HS05 · CUMULATIVE PROJECT

Build and revise a local-hazard evidence brief

Use historical Kīlauea monitoring records to compare explanations and defend a bounded conclusion.

This supplied-data route meets the local-hazard project option. It needs no field trip or live emergency information. The source packet is public practice; independently reviewed achievement requires an unfamiliar assignment, reasoning review and substantive revision.

A source-backed local volcano brief

Investigate what historical Kīlauea monitoring can establish about unrest and observed surface activity. This route uses two published USGS HVO reports and different instrument types. It is a supplied-data investigation, not fieldwork, current hazard guidance or eruption prediction.

Work through the steps below. Your original prediction, first submitted report and one revision remain separate. Public source material and worked answers are inspectable; recording a report or review does not award authenticated mastery.

Record your question, prediction and method before revealing the cards.
Compare seismic and deformation evidence with dates and qualifiers intact.
Submit a report, obtain a review, then preserve a separate revision.

1. Commit your initial plan

Define a question that the historical records can answer, such as whether a monitoring change alone establishes surface effusion. Plan which instrument types, intervals and alternative explanation you will compare. If you already read these reports or lessons, disclose that familiarity.

Question and scope Prediction before source reveal Evidence and method plan I have previously seen relevant source facts or worked interpretations.

The locked copy cannot be edited. Later interpretations belong in your report and revision.

2. Inspect the historical source cards

Record the initial plan first. Revealing is retained as known exposure; hiding or importing earlier work cannot make this public case unfamiliar again.

3. Write the evidence argument

Use both seismic and deformation evidence. Cite source versions and windows, show a calculation and a representation, distinguish observations from agency interpretations, and test a plausible alternative. State which new observation could change your conclusion.

Question and prediction: compare the locality and observation windowsModel and assumptions: mechanism, boundary, units and simplificationsMethod: reproducible selection and comparisonEvidence integrity: seismic AND deformation evidence, source IDs, windows and qualifiersAnalysis: calculations, representations and uncertaintyExplanation and transfer: supported claim and limitsRevision: what changed from the prior prediction or earlier report, and whyPlausible alternative and an observation that would distinguish itDependence: different instrument types, shared report and assumptionsNew condition: response to the supplied transfer or identified reviewer assignment

Each field permits 2,400 characters. Nonempty fields and source reveal are recording requirements, not judgments of scientific correctness.

4. Compare saved evidence

No report submitted yet. Your editable draft remains separate.

5. Practice geometry, then request a fresh assignment

Public local-case transfer (earth-volcano-missing-channel-v1): Original public supplied transfer: suppose the deformation channel is unavailable for a new interval while the seismic summary and dated surface report remain. Reassess which earlier claims survive, which lose support, and what additional measurement would discriminate your alternative. Do not fabricate replacement measurements.

Record your response in the new-condition report field. This exposed prompt supports practice; an independently reviewed task must be separately assigned.

This separate public construction uses a half-illuminated sphere, a distant light source and source–object–observer angles of 60° and 120°. Draw both sightlines and predict visible illuminated fractions. A separately stipulated detector normal to the incoming beam reports unchanged irradiance in both cases. Its matched orientation is part of the evidence contract, not output from the fraction formula.

Check the public geometry comparison

The visible illuminated fraction is (1 + cos α)/2 for this phase angle α: 3/4 at 60° and 1/4 at 120°. Half the physical sphere stays illuminated. A changed viewpoint explains the fraction difference without changing source output, consistent with the independent stipulated detector. Fraction is not total measured brightness, which also involves reflectance, scattering and distance. This is a worked geometric model, not recorded planetary data.

Ask a reviewer for a substantively different assignment, with its own ID and complete assumptions. For example, hold the view fixed while changing a matched reference-detector reading, or leave a geometric constraint missing so that multiple explanations remain possible. Record the assignment, your response and any help in the report before submitting the snapshot to be reviewed. A publicly shipped example is never a secret test.

6. Record a human review of a saved snapshot

Pending review-form text is not saved until you record the review. A reviewer should read the selected immutable report and the assigned transfer response. Identity and date entered here are local assertions, not authenticated certification. Labels apply only to the assigned case, not permanent global mastery. Every judgment needs a supporting comment; identify a targeted retry where evidence is insufficient.

Snapshot to review Reviewer nameReview date Assigned case ID / version Fresh assignment and evidence reviewed Reviewer reports that the assigned transfer task was unfamiliar to this learner. Help or scaffolding provided (state none if applicable) Prior exposure and how familiarity was checked

Question and prediction

Revisit the related lesson