# Facilitating the evidence study lab An original teaching guide for Albert Tan Sin Hon’s *Insurance-Backed Offshore Liquidity* (University of Groningen Press, 2026). Use the [eight study cards](study-lab.html) and [printable worksheet](worksheet.html) after reading Chapter 1, sections 1.3–1.9. The exercises explain the edition’s method. Legal cut-off: 1 August 2026. ## A 35-minute small-group activity Allow five minutes for students to distinguish an observed record, a factual inference and a legal conclusion. Spend ten minutes on four cards selected for the class’s needs: each learner states an answer before revealing the commentary, then identifies the proposition for which the cited passage matters. Use fifteen minutes for the worksheet in pairs. Reserve five minutes for each pair to exchange its qualified opinion with another pair and identify one unsupported step. For a longer session, use all eight cards and ask students to return to the source. These timings are planning suggestions, not measured completion times. A reader can operate the study lab through native buttons or use the ordinary HTML disclosures. Printed copies of the worksheet support participation without a device. Do not require a student to respond within a fixed countdown. The interface retains no answers or progress after reloading. ## Questions that make the cards useful Ask the learner to identify the legal object, actor, capacity and date before choosing a conclusion. Then ask which document supports the proposition, what its evidential limit is, and which governing rule makes the asserted connection material. Accept a carefully justified open conclusion when the supplied evidence cannot settle the issue. The commentary is a starting point for discussion. It does not exhaust every tenable analysis. Where a student supplies additional facts or a legal rule, distinguish the supplied exercise from that expressly stated assumption and verify the source before assessing the resulting conclusion. ## Worksheet commentary The records and characters are fictional. Authenticity is assumed for the classroom; completeness, the truth of every underlying assertion and legal effectiveness remain questions. Students should resist treating the adviser’s assertion in Record D as the proof it needs. | Record | What it contributes | What remains to be established | | --- | --- | --- | | A: insurer’s receipt | A dated record of Mira’s premium payment and the policyholder named in the receipt. | The policy’s rights and terms; any claimed interest in later company proceeds. | | B: signed facility | The named borrower and a contractual reference to policy security. | The actual security instrument, the right transferred, necessary authority and the relevant dimensions of effectiveness. | | C: company statement | The recorded facility credit into Aster Ltd’s account. | Mira’s authority to direct that account, beneficial entitlement or actual use of the credit. | | D: adviser’s email | An assertion made by the adviser on a specified date. | The records and governing rules that would support the asserted spending power. | A useful document request identifies the account mandate, corporate authorisations and security instrument, states the specific question each could answer and identifies the likely holder. It also considers whether the requester has a lawful route to obtain the material. More documents are useful only where they can affect a material proposition. Possible counter-evidence includes an effective account mandate authorising named directors and excluding Mira as a signatory. That could contradict direct signing authority on that record. It would not settle every possible allegation of agency, influence or another legal entitlement. The response must stay matched to the proposition actually tested. The qualified opinion should separate the premium payment, reference to security and company receipt from Mira’s alleged power to spend. An account mandate could be a review trigger. A finding on spending authority also needs the applicable rules and material date. If a legal consequence or remedy is proposed, ask which person or institution can decide or act, through which procedure, and under which source of authority. ## Feedback to give Look for accurate use of the supplied facts, separation of the three working records, a precise relational proposition, relevant counter-evidence and a conclusion whose limits are stated. A learner who explains why an issue remains open may have reasoned better than one who produces a confident unsupported verdict. The book’s professional evidence labels do not alter a statutory burden or tribunal standard. Do not award credit merely for repeating terminology. Ask the learner to change one fact and explain which part of the conclusion changes. Treat public commentary as formative material; an examiner who needs confidential assessment must prepare a different problem and marking scheme. ## Portable card data The [JSON export](study-cards.json) contains the same eight prompts and commentaries as the study lab. It records the original-material licence, attribution, book identity and source-page references. `format_version` is this companion’s local data format, not a claim of an external interchange standard. Importers should display the source and licence alongside the cards and identify adaptations. The export has no executable code, remote instructions or embedded book text. ## Sources and attribution - Chapter 1, sections 1.3–1.6, printed pp. 35–41: [publisher PDF, physical page 37](https://books.ugp.rug.nl/ugp/catalog/download/300/584/1875#page=37). - Chapter 1, sections 1.7–1.9, printed pp. 48–51: [publisher PDF, physical page 50](https://books.ugp.rug.nl/ugp/catalog/download/300/584/1875#page=50). - Book DOI: [10.21827/6ac3948159a9e](https://doi.org/10.21827/6ac3948159a9e). IBOL Open Learning Companion, Albert Tan Sin Hon, 2026, [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), . Identify adaptations. This permission covers original companion material only. The published book is separately [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). This AI-assisted supplement was commissioned by the author and has not been reviewed by the publisher. No learning-outcome improvement has been measured.