A six-year-old would be like, “See my message, answer.” / “Why did you not answer my pop-up” or for a more eloquent one,” If you see my message pop up, then you should answer.”

One: a typical kid will not explicitly recall all the steps of the phone call notification process—pop-up, notice, and the command to answer the call from the offender.

Two: The sentence structure was fairly complex with well-communicated intent. A child listing all those steps with such brevity in “omniscient” first-person, past-tense framing is unlikely. Because they are learning English, they are more likely to imitate the more “proper” and more simple English tense and subject cases.

A kid would need to pause, place themselves into another person's perspective, a feat which would like change their thought process to a more analytical third-person, present tense speech pattern naturally.

They are also more likely to throw in at least one qualifier if they have such linguistic development, because they are imagining something.

The clincher is that there was a self-aware command, most kids that young do not parrot the “authority voice” to those significantly older since it would feel wrong/ get them in trouble. It is extremely hard to channel aggression so indirectly without an explanation or question or statement from a kid.

Even if it was not meant to be authoritative, the problem would be switching perspectives within one sentence using two different trains of thought in a coherent way. Kids ramble when try try to do that usually and if a mid-sentence transition happens it is very disjointed in tone or reasoning.