Author desk… | Foundation Design Tech · T2 W19–20 · Run Through

This is an author desk simulation, static verifier run and visual print inspection. No teacher, child, family, actual listener, school, motion device, material maker, portfolio sample or accessibility user was trialled. A hypothetical response in a worked example is not a classroom result. Local user and educator review is still needed.

Teacher seat: could I run this fortnight?

On Day 91, I can read the fictional four-try source without any ramp. Q Try 1 clearly says INTERRUPTED · NO STOP MARK. I ask who needs a source/status guide, not which surface “wins.” This does not consume the separate integrated Science fair test or its actual observations.
On Day 94, the safe service steps name the adult's material/source/access check before any making. If local approval is absent, I still run a spoken/drawn design plan and write physical making/reader use NOT TRIED. I never ask a child to operate motion equipment in this Design slot.
On Day 96, I approve and prepare only large clean blunt paper, if suitable. A willing child may mark broad ASK/CHECK/TELL cues under my supervision, or direct me; I record who actually marked/placed each cue. The A4 aid is a prompt sheet, not proof that physical cards exist.
On Day 97, I can invite one willing new listener to find which fictional attempt has no stop mark. I record the exact selection, words and prompts. If the reader declines, response is NOT TRIED. I do not write “worked for all readers” or an actual motion conclusion.
On Day 99, the authentic sample slot stays blank without a consented real source, date, child choice, redaction and appropriate audience. A fictional source is enough for Design rehearsal but not a midyear portfolio claim.

Teacher critique: This service adds most value when the cue causes a user to inspect a source/status before repeating a result. The static pages cannot prove that. The record therefore separates designed order, actual material handler, exact reader action and a later change. The fictional P/Q marks are deliberately not a neat general rule: one try is interrupted and the completed marks do not warrant a universal material claim.

Learner seat: can I participate without making, hearing or reading small print?

On Day 92, I can hear or see both service ideas, choose for a named pretend listener and explain a possible help/difficulty. I am not labelled a permanent “visual” or “auditory” learner.
On Day 95, I receive a fresh pretend completed/unfinished reader record, two large blank idea spaces and no model cue. I may point, sign, use AAC, tell, draw or direct exact scribing. I can say NO CARD SELECTED for the interrupted try without a penalty for missing information.
On Day 96, if I do not want to touch materials, I can direct an adult or describe where broad cues would go. My design decision is recorded, and the adult's physical making is not credited as my handling.
On Day 100, I can describe the shapes printed on a fictional Sample B and ask about its unknown date. I am not asked to disclose my own work or claim real improvement from an invented pair.

Access still to validate: The PDFs contain selectable words but are untagged. The full linear/tactile alternatives support a screen-reader/no-print route; actual AAC, sign, tactile and low-vision fit must be checked with local users. The A4 type and large fields looked clear in a rendered contact sheet, but that inspection cannot establish individual readability or cognitive access.

Parent or supporter seat: can I help without supplies?

All ten home bridges are conversation, pretend questioning or optional drawing. None requests a ramp, device, child record, real school assessment, photograph, printing, account, purchase or home test. A supporter may ask “Was that try finished?” and accept “we do not know” as an honest answer. Home pretend play never becomes evidence of real Science or child progress.

Potential funder or reviewer seat: which claims are supported?

The curriculum crosswalk pins the two exact ACARA v9 Foundation Design descriptions to official workbook rows 19725 and 19733 and names the Queensland Prep entry point. The rights ledger distinguishes official quotations from newly authored CC BY 4.0 material and discloses the direct QCAA alignment-PDF 403 retrieval limit. The independent verifier checks source SHA/import wording, ten scripts with minute sums/codes, thirty same-goal routes, twenty swaps, held-check isolation, SVG/PDF geometry/phrases/alternatives, links and final SHA receipt. These are proofs of authored pack integrity, not evidence of adoption, learning effects, full curriculum coverage or endorsement. Physical making and reader usefulness remain conditional on actual local trials.

Print and reproducibility QA

Rendered and visually inspected all eight one-page A4 PDFs in a contact sheet, including both held checks. Text did not visibly collide or clip; large response fields remained empty. The fictional Q TRY 1 row explicitly says INTERRUPTED · NO STOP MARK. The assessment source panels contain no designed service answer or actual class result.
Confirmed selectable PDF text, A4 geometry, SVG titles/descriptions and the exact labelled alternatives through the verifier. PDFs are untagged, so the linear route is supplied separately.
Reran the generator after a two-second separation: SHA-256 for all 16 SVG/PDF files was identical. The generator normalises Cairo time metadata using pypdf; regeneration needs rsvg-convert and compatible pypdf (5.1.0 used here).
Ran lint, wrote the SHA manifest only after files were final, then reran the verifier read-only. No material stress test, live object motion, real user feedback, classroom outcome or personal portfolio review was performed.

Release boundary: A local educator checks adopted syllabus, school safety, source/privacy consent, access, language and any actual test/portfolio use. Generic materials do not provide local Country/Place teaching, a source of real student outcomes, or an approved classroom investigation.