Author desk… | Foundation Design Tech · T2 W15–16 · Run Through

This is a scripted desk simulation, asset inspection and static verification. No teacher, child, parent, listener, accessibility user, school, vessel or material trial participated. The review does not demonstrate learning, comfort, product fit or classroom viability. It identifies what an educator must still decide locally.

Teacher seat: can I run the fortnight tomorrow?

I follow Day 71 with no kit: read the fictional candidate names, ask for user/purpose, accept a visible silent cue, record one designed feature. The 25-minute parts are explicit and the no-material route reaches the day's Design target. I cannot mark a material property as observed.
On Day 74, I apply the safe step page. If my school has not approved clean large materials or comfortable user feedback, I use the spoken plan and write NOT TRIED. The child still states order, handler and stop signal; I do not score actual making or successful user use.
On Day 77, the proposed dry setup requires my local approval of a stable clear table, clean broad full-size pad and empty unbreakable A/B vessels. I alone place vessels, one at a time. I write separate actual base positions only if I truly see them. If I cannot approve the try, I say NOT TRIED for each. No water or capacity comparison enters this lesson.
On Day 79, the real familiar source slot stays blank unless I have an actual approved classroom product/service/environment, permission and a child-seen feature. This is necessary before claiming the “familiar” aspect of AC9TDEFK01 from local evidence.
The two child checks are handed out before their public key is used. I can record first ideas, prompts and next teaching moves. They are unsuitable for secure grading or a summative report from this pack alone.

Teacher friction found and fixed: The first dry-purpose sketch put two schematic vessel circles on top of the pad. That could look like actual successful placement. The revised page separates A and B outlines above a rectangle explicitly labelled “PAD IDEA · NOT TRIED.” The linear description now matches. The A4 drawings are explicitly not full-size pad templates.

Learner seat: can I answer without buying, touching or hearing?

Day 72: I can hear/see the two candidate names, ask one question for each and choose “not yet” if I lack material information. The teacher should not tell me that cloth must be comfortable for me.
Day 73: I can dictate two distinct shapes/locations while an adult scribes my exact words. My own user-linked reason remains mine. The same goal is available by drawing, AAC or directing a pointer.
Day 75: I get a fictional partner who may prefer a visible sign. The check page has two large empty spaces. No example response appears in either space. I can say “I would ask them” and “NOT TRIED” without being made to tap or listen.
Day 80: I can describe a broad boundary and safe adult handling, then answer A = NOT TRIED and B = NOT TRIED if only the page is used. I do not have to guess which vessel is bigger or holds more.

Access still to confirm locally: the PDFs contain selectable words but are untagged; use the full linear alternatives, exact adult reading/scribing, local AAC and accessible copies. A blind or low-vision learner should be offered a child-led spoken/tactile model with school-approved full-size pieces only if wanted and safe. Test with actual users before claiming accessibility effectiveness. The no-touch and no-sound routes are complete design routes, not indications of fixed “learning style.”

Parent/supporter seat: can I help without a home setup?

All ten home bridges are talk, pretend play or drawing. They ask for no printer, subscription, special instrument, container, water, home allergy judgement or physical test. A supporter can invite a child to name a user and ask one design question, then stop. The family is not asked to report a real result the school did not observe.

Potential funder or reviewer seat: what evidence exists?

The crosswalk pins two exact ACARA v9 Foundation Design rows to the official workbook SHA and Queensland Prep entry point. The source/rights ledger separates official quoted wording, original open-licensed material and the direct QCAA alignment-PDF 403 retrieval limit. The independent verifier checks official local workbook/import agreement, day/count/timing/code coverage, check isolation, A4/source text/metadata, links and SHA receipt. This is evidence of authored pack integrity, not adoption, child learning or endorsement. The next evidence is a consented, educator-led classroom/accessibility review with actual local records; none is claimed here.

Print and source QA record

Rendered and visually inspected a contact sheet of all eight A4 PDFs, including both fresh checks. The pages show clear text headers, generous blank response spaces, high-contrast outlines and an unselected status line. The revised two-purpose panel leaves both vessel outlines apart from the pad.
Checked each PDF is one A4 page with selectable text and that its required words match the SVG and full linear alternative. The SVGs have titles and descriptions. PDFs remain untagged.
Reran the generator after a two-second separation. SHA-256 for all 16 SVG/PDF assets was identical before and after rerender. The generator normalizes Cairo PDF time metadata with pypdf; regeneration needs rsvg-convert and pypdf 5.1.0 or a compatible version. The generator and verifier are original source, not embedded in the learner PDFs.
Ran ruff check on the generator and verifier; ran the verifier to write then read the manifest after files were final. No physical classroom, user-feedback, water, allergy or vessel fit test was performed.

Release boundary: This pack can be offered as a reviewable author draft. A local educator must check safety, hygiene, sensory access, translation/local language, equipment, child consent and fit with their approved scope/sequence. The Queensland link establishes the entry point; it is not a QCAA endorsement or school approval.