# Author desk run-through · teacher, child, supporter, funder

**Status 29 September 2026:** The author ran the print/reading sequence and simulated possible responses. No child, classroom, movement specialist, safety officer, carer or funder tested this pack. Every “would” below is a proposed action, not an observed learning outcome.

| Lens | Concrete desk route | Finding and boundary |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Teacher | Day 1: open the two adult-owned fictional [dialogue cards](print/permission-dialogue-cards.pdf), read each speaker name/line, model both “yes” and “not now” with puppets, then observe one child-controlled route using the 3+4+5+7+4+2 script. Day 3: inspect the large [paper lane](print/one-at-a-time-play-mat.pdf), select a locally safe actual setup **only if appropriate**, make stop/opt-out visible, and record communication separately from physical action. Cover the fresh checks until Days 5/10; consult key after first responses. | A novice educator has source, language, timing, routes and next move. The packet cannot decide an individual's safe movement mode or approve a real room. If actual play is not suitable, teach the paper target and mark physical evidence **not observed**. |
| Child | Choose Day 2 paper route: direct a broad marker from an occupied lane to PAUSE SPACE after “not now”; no body movement. Choose Day 3 optional actual route: a suitable large soft object is gently moved only after adult local checks, or stay on paper. Day 5 Check A: read/signal Nela's denied request and Oru's allowed one from a **new** source; place a second paper marker at WAIT PAD. | Point, draw, AAC and child-directed adult movement can show the common communication/fair-plan target. A paper route cannot be scored as actual fundamental movement or physical fair play. These responses were simulated, not elicited from a child. |
| Time-poor supporter | Use a two-minute paper puppet exchange with “May I use the pretend card?” and “not now”; adult replies “okay” and offers blank paper. Or simply reread a source; there is no return task, purchase, device, personal story or real object lending. | The activity can be used at home without creating an extra family burden. Home practice is optional and does not replace classroom or physical observation. |
| Funder/public reviewer | Trace official FP04 and FM04 [crosswalk rows](CURRICULUM-CROSSWALK.md), inspect [Check B](STUDENT-CHECKS.md), then open the [public key](teacher/KEY-AND-NEXT.md). Ask whether the paper card proves physical rule-following, actual consent, safe access or whole-year coverage. | The answer is **no**; the pack records the gap and the observation needed. Rights and exact hashes are visible. Claims of measurable benefit, universal accessibility or complete HPE would need real implementation/evaluation evidence. |

## Artifact and print QA

All eight generated SVG/PDF pairs were rendered to images; a contact sheet and the two fresh check pages were visually inspected for clipping, labels and colour-independent source meaning. PDF text extraction confirms the printed source lines and A4 single-page layout. The [full text/tactile page](print/TEXT-ALTERNATIVES.md) preserves dialogue order, sign words and lane positions. The [verifier](verify_pack.py) checks exact official rows, source/key/print consistency, ten 25-minute scripts, thirty routes, twenty worked swaps, links, print pairs and hashes. It cannot test whether an individual child can use a tactile copy or move safely in a specific class.

## Real-world review still needed

A Queensland Prep educator should check the current school HPE plan, risk and safeguarding procedures, equipment and each child's access needs; then observe chosen real interactions/movement where appropriate. Never use a fictional stop/permission scene to elicit disclosure. FP01/FP03/FP05/FP06 and FM03 need separate teaching, and a physical description remains **not observed** when only a paper source or adult model is used. Record any authentic child response in the school's private system.