S1-S6 cross-curricular: after AI gets something wrong, who has to account for it — five positions, three types of event and a four-column responsibility map

StageS1-S6
SubjectCross-curricular
Learning strandreflection on the application of AI
Official documentsBlueprint for Digital Education Development in Primary and Secondary Schools · AI Literacy Learning Framework for Primary and Secondary Schools · Guide to Using AI in Teaching in Primary and Secondary Schools · EDBCM No. 156/2026
Preparation timeone session (60 minutes); the staff version takes 45

Turning "who has to account for this" into one four-column sheet: five positions, three types of event, and a 45-minute staff version that walks one rewritten event through the same table.

Two faceless Hong Kong school colleagues stand at a long pale table in a bright staff room, five completely blank pale cards laid in a row on the table, a deep red tab on the leftmost card and a deep blue folder beside them.

AudienceTeachers
ThemeResponsible AI use

Equipmentthe four-column responsibility map (one per colleague, printable on its own); the five position cards and three event cards (one set per group, cut out for sorting); a projector or whiteboard
Version1.1
Last updated2026-11-12

When something goes wrong, the hardest question is not what the tool got wrong. It is who has to account for it. This page does one thing: it takes one event that has already happened and writes it into one four-column table. Five positions, three types of event, four columns — nothing added, nothing dropped.

What this solves

When a tool produces something wrong, the first move in most schools is to find a person. The colleague who ran it, the teacher who taught that class, the person who signed the purchase. Once a person has been found the matter looks closed — but the real questions are still open: at this point in the chain, whose decision was it? Who has to account for it, and to whom? What record was left?

Nobody writes those three answers down, so every incident is discussed from scratch and reaches a different conclusion; and more often than not nothing is recorded at all, so when the same step fails again next year nobody remembers how it was handled last time.

The school already has a document for which post follows up a risk and what happens at the moment of an incident. What is missing is the account of a single event, step by step: not an inquiry into who was at fault, but one sheet that says who has to account for each step, to whom, and what was written down.

That is what this page supplies: five positions, three types of event, and a four-column table, plus a 45-minute staff version.

Why “has to account for” rather than “is responsible”. Say “responsible” and the meeting turns into a judgement about who did badly; once judgement starts, colleagues explain themselves instead of writing the record. “Has to account for” is an action that can be finished: say whose decision this step was, say it to this person, leave this line of record. Then it is done, and nobody has been found at fault. The whole page is built around that distinction, and it is the reason accountability here is a record rather than a verdict.

Three statements to read first:

The five positions, the three types of event and the four columns are this resource’s suggestion. The official documents do not use these names and do not set the number of positions, the classification of events or the columns of a table. The grounds are the three requirements the documents do set out — accountability, top-level leadership and coordination, and professional judgement. None of this may be presented as an Education Bureau requirement.
This page is not legal advice. It quotes no section number of any law and reaches no conclusion about the legal effect of anything. A case touching law, contract, insurance or personal data goes to the colleague responsible under the school’s own documents and to professional advice.
The Primary Information and Innovation Technology Curriculum Framework is a primary pilot version. This page covers S1-S6; at secondary level the same set of terms is used, but there is no equivalent official framework, so the page neither presents it as a secondary requirement nor quotes items from it.

This page does five things it does not do:

It reaches no verdict of fault, no finding of wrongdoing and nothing about what anyone owes anyone in law. Every cell of the table records only what must be accounted for and what record was left.
It does not say “the teacher carries the whole responsibility for the tool’s mistake”, and it does not say “the supplier is responsible”. Both are verdicts, and this page records positions, not verdicts. One step can require an account from two or three positions at once; that is not a contradiction.
It names no real case, school, teacher, pupil or parent. Every example on the page and in the attachments is fictional, and the page says so.
It evaluates no tool, platform or supplier, and carries no brand or model. It says “the tool” and “the supplier”.
It does not turn the table into a complaint, a sanction or a personnel record. No case is named, and the sheet never enters a personnel file.

Learning objectives

Who it is for. Every member of staff: teachers, teaching assistants, administrative colleagues, library and IT colleagues, and anyone who uses a tool in the course of school work. It is material for one staff meeting and a worksheet that prints on its own.

After one meeting, a school can:

Place the description of one event into one of the three types (it may be two at once), and say why there is no fourth.
Take the five positions in turn and ask, at each: whose decision was this step, who has to account for it, and to whom.
Fill the four-column table for one event, and point out which cell is still blank.
Say the three closing sentences, and say who keeps the sheet and for how long.

This page’s learning strand is reflection on the application of AI — the same name the other pages for this subject and stage use. It takes people-centred education and technology for good as its values, and sits between a sense of responsibility and critical thinking: critical thinking is being able to ask whose decision a step was; a sense of responsibility is writing that line of record even when nobody is asking. It is also a rehearsal in timely and appropriate use — saying, at each step, which part a person should decide and which part can sit with the tool.

How to use it

The attachments are two Word documents: the four-column responsibility map (one per colleague, printable on its own) and the five position cards and three event cards (one set per group, cut out for sorting and classifying).

Step one: classify first, ask about decisions second

An event is placed in one of the three types first. Classification comes before the question of decisions: start asking “whose decision was this” before the event is classified and the meeting will turn into an inquiry.

Type	What kind of event it is	The one question this type turns on
Type one — a wrong answer taken as fact	The tool produced something wrong and it was used or repeated as fact	Was this line ever checked? By whom?
Type two — content involving another person’s copyright, privacy or likeness	Generated or used content involves a third party’s work, personal data or image	Was there any basis for using this content?
Type three — a decision taken on the tool’s advice that had an effect	Someone decided on the tool’s advice, and the decision affected a person or a thing	Who made that decision? How much of it was the advice?

Three rules:

One event may be written as “type one and type two”; there is no fourth type. Anything outside the three is written as the nearest type, with “not yet classified — follow-up needed” in the fourth column.
The types are not a severity scale. There is no order and no ranking among them; which is handled first is a decision for the responsible colleague.
Classification is led by whoever chairs the meeting, and not decided by one person. Where people differ, write down the difference; do not put it to a vote on the spot.

Step two: the five positions, asked one at a time

The five positions are places to analyse from, not five people: one colleague may appear in two of them, and one position may hold several colleagues. The order is fixed.

Order	Position	The one thing to ask at this position
First	The pupil who used the result	Did they know they were using it? Was anyone asking them to check it?
Second	The teacher who guided or marked the work	Whose teaching decision was this step? Had they seen this result?
Third	The school that provided the tool (post, never a name)	Who approved this tool for use? Within what scope?
Fourth	The supplier of the tool	What did the supplier say about this tool’s known limitations? Does the school hold that statement?
Fifth	Whoever passed it on or adopted it	Who passed this content on, to whom, and was it reworded?

Two statements must be said alongside the five positions; without either, the table collapses into “find one person”:

A position that is not in the table is not thereby free of responsibility; it only means this table does not handle it. Parents, outside tutors and library colleagues sit outside the five, and that does not make them irrelevant to the event.
All five positions are asked; none is skipped. Where nothing happened at a position, write “none” in the cell rather than leaving it blank — blank and “none” look alike in six months and mean opposite things.

Step three: the four-column table (four columns, fixed)

One row per position, filled left to right. Every cell records what must be accounted for and what record was left — no evaluation, no finding about who was right.

Column	What it asks	What goes in it
One — what happened	What actually happened at this position	One fact: the action and the order of events, without adjectives
Two — whose decision	Who made the decision at this step	The post (no name); where there was no decision, write “no decision”
Three — who accounts for it, and to whom	Which position must account for it, to which position	Position to position, e.g. “second to third”; no names
Four — what record is left and what happens next	Which line of record this step leaves, and the next step	The name and location of the record (unnamed), plus one next action and one responsible post

A worked example (fictional). One rewritten event: a tool-generated learning sheet contained a paragraph that did not match the textbook, and it was printed and handed to a class. Below is the same event in five rows.

What happened	Whose decision	Who accounts for it, and to whom	What record is left and what happens next
Pupil: copied the paragraph into the homework without checking it	The pupil decided to copy it	First to second	Teacher marks “not checked” on the homework; next lesson demonstrates one check
Teacher: printed the sheet without checking it paragraph by paragraph	The teacher decided to print it	Second to third	One line in the subject record: date, class, position of the paragraph; one check added before the next sheet is printed
School: approved the tool for lesson preparation without setting a scope	The school (post) approved the use	Third to fourth	One line in the approval record: post, date, purpose, scope; scope added at the next approval
Supplier: the tool’s information page lists known limitations	The supplier decided how to word that page	Fourth to third	The school keeps a copy of that page; it is checked again at the next review
Passing it on: the same teacher sent the sheet to another class	The teacher decided to pass it on	Fifth to second	One line in the forwarding record: date, destination; column three is re-read before forwarding

Five rules, printed at the foot of the sheet:

The sheet records; it does not score. No marks, grades or ranking, and no personnel or conduct record.
No case is named. Everything is written as a post; a pupil is “the pupil”, never a class or a seat number.
“None” is also written. A blank cell and “none” mean opposite things; a blank means nobody looked at that cell.
One cell may hold two positions. Where two positions decided together, write “second and third” rather than adding a row.
No record in the fourth column means, for this purpose, that the event did not happen. This is the most important cell on the sheet.

The one-page staff version (45 minutes)

Take one real event that has already been rewritten, and walk it through the same table. Rewritten means: names, class, date, subject and numbers removed, leaving only the situation that needs a judgement. The event is chosen and rewritten beforehand by whoever chairs; no live school case is rewritten in the room.

Time	What happens	What the chair does
5 minutes	Opening: this session is about what happens after something goes wrong — not how the tool works, and not who did badly	Says the page is not legal advice and replaces no school document
8 minutes	Classify: read the three types, place the prepared event in one (or two)	Writes down the type and the reason; where people differ, writes “difference — follow-up”
12 minutes	Five positions: order the five cards, and ask “whose decision was this step” at each	Skips no position; where nothing happened, writes “none”
12 minutes	Four columns: fill the same event, five rows	Demonstrates column three once, written as “position to position”
5 minutes	Find the blank: which cell was hardest to fill, and why	Notes the blank position (no names) as the next step
3 minutes	Closing: everyone reads the three sentences; the chair says who keeps the sheet	States where the sheet is kept and for how long; it never enters a personnel file

Rules that do not change: five positions and only five, three types and only three, four columns and only four — nothing added, nothing dropped, no sub-items; the order of the five positions is fixed. Where time runs short, cut depth, not the number or the order.

Teacher checks (four)

The chair rewrites the example beforehand. No real case is described in the room and none is “just slightly changed”; an obviously invented example is better.
No finding about who was right. If someone starts explaining themselves, the chair takes the question back to column three: “which position does this step have to account to?”
Anything touching law, contract, insurance or personal data goes to the responsible colleague at once. It is not discussed or minuted in detail in the meeting; only “referred” and the post are recorded.
The chair collects the sheets. They are handled under the school’s retention arrangements, not pinned to a wall, not put in a personnel file, and never named.

Three closing sentences (read together)

“Classify first, then ask about the decision.”
“Having to account for something is not a conviction.”
“No record means it did not happen.”

Where this meets other resources

Interfaces only; none of their work is repeated here:

Whole-school AI risk register and incident response (P1-S6, school planning) handles which post follows up a risk and what happens at the moment of an incident: an eight-column register, ten risks, a three-step response. This page handles one event that has already happened, and who has to account for each step. The two are used together — that page before, this page after — and this page changes nothing in it and repeats none of its register columns.
What never goes into a prompt: staff checklist handles the step before anything is typed; this page handles the step after something has gone wrong. They sit at opposite ends of the same timeline.
A risk on the risk register can point here: once that risk happens, this page walks it step by step.

Answer key and marking notes

This worksheet scores nothing and grades nobody. What follows is for the chair to compare against, not to judge who answered correctly.

Notes on classification

Tool-generated content used or repeated as fact is type one. Even where the content later turns out to be right, if nobody checked it at the time it is still recorded as type one.
Content involving a third party’s work, personal data or image is type two. Where one piece of content is both wrong and about another person, write “type one and type two”.
A decision taken on the tool’s advice, which affected a person or a thing, is type three. The weight of type three is on the decision, not on the advice.
Where none of the three fits, write the nearest type and put “not yet classified — follow-up needed” in column four. There is no fourth type, and no sub-types.

Notes on the four columns

Column one is adequate if it gives the action and the order of events; an adjective such as “poor communication” means the cell is not filled.
Column two must be a post, or “no decision”. A name fails — not because names are forbidden, but because in six months that person may no longer hold the post.
Column three must read position to position. “The school” or “the teacher” on its own fails: it has to be one of the five.
Column four needs the name and location of the record, plus one next action and one responsible post. “Be more careful in future” is not a record.

Four points for the teacher to check

Is any row blank? Blank and “none” mean opposite things.
Were all five positions asked? Any position skipped is explained at the foot of the sheet.
Does a name, class or seat number appear? Remove it and write the post instead.
Do any words that pass a verdict in law appear? Remove them and write what must be accounted for and what record was left.

What counts as finished: five rows filled for one event, records in at least four positions, the three closing sentences read, and the place the sheet is kept stated. It is not scored, and it is not a personnel or conduct record.

Files

Four-column responsibility map (Word document, editable, prints on its own)

One A4 page: the five facts at the top (stage, subject, learning strand, documents, preparation time), the classification space for the three types, the five positions with their one question, the four-column table with five blank rows, the five rules at the foot, and the three closing sentences. There is no name field and no pupil data field.

Five position cards and three event cards (Word document, editable, cut out for use)

One set: five position cards (one position and one question each), three event cards (one type and one rule each), and one blank four-column card. Used for the sorting and classifying activity in steps two and three; the cards carry no names and can be reused.

Each document carries a version record line in its footer.

Official documents

Every resource in this library is written to the AI Literacy Learning Framework for Primary and Secondary Schools and falls within the policy scope of the Blueprint for Digital Education Development in Primary and Secondary Schools.

This resource maps to:

Blueprint for Digital Education Development in Primary and Secondary Schools (three-fold leaflet, p.2): requires digital and AI education to be planned in the School Development Plan, with the arrangements explained to teachers, pupils and parents; writing down who has to account for a step after something has gone wrong is part of explaining those arrangements.
Supplement I: AI Literacy Learning Framework for Primary and Secondary Schools (p.1-4): sets out three learning strands; this resource’s strand is “reflection on the application of AI”, the same name the other pages for this subject and stage use.
Supplement II: Guide to Using AI in Teaching in Primary and Secondary Schools (pp.2-4 to 2-9): asks teachers to exercise professional judgement, to scrutinise tool-generated teaching content closely, and to respect copyright when applying AI; the five positions and the four-column table are one way of meeting that in a school.
EDBCM No. 156/2026 (as published): see the three official grounds below, together with the accountability requirement it places on school planning.

Three official grounds (quoted verbatim in the Chinese edition, where the published wording governs; rendered here so that the English edition can be read on its own)

One, EDBCM No. 156/2026, paragraph 2: the Bureau is using the improved school development and accountability framework to help schools keep improving their practice in digital education, and in the 2026/27 school year a school must incorporate digital education into its School Development Plan and/or its annual school plan and set out its own implementation strategy.

Two, the same circular, Appendix 1, section 2, “Whole-school planning level”: set up a dedicated group: the school’s leadership organises a school-based digital education dedicated group to provide top-level leadership and coordination, leading the whole school in promoting AI education.

Three, the same circular, Appendix 1, section 3, “Teacher professionalism level”: maintain professional judgement: teachers are reminded to respect copyright when applying generative AI and must keep their professional insight, including scrutinising AI-generated teaching content closely and guarding against potential data bias and “AI hallucination”.

Source and boundary. The third ground above is word for word the same sentence quoted on the page “What never goes into a prompt: staff checklist”. The two pages use it differently: that page uses it for who approves what data goes in, and this page uses it for who has to account for a step after something has gone wrong. It is not a new quotation here, and no further reading is placed on it; the quotations are grounds only, and the five positions, the three types and the four columns remain this resource’s suggestion.

Learning strands: reflection on the application of AI

Official documents page: https://www.edb.gov.hk/en/edu-system/primary-secondary/applicable-to-primary-secondary/it-in-edu/debp.html

This page is an independent Beets teaching resource, not an official EDB document. The names “five positions”, “three types of event” and “the four-column table”, the number and order of the positions, the classification of events and the column headings are this resource’s suggestion, not an Education Bureau requirement. This page is not legal advice: it quotes no section number of any law and reaches no conclusion about the legal effect of anything. Every cell of the table records only what must be accounted for and what record was left. No real case, school, teacher, pupil or parent is named, and every example is fictional. No tool, platform or supplier is evaluated, and no brand or model appears. The table records only: it is not scored, and it is not a complaint, a sanction or a personnel record; no case is named.

Feedback

If you have any comments or questions about this resource, or a suggestion for the next one, please tell us on the feedback page.

Related resources

Reuse

Download and adapt these resources freely for teaching; please keep the attribution.