety briefing

Each recovered slip contains a different case detail. Match the slips to the governor's questions below, then choose the only report that combines all three findings. Your verdict is recorded, not marked right or wrong.

The slips you recovered

    Which briefing claim fits all three slips?

    This is an evidence check. Your separate verdict below is not graded.

    Choose your pair's verdict

    Your view is yours to make. The verdict is not marked for correctness; the token sequence opens the briefing.

    Project ORACLE / The ORACLE Control Room

    Year 9 paired extra / CodeBash / Not yet completed

    Objective: The fictional governors need an incident-response briefing, but three safety panels are still locked. Use evidence from the five-stage Ethics Audit to test fairness, configure a limited proposal and trace responsibility. This is an extra challenge; it does not replace your case-file notes or decide the school's verdict.

    Lock 01 / The opportunity warning

    Concept: General ethics clue: a proxy can affect fairness. A proxy is a measure that stands in for something else. Home access and club attendance might partly reflect opportunity, not just interest. A difference between small groups is a reason to investigate, not proof that every individual decision was unfair.

    Source evidence

    Audit file 2 / Enrichment programme score
    The score gives points for a home computer, online practice and after-school club attendance.
    Audit file 2 / Pilot review
    Fourteen of 20 pupils with reliable home access qualify, against four of 20 without it. Average class-work marks are similar.
    Audit file 2 / Selection panel discussion
    Staff propose considering class work, checking outcomes and letting applicants explain barriers. Those changes have not yet been retested.

    Token: Not recovered

    Lock 02 / The schoolwork safety console

    Concept: General ethics clue: data minimisation. Collect only information needed for a clear purpose. Even relevant records can miss offline work. If a system sends an alert, limit who sees it, set a deletion plan, allow corrections and have a person check it before action.

    Source evidence

    Audit file 3 / Proposal
    The purpose is a schoolwork check-in. Besides recent assignments and sign-ins, the proposal requests school messages, search history, location, private social-media posts, friendship information and past safeguarding records. It gives no reason these extra sources would help.
    Audit file 3 / Privacy review
    A sign-in record can miss offline work. Access and deletion rules have not been set.
    Audit file 3 / Meeting note
    Staff need a way to correct a mistaken record and review an alert before it affects a pupil.

    Token: Not recovered

    Lock 03 / The missed-checks circuit

    Concept: General ethics clue: accountability. A system cannot apologise, correct a record or suspend itself. Different people may be responsible for fixing a technical fault, deciding whether school use should pause, and checking a particular decision before it affects a pupil.

    Source evidence

    Audit file 5 / Warnings and missed checks
    The developer knew records could be falsely matched; the school had not tested its own records.
    Audit file 5 / Incident timeline
    Staff sent a recommendation without checking the match. A family questioned it two days later.
    Audit file 5 / Repair meeting
    The developer offers a fix; staff will correct the record and tell the family. The governors still need named owners who can pause use.

    Token: Not recovered

    Final briefing

    Completion: The briefing has not been recovered.

    Schoolwork data-panel route: Not decided

    Our token sequence: Not submitted

    Evidence conclusion: Not submitted

    Our verdict: Not submitted