29 September 2026; author simulation and file inspection only. No teacher, child, family, access specialist or funder has piloted this pack. The verifier checks official source rows, timing, child-print pool, held separation, A4/PDF text, links and hashes. A real educator must review class language, access, local safety and reporting.
| Lens used in dry run | Concrete action and result | Correction / remaining work |
|---|---|---|
| New Prep teacher, Day 171 | Opened README → timed script → printed four-scene A → broad Luma/Jay/mat cards. Six steps add to 25 minutes. The source gives both wants and ends before the trial. | Kept “fair” as a question for the affected people after trying, rather than a guaranteed moral ending. Local room/class agreement remains teacher responsibility. |
| New Prep teacher, Day 176 | Used six labelled outlined tiles, read circle/circle/square twice, then asked for the smallest repeat. No colour or sound cue was required. | The first pattern printable subtitle initially gave away the unit length; it was changed to a neutral prompt before PDF review. A separate triangle tile is present for the later shape-location source E. |
| Child without hearing/vision or fine-motor access simulation | Followed A's numbered linear story and D's spelled-out sequence; directed an adult with broad tactile circle/square/triangle cards. Answer targets stayed on request/reason/order, not physical speed. | Real tactile discrimination, spatial language, AAC vocabulary and print size require individual child/access-team review. |
| Fresh-check child view | Opened learner and optional pages before Day 175/180 checks. Nell/Orin's museum shelf and square/triangle/triangle sequence were absent from teaching; optional CVC items were searched against prior Foundation English. | Checks and keys stay separate. A locally familiar/untaught print item is marked not administered or replaced with a documented new taught-point item. |
| Parent with little time | Chose one five-minute broad-paper dialogue or shape direction. A parent could ask “What did each person want?” or “Could I build it from your words?” | No home conflict, purchase, device, upload, child photo or required homework. A family may decline. |
| Potential funder/reviewer | Followed ACARA workbook hash, QCAA links and CC/third-party rights boundary; inspected all five A4 PDFs, embedded text and SVG metadata. | No adoption, efficacy, full-year coverage, authority endorsement, state-by-state mapping, translation or accessibility certification is asserted. |
| Listener-test simulation | Adult followed the vague “Put those there again” in another order. The record captured first words, what the listener did and a revised named-shape/order instruction. | A modelled listener is labelled model; actual spoken peer delivery requires a real consenting peer event. |
Specific critique: The first story source preview put long lines close to the panel edge. It was rewrapped and re-rendered, then visually rechecked. The pattern card also originally revealed that the repeat unit had three shapes in a subtitle; that answer cue was removed. Both checks use different contexts and patterns from teaching. A child’s polite request is not evidence that the plan worked; a correct paper sequence is not full mathematics attainment.
Still required: local practising teachers check wording, pacing, phonics, class relationship policies, assessment conditions and room safety. Children and support teams test the offered modes; a school records actual listener and learning evidence before making impact claims. First Nations language/cultural work needs language-owner/community authority, not automated translation or a generic proxy.
Original SubjectNest QA narrative © 2026 NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd, CC BY 4.0.