Name the doer, name the check

A green proposal is easier to trust when readers can see both the evidence chain and the responsibility chain. The evidence chain begins with a baseline collected before a change. It should state what was measured, when, under which conditions and by whom. A short trial can then repeat the same measures. If the schedule, room or weather conditions differ, the comparison needs a qualification. The responsibility chain answers a different set of questions. Who requested the action? Who performed it? Who checked safety or measurement quality? Who approved the decision, and when will it be reviewed? Causative structures help describe these roles. A teacher may have students record readings, get a coordinator to repeat a check or have a meter inspected by an authorised person. The passive pattern highlights the completed service, but it must not erase accountability. ‘The timer was changed’ is incomplete when readers need to know who approved the change. Safety also sets a firm boundary. Students can analyse supplied fictional data, observe ordinary settings and interview role cards. They should not open electrical equipment, bypass controls or perform technical checks that require trained adults. Environmental language needs boundaries too. Lower use during a two-day trial does not establish a yearly reduction. Six comfort responses do not represent every future user. A proposal can still be useful if it names those limits and recommends a longer trial. Finally, the target should be specific. Reducing avoidable use is different from treating every use as waste. Some equipment supports safety, accessibility or learning. A responsible memo identifies the unnecessary pattern, preserves an authorised override and sets a review date. This approach may sound less dramatic than an instant ‘green victory’, but it gives another team enough information to reproduce the check and question the decision.