# Ontario primary Science — cross-grade residual review

The **Grade 1–6 Science audit is complete by selected code** in this dependent
proposal chain: all **325 codes**, comprising **259 specific** and **66 overall**
expectations, have explicit dispositions. This does not mean Full curriculum
coverage, learner mastery, deployment, or completion of Ontario's other subjects.

This documentation-only review is based on the unmerged Grade 6 proposal at
`81319c25cf6178d6d1494c892b2b71273cd1e864`. It changes no topics, assessments, ages, associations, dependencies,
research, source catalogue or learner/DB state. The
[complete residual ledger](ontario-primary-science-residual-review-2026-11-09.json)
links every code to its grade review and groups findings by actual operation.
Those group names are report aids, not proposed taxonomy topics.

## What the numbers mean

| Reviewed scope | Full source-fit judgment | Partial |
| --- | ---: | ---: |
| 259 specific expectations | 92 | 167 |
| 66 independently reviewed overall expectations | 0 | 66 |

The 233 Partial judgments are **not 233 missing topics**. They include resource
verification, integration, practical performance, incomplete samples and later
whole-claim candidates. Full is an authoring source-fit judgment, not a learner
result or consumer selection decision.

The ledger also consolidates **56 distinct candidate IDs** and **143 distinct
hard-prerequisite diagnostic IDs**, preserving every occurrence and age interval.
Candidates already exist; prerequisite diagnostics are not invented gaps or a
consumer eligibility algorithm. These overlapping sets must not be added to the
Partial count as if they measured a backlog of new claims.

| Grade | Specific Full | Specific Partial | Overall Partial | Unique prerequisite diagnostic IDs |
| --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: |
| 1 | 14 | 30 | 11 | 10 |
| 2 | 13 | 28 | 11 | 26 |
| 3 | 17 | 27 | 11 | 31 |
| 4 | 17 | 27 | 11 | 59 |
| 5 | 14 | 28 | 11 | 63 |
| 6 | 17 | 27 | 11 | 81 |

The diagnostic asks whether a prerequisite has an explicit Ontario interval
spanning the selected interval. Global/framework guidance and actual downstream
selection behavior need separate review. It does not show that those prerequisites
contribute nothing or that topics are ineligible. No fabricated expectation link,
age-only context or prerequisite edge should be used to clear the list.

## Grouped review, not source-shaped topic creation

Each selected code appears once in the grouping below. A code can have several
kinds of remaining condition; the detailed ledger preserves them rather than
forcing one exclusive reason or converting conditions into topic requests.

| Actual operation/content family | Selected codes | Partial codes |
| --- | ---: | ---: |
| Evidence-based investigation | 12 | 12 |
| Design, build, test and respond | 6 | 6 |
| Hazard reasoning and safe use | 6 | 6 |
| Science communication for an audience | 6 | 6 |
| Applied programming and data/input choices | 6 | 6 |
| Explaining technology use and consequences | 18 | 12 |
| Verified community contributions and knowledge | 11 | 11 |
| Organism requirements, structures and functions | 10 | 5 |
| Growth and life-history comparisons | 5 | 3 |
| Ecological interaction, diversity and threats | 23 | 9 |
| Environmental judgments and enacted responses | 6 | 4 |
| Food, health and evidence-based choices | 8 | 4 |
| Energy source/use, transformation and conservation | 16 | 12 |
| Material choice, production and life-cycle effects | 9 | 4 |
| Matter criteria, state and substance change | 16 | 8 |
| Supporting structures, force effects and protection | 24 | 16 |
| Mechanism categories, functions and transformations | 14 | 10 |
| Daily/seasonal patterns and causal explanations | 8 | 5 |
| Air/water properties, location and access | 6 | 3 |
| Soil, rock and Earth-change explanations | 15 | 6 |
| Light/sound sources, properties and applications | 10 | 6 |
| Charge, circuits, conversion and use | 9 | 4 |
| Flight applications of forces and structures | 6 | 6 |
| Space objects, conditions, evidence and impacts | 9 | 3 |
| Independent overall synthesis judgments | 66 | 66 |

The source evidence, meanings, direct/component roles and public-safe rationales
remain in the [Grade 1](ontario-grade1-science-2026-11-09.md),
[Grade 2](ontario-grade2-science-2026-11-09.md),
[Grade 3](ontario-grade3-science-2026-11-09.md),
[Grade 4](ontario-grade4-science-2026-11-09.md),
[Grade 5](ontario-grade5-science-2026-11-09.md) and
[Grade 6](ontario-grade6-science-2026-11-09.md) reports and their linked mappings.
Official source paragraphs were read, with every specific paragraph compared
between standalone and full Ministry PDFs. No official wording or source PDFs
are redistributed here.

## Distinguish the remaining work

**Resource/localization work.** A complete existing claim may need a verified
Ontario case or culturally appropriate resource. Examples include community
contributions (A3.3 across grades), Grade 2 drinking-water access and household
substance symbols, Grade 3 cultural plant uses and local-food comparisons, Grade 4
community geological knowledge, Grade 5 conservation knowledge and Grade 6
agriculture/electricity community impacts. Country names and examples do not
justify duplicate mastery topics. The existing soil/crop and invasive-species
localizations demonstrate how source verification can resolve a condition without
adding a topic. Cultural specificity still needs appropriate community authority;
generic ecological knowledge or Australian Country evidence cannot be relabelled.

**Integrated task/performance work.** Investigation, coding-in-science,
interdisciplinary design and audience-specific reporting are combinations of
existing operations. Waste response, local conservation and school advocacy
include action, not only a planned answer. Grade 2 life-cycle samples and simple
machine categories require complete case checks. A union of links does not prove
the integrated task, but a missing integrated task is not automatically a missing
mastery claim. Keep assessed operations separate from evidence of actually
performing the mandated activity.

**Whole-claim age fit.** A later claim can contain the matching elementary
component plus substantial additional demands. Examples are technical energy
vocabulary for Grade 1, full conservation/dissipation for Grade 5, pressure-wave
or ray-diagram accounts for Grade 4, the extended circuit-rule claim for Grade 6,
and the Mars/SETI claim for Grade 6 space needs. Retain the real contribution as a
candidate; review the entire claim's developmental fit before adding an earlier
interval. Do not silently lower it from one easy clause, or clone the same
knowledge for a younger source grade. A later component is not a baseline gap.

**Context/readiness work.** The prerequisite index retains topic IDs, contributing
holders, source codes and selected intervals. Review actual consumer behavior and
appropriate guidance before deciding whether any context work is needed.
Semantically unjustified source links and invented dependencies are not a fix.
There are no age-only or dependency edits in this chain.

**Source scope/interpretation.** All selected official meanings were available;
there is no wording-access blocker. Some requirements remain broad or do not
specify a fixed exhaustive case list. For example, a body-system requirement does
not impose an unlisted compulsory seven-system checklist. Grade 6 D1's
environmental aviation judgment differs from D1.1's societal judgment; neither is
inferred from the other. Such distinctions explain independent review, not a
claim that the source is defective or that more nodes are needed.

**Existing-ID review and narrow quality corrections.** These should be separate
from association work and require the appropriate authored-change publishing
support. No merge, retirement or authored correction is performed here.

| Existing IDs | Finding and bounded next review |
| --- | --- |
| `mt_z7AJZapsJj`, `mt_NckKLZ3uCE` | Substantial rock-cycle formation/transition/time overlap. Extra examples and ages alone do not justify separate mastery claims. Compare whole evidence and downstream references before any identity proposal. |
| `mt_mwirOvigWD`, `mt_iycQEai3dK` | Basic fossil formation overlaps more detailed formation/mineral-replacement evidence. Review the common assessed operation; do not confuse either with strata/landscape inference `mt_GheLsWvrJ4`. |
| `mt_uVaS12lN1i`, `mt_URTJbS3hhs` | Supplied-web interpretation versus construction from data is a real operation difference, despite shared population predictions. They are not declared duplicates by their similar subject matter. |
| `mt_1JFUNQDwAJ` | A prompt using visible kettle mist as a gas needs a scope-preserving scientific correction. Proposed case: water in a cup, an ice cube and air inside an inflated balloon. Visible droplets are not gas; no new state claim is needed. |
| `mt_Mf-T-fYRLX` | Review wording that contrasts a solution with a mixture: solutions are mixtures. Preserve the intended distinction and assessable scope; no new solution topic is proposed. |
| `mt_rbPioPELM1`, `mt_UKmtuAsSLN` | Preserve checked new-substance/recovery examples, but do not use reversibility alone as a universal physical/chemical test. A narrow scientific wording review may be needed; it is not permission to broaden claims. |

## Re-search of apparent gaps

The renewed search spans all subjects and reads descriptions, evidence and
assessment, not just names. Four earlier false-gap risks are resolved explicitly:

| Apparent gap | Existing evidence | Remaining boundary |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Early energy | Basic Body Needs `mt_cxJRc15osy` explicitly links food energy to movement, thinking and growth; Sunlight warms things `mt_iGSfQg3g5c` supplies heat effects. | Grade 1 C2.1's cross-context generalization remains Partial. Do not create an early energy clone from that condition. |
| Supporting framework | Bones & Muscles `mt_SdIWVjzopp` explicitly assesses support/shape/protection. | Grade 1 D2.2 and Grade 3 D2.1 need natural/built generalization. Formal load-path analysis is not an early requirement. |
| Decomposition/planning | Planning a Task `mt_QR3vxbN1o4` explicitly breaks a task into ordered smaller steps and gathers resources. | Grade 2 A2.1 needs learner-authored science application. No second decomposition claim is needed. |
| Mass/volume | Maths has What volume means `mt_IuHa5UI5od`, Measuring Liquids & Masses `mt_-af65bxfdp`, capacity and measurement claims; Science has states `mt_YQkUdIHO8L` and particles `mt_ylruY6VhOf`. | These are real concepts/operations, but do not automatically establish Grade 5 C2.1's complete matter criterion, especially gases and non-material contrasts. Do not add new mass or volume topics. |

The scientific mass/volume criterion is distinguished from measuring either
attribute. The Maths volume claim explicitly concerns solid figures; the
measurement claim uses liquid amounts and object masses. The full Mass vs Weight
claim `mt_sUVeVXzRuq` includes gravitational-field calculations and begins at 11,
so its phrase about matter is not a reason to lower the whole claim for Grade 5.

## Small decisions that may require claim curation

**No addition is approved or authored.** The following are review candidates,
not a topic backlog. Each asks whether a bounded task/localization or narrow
scientific clarification can suffice before a separate mastery claim is justified.
Only a demonstrated independent mismatch should reach an identity proposal.

| Decision candidate and source codes | Closest existing IDs / actual mismatch | Positive, near miss and transfer evidence | Scope-preserving first option |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Matter criterion: G5 C2.1 | `mt_IuHa5UI5od`, `mt_-af65bxfdp`, `mt_YQkUdIHO8L`, `mt_ylruY6VhOf`, `mt_sUVeVXzRuq`. Measuring/counting volume, particle/state explanation and weight calculation do not explicitly test applying both matter criteria, including an invisible gas. | Positive: use supplied observations to identify material samples, including air, and justify both criteria. Near miss: only visible/tangible things are accepted, or light is classified as material solely because it is visible. Transfer: a different unseen gas/sample in a container, with evidence rather than memorized examples. | Try a bounded cross-subject assessment with existing mass/volume/state knowledge. If successful performance requires an unrepresented conceptual criterion, propose one carefully bounded conceptual claim for review, rather than new mass, volume and gas topics or an unexplained expansion of a Maths measurement claim. |
| Structural-force interpretation: G3 D2.3–D2.4, D2.6–D2.7; G5 D2.1–D2.2 | `mt_wf-SJhZ1kC`, `mt_k7GOtslF-x`, `mt_F3ATPTCYm6`, `mt_3WMADSy0mA`, `mt_Z5-fSCOBep`, `mt_fkwcCB5px7`. Deformation, applied/net forces and measurable design criteria exist; they do not explicitly establish every internal-force, load/strength/stability or bracing account. Those demands must also remain distinct. | Positive: distinguish an applied load from what a selected structural member does under it, using observations. Near miss: call all stationary objects stable against tipping, or name an external push as the complete internal account. Transfer: compare a different appropriate support/member or load arrangement. | Start with supported deformation/design tests and the existing moment/force reasoning. Check whether the source asks an application/example or an independent new distinction. Do not bundle every structural condition into one claim, require advanced load paths, lower the pressure/thermal-expansion bundle or create one node per force word. |
| Flight's missing causal/application links: G6 D2.1–D2.4 | `mt_Y9k86G8BBT`, `mt_sUVeVXzRuq`, `mt_k7GOtslF-x`, `mt_3WMADSy0mA`, `mt_nNYo5A-7Bl`. Drag, weight, balance and paper-airplane design comparison exist. They do not explicitly assess a complete lift/thrust account or all organism/machine controls. | Positive: use a checked flight case to connect an actual change in a force to the resulting motion. Near miss: call every upward force lift, or explain a turn only by saying the machine is faster. Transfer: another suitable glider/organism/control case with given evidence. | Supply a factual flight resource and test transfer of existing force-diagram/balance operations first. A flight setting alone does not justify a topic. If a causal property is independently absent, bring that exact mismatch for separate claim review; do not impose Bernoulli equations or advanced fluid dynamics that the source does not require. |

These checks are proposed evidence designs, not learner observations. They do not
change canonical assessments or prove that a new topic is necessary. The matter
criterion has the clearest remaining independent conceptual question; the
structure and flight cases have substantial application/task overlap with existing
claims and should first be tested as reuse.

## Recommended sequence

1. Review and reconcile the grade proposals in their dependency order, preserving
   every earlier scoped association and exact base. Repository review accepts
   semantics; it does not publish or certify learner state.
2. Build a small set of source-fit task/resource dossiers around recurring
   investigation/design/coding and environmental/cultural case conditions. Use
   positive, near-miss and transfer evidence on stable existing claims. Keep actual
   action requirements explicit.
3. Review consumer readiness against the indexed real prerequisites and existing
   global/framework guidance. Decide context changes from semantics and selection
   behavior, rather than trying to make the diagnostic count zero.
4. Review the few independent mismatch candidates and narrow scientific corrections
   separately, with supported authored-change tooling. Existing-ID cleanup is its
   own evidence/identity decision; it is not a merge instruction.

The next useful alignment work is evidence/resource and integrated-task review,
not a batch of new topics. The comprehensive primary Science audit can be handed
off for review while Full-coverage conditions remain visible. The broader Ontario
subject inventory remains a separate [primary status report](ontario-primary-status-2026-11-09.md).

## Verification

The ledger accounts for every selected code exactly once and preserves every
Partial condition, candidate ID/reason and prerequisite diagnostic occurrence from
the six grade mappings. Public links and topic IDs resolve. Source-text screening
finds no copied eight-word expectation passages. All tracked data and earlier
reports are byte-identical to the pinned Grade 6 base. This documentation-only
change requires no regenerated data, DB access or repeated data test suite.