At the start of a cross-subject（语境补充词）/cross-subject/ challenge, Mina's team received a real case rather than a textbook（教科书）/'tekstbuk/ exercise. The opening evidence connected confused（困惑的、混乱的）/kәn'fju:zd/, congratulation（祝贺、恭喜）/kәn.grætʃә'leiʃәn/, consequence（结果、重要性）/'kɒnsikwәns/, consist（组成、存在于）/kәn'sist/, consistent（一致的、坚持的）/kәn'sistәnt/, constant（常数、恒量）/'kɒnstәnt/, contain（包含；容纳）/kənˈteɪn/, contest（竞赛、争论）/'kɒntest/, context（语境；背景）/ˈkɑntɛkst/, continent（大陆、洲）/'kɒntinәnt/, contradictory（矛盾因素、对立物）/.kɒntrә'diktәri/, contrary（相反、对立面）/'kɒntrәri/, conventional（传统的、习惯的）/kәn'venʃәnl/, and convince（使确信、使信服）/kәn'vins/. The links looked unusual, but each detail came from a witness, label, form, or measurement（尺寸、度量）/'meʒәdmәnt/ in the case file. The team has already reviewed the complete plan.

A second folder added core（核心）/kɔr/, costume（装束、服装）/'kɒstju:m/, cottage（小屋、茅舍）/'kɒtidʒ/, cotton（棉；棉布）/ˈkɒtn/, council（议会；委员会）/ˈkaʊnsəl/, county（县；郡）/ˈkaʊnti/, crash（哗啦声、猛撞）/kræʃ/, cream（乳酪、奶油）/kri:m/, creature（人、动物）/'kri:tʃә/, crew（全体人员、一群人）/kru:/, criticise（批评、吹毛求疵）/'kritisaiz/, crop（农作物、产量）/krɒp/, crowd（群众、一伙人）/kraud/, and crucial（决定性的、重要的）/'kru:ʃәl/. Some entries described people and places; others recorded objects, actions, or changing conditions. The students sorted each clue by time and source instead of forcing an early answer. The final choice was explained to everyone at the meeting.

The hardest set included cruel（残酷的）/kruəl/, cuisine（烹调风格、烹调法）/kwi:'zi:n/, cupboard（食橱、碗柜）/'kʌpbɒ:d/, cure（治疗、治愈）/kjuә/, curious（好奇的、求知的）/'kjuәriәs/, cycle（周期、循环）/'saikl/, dare（敢于）/dɛr/, death（死亡）/dɛθ/, debt（债务、罪过）/det/, decade（十年）/ˈdɛkeɪd/, decent（有分寸的、得体的）/'di:sәnt/, decline（衰退、跌落）/di'klain/, decorate（装饰）/'dekәreit/, and decrease（减少、减少量）/'di:kri:s/. Mina checked spelling and context while a partner marked facts that could be tested. Mina, who led（lead的过去式和过去分词）/led/ the discussion（讨论）/dɪˈskʌʃn/, asked for clear evidence. Then the supervisor（管理者、监督者）/.sju:pә'vaizә/ said, “Do not hide an awkward clue merely because it weakens（削弱、减弱）/'wi:kәn/ your first idea.”

The last working board brought together deer（鹿）/diә/, defeat（败北、失败）/di'fi:t/, defence（防御；辩护）/dɪˈfɛns/, defend（防护、辩护）/di'fend/, definitely（明确无疑地、清楚地）/'definitli/, definition（定义、精确度）/.defi'niʃәn/, delete（删除）/di'li:t/, delicate（细致优雅的、微妙的）/'delikәt/, demand（要求；需求）/dɪˈmænd/, dentist（牙医）/ˈdɛntɪst/, deny（否认、拒绝）/di'nai/, departure（离开、出发）/di'pɑ:tʃә/, depress（使沮丧、压低）/di'pres/, and depth（深度、深处）/depθ/. The group compared the four boards, removed repeated claims, and wrote（写下）/roʊt/ a short reason beside every decision（决定）/dɪˈsɪʒn/. If the first method fails, we can try another one. That rule helped them correct two mistakes without blaming a teammate（队友）/'ti:mmeit/.

They would carry out（开展；执行）/ˈkɛri aʊt/ a careful review before they could draw a conclusion（得出结论）/drɔ ə kənˈkluʒən/. The answer must be based on（以……为依据）/bi beɪst ɔn/ evidence. Everyone would have access to（有机会使用；可获取）/hæv ˈækˌsɛs tɪ/ the same file, focus on（集中于）/ˈfoʊkɪs ɔn/ the task, and refer to（查阅；提到）/rɪˈfər tɪ/ original notes. In contrast（相比之下）/ɪn ˈkɑntræst/, guesses would be rejected; in addition（此外）/ɪn əˈdɪʃən/, every change needed a reason. The completed record told（告诉）/toʊld/ a clearer story than the first draft. It did not pretend that every clue was equally important; it showed how disciplined reading, calm cooperation（合作、协力）/kәu.ɒpә'reiʃәn/, and a checkable（语境补充词）/checkable/ decision could turn a crowded case into useful（有用的）/ˈjuːsfəl/ action.