SubjectNest resource library

Foundation / Hass / Term 4 / Weeks 35 36

Development draft · local review needed

Four-role author desk critique · 30 September 2026Foundation HASS · T4 W35–36 · Run Through

Download editable text

Status: author simulations of teacher, student, parent/carer and potential funder only. No independent participant/classroom, actual child/place/account/care record, real display try or physical tactile build. Roles trace files and source relationships; they aren't interest, learning, teaching, access, consent or market evidence.

Teacher role: I traced the ten scripts on screen: source-backed feature pages; attributed particular-person reason flaps; ask-first/care flap; two planned arrangements and pass-friendly offer; fresh check; one bounded try; separate second account/gap; first/revised instruction; useful care handover; fresh check. The actual workflow gives safe familiar-place approval and view, willing significant-feature account, exact local care procedure, distinct owner/reader permissions, temporary approved page placement/return or private owner-review kit, renewed willing trial/retry, local record and K03 element judgement. The HASS place feature/meaning/care remains attached during layout trials; a design improvement doesn't replace actual place knowledge. Second source/try isn't compulsory. Seven-minute activity needs pre-made bases/folds and adult-directed routes; genuine local timing, curriculum and source suitability remain educator review.

Student role: In author desk simulation I could direct flat broad cues, point/scribe or hear all exact words/diagram relations without touch, folding, walking or a reader role. I could make a useful kit even when actual display/try wasn't approved. Edda and Finn gave their own reasons; Jori's point and Mell's question stayed separate reports with gaps. I could keep first words, repair a sourced feature name, ask a willing reader to try/pass, then leave retry blank. Pass/silence didn't supply agreement or a reason. Fresh sources required same source tasks with different features/people/layouts/responses. These are author interpretations, not learner comprehension, enthusiasm or independence. No physical kit/tactile trial occurred.

Parent/carer role: I checked ten free optional invented-paper home bridges, school equivalents and no returned score/evidence, private home inspection/address/photos, device/purchase, family interview/cultural disclosure or real property handling. Skipping has no assessment cost. Actual-source work is educator-approved; home responses aren't automatically authentic evidence. Any home language can carry reasoning, but supplied translations need fluent local review. No parent/carer reviewed this pack.

Potential funder role: I checked ten timed scripts, thirty same-goal choices, twenty worked real-life domains, ten bridges, two held fresh checks/key, nine original print pairs/exact alternatives, complete actual K03 opportunity/record, exact primary row pins/rights/hashes. These support an authored/reproducible draft, not classroom time saved, demand, full-year coverage, completed knowledge, fairness, universal access, care benefit, learning gain or commercial suitability. Actual local evidence is absent; K01/K02/K04 remain separate source/authority gates.

Residual critique: a point to a page doesn't prove understanding; a question doesn't prove failure. Different readers/layouts/conditions aren't a causal comparison. Equal pages aren't fairness/consent/access evidence. First-direction capture and renewal of willingness require adult scribe/attention. Preserve place feature, particular-person significance and local care in every actual kit and handover; avoid drifting into a display-design test. Some K03 elements may be evidenced while others remain open. Untagged PDFs require individual screen-reader/print/tactile/AAC/language/pacing review. No quality score, child outcome or accessibility certification claimed.

Reproduction: python print/generate_print.py --regenerate deliberately writes only nine named SVG/PDF pairs and exact alternatives. python verify_pack.py --manifest-json prints proposed hashes for deliberate author saving; normal verifier is offline/read-only. python verify_pack.py --negative-checks rejects 23 in-memory mutations and restores the normal audit. python print/generate_print.py --check-reproduction generates in temporary storage and compares 19 artifacts while preserving pack bytes/size/mtime. Python 3/Pillow/DejaVu, librsvg, pdfinfo, pdftotext and pdffonts required. Fixed PDF build clock is reproduction metadata, not actual source/event time.

Final technical receipt · 30 September 2026

Remaining human/local gates: educator pacing/language/adoption/timetable and curriculum decisions; actual place/view/source/privacy/material/task/audience/owner/reader approval; genuine element-specific K03 records; individual print/screen-reader/tactile/AAC/language access review; recognised cultural-authority/ICIP permissions for relevant extensions; independent classroom/parent/funder evaluation. No actual place teaching, care action/benefit, display use, learner knowledge or completed K03 evidence occurred in authoring. No classroom/access/cultural/commercial certification implied.