# Ontario Grade 3 Science and Technology — 9 November 2026

This dependent proposal reviews all **55 retained Grade 3 codes: 44 specific and
11 overall expectations**. It builds on the unmerged
[Grade 2 proposal, PR #96](https://github.com/withmarbleapp/os-taxonomy/pull/96),
including the reviewed Grade 1 components, at the exact dependency commit in the
[code-by-code mapping](ontario-grade3-science-mapping-2026-11-09.json).
The dependency is not described as accepted main or deployed state.

## Outcome

| Scope | Full semantic support | Partial | New topics proposed |
| --- | ---: | ---: | ---: |
| 44 specific expectations | 17 | 27 | 0 |
| 11 overall expectations | 0 | 11 | 0 |

The proposal adds **74 distinct pairs across 39 specific codes and 42 existing
topics**, with new Canada/Ontario **8–9** contexts. Complete prior intervals and
associations are preserved. No global start age is lowered. Topic identities,
mastery/assessment fields, dependencies and authored research remain unchanged.

Full is a source-fit authoring judgment, not learner mastery, delivered teaching
or consumer selection eligibility. Partial conditions and candidate-only support
are not instructions to create topics. Overall judgments are independent of
child-link counts; all remain Partial, including broad synthesis requirements
whose specific task examples have support.

## Official source and review

The [Ministry Grade 3 expectations PDF](https://assets-us-01.kc-usercontent.com/fbd574c4-da36-0066-a0c5-849ffb2de96e/2f86e2c9-a6e7-4c27-90a1-d36810a4aa6d/SciTech_G3_AODA.pdf)
was retrieved 9 November 2026, SHA-256
`d8fe53858d6120a5c264315bb02af494a2d850dcebc83b7bbc4b337eb21762c4`.
All five pages were read. The
[full 2022 curriculum](https://assets-us-01.kc-usercontent.com/fbd574c4-da36-0066-a0c5-849ffb2de96e/36038265-bd6d-4991-882b-52b4b06c32d0/The%20Ontario%20Curriculum%20Grades%201%E2%80%938%20%E2%80%93%20Science%20and%20Technology%202022_2.pdf),
SHA-256 `1ade9235dcacf15c27dcc92328d1f883c3026c1687bf40368448b39ec6e4bd74`,
provides process context on printed pages 69–80 and Grade 3 on pages 113–123.
Independent readback matches all 44 specific paragraphs between the two official
PDFs, excluding only the known publisher copyright footer from extracted text.

The mapping distinguishes direct whole/component roles, prerequisites and deferred
candidates. Searches include all subjects and inspect descriptions, evidence and
assessment rather than only titles. Flexible process guidance remains flexible;
no mandatory advanced research or engineering checklist is invented. Public files
contain source keys, Marble claim descriptions and review judgments, without
restricted expectation text or source PDFs.

## Reuse and bounded source-fit decisions

- **Plant needs/cycles:** current requirement and growth-condition claims together
  cover the selected needs set; existing germination, reproduction/dispersal and
  cycle-model claims connect the life history. These are associations on stable
  topics, not another country-specific plant progression.
- **Plant responses:** existing structural adaptation examples and predictions
  under changed requirements supply different contributions. Later evolutionary
  theory is not made a new requirement.
- **Forces:** contact/distance concepts plus vocabulary provide varied force
  types. Existing pushes/pulls and solid deformation cover motion, magnitude and
  shape effects. No separate starting/stopping or Ontario-force clones are added.
- **Structures:** bones explicitly provide a natural supporting-framework
  component; models relate form to function; material choices and force balance
  contribute where their evidence actually matches. Force balance is not equated
  with structural stability, nor is a successful construction treated as proof of
  all load/strength concepts.
- **Cultural/source cases:** production and use knowledge contributes, but verified
  local and community-specific case sets remain explicit. Australian cultural
  evidence is not relabelled. A missing resource is not automatically a missing
  topic.

## Ontario soil localization

Three supplementary references verify local examples without becoming new
curriculum authorities or redistributing their contents:

- [Starting a Farm in Ontario, Publication 61](https://files.ontario.ca/omafra-starting-a-farm-in-ontario-pub-61-en-2023-04-21.pdf),
  Ministry publication, printed pages 14–15, verifies Ontario soil-type/property
  examples. SHA-256
  `b56521ecf4004aa1c4100e7a4b5207002dbb1277c7a6da7f27cb4ecf010fe118`.
- [Guide to Vegetable Production in Ontario, Publication 839, 2024](https://www.ontario.ca/files/2024-02/omafra-guide-to-vegetable-production-in-ontario-en-2024-02-15.pdf),
  Ministry publication, printed pages 130 and 184, supplies the checked carrot and
  garlic case references. Those production-requirement boxes were visually
  inspected. SHA-256
  `525de1736534a5fa7a5b0f06f17e5e50a02277b9801e0728ea53d1a01d75456f`.
- [Soil Management, Environmental Farm Plan Infosheet 15](https://www.ontariosoilcrop.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/15.-2025_EFP-Infosheet-15_Soil-Management_EN_FINAL_AODA.pdf),
  Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association, 2025 workbook context, PDF pages
  2–3, confirms local erosion effects and use of plant cover/windbreaks already
  represented by the erosion-prevention claim. SHA-256
  `a9ef060c4067065c9b3e0892e41efde378c8727863f9084cb6f14b442947efd8`.

These support resource localization of **Rocks and soil**, **What Plants Need to
Thrive** and **Preventing Erosion**. No provincial-soil topic or new claim is
required by those examples. The source-fit tasks include:

| Codes | Positive case | Near miss to reject | Transfer check |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| E1.1 | Explain soil functions for a food crop and a living soil habitat. | Soil matters only as a surface to walk on; all plant food comes from dirt. | Explain importance in a wild habitat without a harvested crop. |
| E2.3 | Compare soil properties and the checked crop requirements. | One soil is universally best, or a crop is exclusive to one soil. | Use a supplied requirement for another food crop to justify a property-based match. |
| E1.2, E2.4–E2.5 | Explain a soil-loss case and the function of checked protective practices. | Merely name a barrier, or attribute every soil-health benefit to an unsupported mechanism. | Apply the same wind/water reasoning to another suitable soil setting. |

These are proposed source-fit assessments, **not observations of learners** or
edits to canonical assessment prompts. Crop examples are not practical production
instructions. They account for preferences and other relevant conditions rather
than presenting texture as a universal guarantee. Remaining soil-health/substance
and managed-composting conditions are retained in the mapping.

## Code-by-code overview

`C` means direct component; `W` whole-expectation contribution. Detailed rationale,
remaining conditions, resources and candidate/prerequisite IDs are in the JSON.
Blank holders are reviewed conditions, not new-topic requests.

| Code | Semantic judgment | Direct topic IDs and roles |
| --- | --- | --- |
| A1 | Partial | Child reviews |
| A1.1 | Partial | `mt_XirhnAB6Ye` (C); `mt_4A4RpX-Go9` (C); `mt_vJO5Bxk4z-` (C); `mt_7VrR1GzhrN` (C) |
| A1.2 | Partial | `mt_XirhnAB6Ye` (C); `mt_MRQcEvyPJv` (C); `mt_Wa44s-f8Ws` (C); `mt_ZFwPZaDJ0_` (C); `mt_7VrR1GzhrN` (C) |
| A1.3 | Partial | `mt_hi8cVycbwn` (C); `mt_FtCLISvSGw` (C); `mt_RlILL2sccX` (C); `mt_nNYo5A-7Bl` (C) |
| A1.4 | Partial | `mt_TTH2ouwyTW` (C); `mt_FtCLISvSGw` (C) |
| A1.5 | Partial | `mt_7VrR1GzhrN` (C); `mt_o8ciHks8t2` (C); `mt_NP101Zl-4g` (C) |
| A2 | Partial | Child reviews |
| A2.1 | Partial | `mt_sPV503BQnI` (C); `mt_5UtPmgdoQ9` (C) |
| A2.2 | Partial | `mt_AzTrT5ySCx` (C) |
| A3 | Partial | Child reviews |
| A3.1 | Full | `mt_Q2Zj3L8u9C` (C); `mt_rTn43s8RNX` (C) |
| A3.2 | Partial | `mt_RlILL2sccX` (C); `mt_4A4RpX-Go9` (C) |
| A3.3 | Partial | — |
| B1 | Partial | Child reviews |
| B1.1 | Partial | `mt_cM8YS6NXqi` (C); `mt_deexfCHU9m` (C) |
| B1.2 | Full | `mt_deexfCHU9m` (W) |
| B1.3 | Partial | — |
| B2 | Partial | Child reviews |
| B2.1 | Full | `mt_lutxvMlkwS` (C); `mt_3v0VNkwquK` (C) |
| B2.2 | Partial | `mt_6xsEXxKdUX` (C); `mt_WNBHZ1d94L` (C) |
| B2.3 | Full | `mt_0B64gfJf7j` (C); `mt_WNBHZ1d94L` (C); `mt_4IVWRAZoNC` (C) |
| B2.4 | Full | `mt_Wx5m6mwkpj` (C); `mt_lutxvMlkwS` (C) |
| B2.5 | Partial | `mt_6xsEXxKdUX` (C) |
| B2.6 | Partial | `mt_VIUF5Vspbg` (C) |
| B2.7 | Partial | `mt_VIUF5Vspbg` (C) |
| B2.8 | Full | `mt_cM8YS6NXqi` (C); `mt_SZJ1mN7Vfk` (C) |
| C1 | Partial | Child reviews |
| C1.1 | Partial | `mt_m6UaSmrQVG` (C) |
| C1.2 | Partial | `mt_Q2Zj3L8u9C` (C) |
| C2 | Partial | Child reviews |
| C2.1 | Full | `mt_lcf8lx-LkZ` (C); `mt_GBY8enpzO0` (C) |
| C2.2 | Full | `mt_B3W5EfimJw` (W) |
| C2.3 | Full | `mt_B3W5EfimJw` (C); `mt_wf-SJhZ1kC` (C) |
| C2.4 | Full | `mt_B3W5EfimJw` (W) |
| D1 | Partial | Child reviews |
| D1.1 | Partial | `mt_cOJhDeLkPo` (C) |
| D1.2 | Partial | `mt_qixeaiswFP` (C); `mt_deexfCHU9m` (C) |
| D2 | Partial | Child reviews |
| D2.1 | Partial | `mt_SdIWVjzopp` (C); `mt_hi8cVycbwn` (C) |
| D2.2 | Full | `mt_hi8cVycbwn` (W) |
| D2.3 | Partial | — |
| D2.4 | Partial | `mt_3WMADSy0mA` (C) |
| D2.5 | Full | `mt_rTn43s8RNX` (W) |
| D2.6 | Partial | `mt_B3W5EfimJw` (C); `mt_wf-SJhZ1kC` (C); `mt_3WMADSy0mA` (C) |
| D2.7 | Partial | — |
| E1 | Partial | Child reviews |
| E1.1 | Full | `mt_lutxvMlkwS` (C); `mt_VIUF5Vspbg` (C); `mt_zir5yyAzUB` (C) |
| E1.2 | Full | `mt_deexfCHU9m` (C); `mt_m6UaSmrQVG` (C) |
| E2 | Partial | Child reviews |
| E2.1 | Partial | `mt_yhhprm7dZK` (C); `mt_zir5yyAzUB` (C) |
| E2.2 | Partial | — |
| E2.3 | Full | `mt_yhhprm7dZK` (C); `mt_lutxvMlkwS` (C) |
| E2.4 | Full | `mt_m6UaSmrQVG` (W) |
| E2.5 | Full | `mt_m6UaSmrQVG` (W) |
| E2.6 | Partial | `mt_R7LEuZjTmx` (C); `mt_yhhprm7dZK` (C) |

## Explicit follow-up conditions

The complete part set, photosynthesis gas exchange, cultural/local uses, native
plant protection, local-food comparison, structural strength/stability/bracing,
soil-health additions and composting retain concrete follow-ups. Existing later
photosynthesis, biomass, supply-chain, ecosystem and mechanics claims remain
candidate-only when the whole claim has not been established for 8–9. None is
silently lowered because one clause matches.

The same broad source requirement can receive several components while still
remaining Partial. For example, bones support a natural framework, but do not
certify the whole natural/built structural account. Decomposers and humus are
real composting components, but not a complete managed-compost sequence. Such
findings do not authorize new mastery topics or changes to existing ones.

## Readiness and validation

The diagnostic identifies **31 distinct hard-prerequisite IDs** without
an explicit Ontario interval spanning 8–9. It is not a consumer eligibility
algorithm: global/framework guidance and actual selection rules need separate
review. No invented source link, age-only context or dependency change clears
that list artificially.

Public validation and generated-artifact checks pass. Exact preservation checks
retain earlier Grade 1/2 reports and every existing context; only additional
Grade 3 associations and their compatibility artifacts change. No authored topic,
assessment, research, dependency, catalogue, cluster or archive change occurs.

This is a dependent repository proposal, with no DB/learner writes or deployment
receipt. Reconcile the documented dependency with accepted content before handoff;
these judgments do not declare Ontario alignment finished.