AC9.2 · learner packet

Power in
the room.

A fictional case and five working documents for tracing decisions, resources, influence, care work, and redesign.

Study the case, not your classmates.

Every person and record in this packet is fictional. Do not rank real learners by popularity or ask anyone to disclose experiences of exclusion, finances, disability, punishment, or family authority.

Learner
Start date
Preferred simulation role

Final portfolio

Before-and-after power maps Runnable decision protocol 500-word rationale or equivalent Test-and-revision log

Fictional case · use throughout AC9.2

Riverview Youth Centre

Riverview is deciding how to allocate its only large room for the next twelve Saturdays. Treat the file as incomplete evidence, not a puzzle with one correct villain or solution.

Charter

A centre director is accountable for safety and spending. A monthly council—two elected youth members, two volunteers, the program lead, and the director—votes on room use. The director may pause a decision for legal, safety, or budget review.

Proposal

The music collective requests eight Saturday afternoons. The homework group requests all twelve. A new disability-led gaming group requests six, with two weeks needed to arrange accessible tables and quiet space.

Meeting

Meetings begin at 4:00 p.m. The last bus leaves at 4:45. The agenda was posted in a private group chat two days beforehand. Twenty minutes were used on a director’s report; six remained for room allocation.

Information

The program lead holds the booking calendar. Only the director and treasurer can view the full budget. The custodian knows setup and storage limits but receives minutes after decisions. No one has confirmed Saturday transportation.

Relationships

Two music volunteers organize most fundraising and have worked with the director for three years. The homework coordinator translates messages informally. One elected youth member is new and has not received the charter.

Work after decisions

Setup, reminder texts, welcoming, cleanup, conflict follow-up, and accessibility checks are not listed in any role. The same volunteer has done most reminders and cleanup for two months.

What is known, inferred, and missing?

Three facts the file directly supportsOne reasonable inference—and why it remains an inferenceTwo questions that could change your analysis

Tool 01 · Weeks 1–5

Actor and mechanism map

Map relationships rather than ranking people. Use the legend to keep evidence, inference, and uncertainty visible.

Case fact Inference? Missing evidence Decision power

Map space: actors, relationships, mechanisms, effects, and absent affected parties

Formal mechanismsInformal mechanisms

Who benefits or gains options?Who bears risk, delay, or maintenance?

Revision note: what connection changed after checking the evidence?

Tool 02 · Week 2

Decision trace

Follow power before and after the official choice. A vote is one stage, not the whole process.

01 · Problem definitionWho named the problem? What wording or alternative was excluded? 02 · AgendaWho decided when, where, and in what order it would be discussed? 03 · InformationWho had the rules, budget, calendar, constraints, and time to prepare? 04 · ParticipationWho could attend, speak, understand, refuse, or propose an alternative? 05 · ChoiceWho decided? What rule, mandate, veto, or informal pressure applied? 06 · Implementation and reviewWho performs the work, experiences the effect, reviews it, or can reopen it?

Strong causal claim supported by the file Claim the file cannot yet support

Tool 03 · Week 3

Resource and labour ledger

Record what people need in order to act. Include work that the formal chart ignores.

Resource or workWho holds or does it?Who depends on it?Share, rotate, or safeguard?

Money / reimbursement

Time / scheduling

Information / platform

Keys / space / access

Expertise / permission

Relationships / trust

Care / translation

Setup / cleanup / follow-up

Which dependency creates the greatest capture or exclusion risk—and why?

Tool 04 · Week 4

Decision protocol canvas

Design a process another group could actually run. Match the mechanism to the stakes, then budget access and maintenance.

ScopeWhat is being decided? What is outside this mandate?Affected partiesWho uses, maintains, depends on, or is excluded by the decision?InformationWhat must everyone receive, in what format, and by when?ParticipationWhat routes, timing, translation, transport, or access support are required?RolesWho facilitates, documents, advises, decides, implements, and checks access?Decision ruleConsent, vote, allocation rule, delegation, rotation, or hybrid—and why?ImplementationWho does setup, communication, cleanup, follow-up, and maintenance?Dissent and undoHow can someone object, appeal, trigger review, or reverse the decision?

Review date and evidence to collectMost plausible failure and safeguard

Tool 05 · Week 5

Test and revision log

Use observed effects from the simulation. Do not claim that adding more participation automatically redistributed power.

Role or observer routeDate

Pressure introduced: budget cut, absent group, access information, time limit, or another prepared constraint Observed effect: what happened, and what is the evidence?

Who gained practical options?Who lost options or gained work?

Protocol repair and expected effect Remaining risk or unanswered question

500-word rationale planner

Finding: what did the before map show?Three design choices tied to evidenceTest result, revision, and honest limit

Final review

Facts, inferences, and missing evidence are distinct. Formal and informal mechanisms both appear. Care and maintenance work are assigned and visible. Dissent, review, and an undo path are practical. The revision responds to observed evidence.

Power inthe room.