# Desk review · educator, learner and potential funder

**Status:** author/desk simulation, 2026-09-29. No children, teachers, families, community custodians, school printers or external assessors took part. The pack is available for a supervised local trial; it does not establish classroom impact.

| Lens | Walk-through | Finding / change |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Educator, Day 11 | Can prepare two large shapes and explain layer order without a screen; 25 minutes are allocated. | A physical overlap can obscure only one edge, so prompt names a covered edge, not “the whole back shape disappears.” |
| Educator, Day 15 | New triangle/circle front brief does not appear solved in practice A–F; key is teacher-only. | Day 15 swaps explicitly wait until first response. Public check source contains no answer panel. |
| Educator, Day 19 | Without an approved real maker/media work, what can still run? | Run original work sharing choice and source questions on adult original; mark authentic encounter not held. No invented community interpretation. |
| Learner, low reading / no device | Can a child answer each target by cards, directed adult or exact tactile/text route? | All ten days have three routes; all eight print pages have content descriptions and verbatim layout text. Adult must not choose for child. |
| Learner, sound sensitivity | Day 17 could become a compulsory tap. | It is a paper cue choice, no sound required; optional gentle live sound needs local consent/access plan. |
| Learner, privacy | Could sharing require filming or public display? | No; willing-person paper sharing, puppet-only rehearsal, later or pass are distinct recorded outcomes. |
| Assessor / funder | Do the counts or links imply a complete year, formal instrument or proven impact? | No. The verifier covers 10×25 scripts, 30 routes, 20 swaps, 20 bridges, 2 checks, 8 A4 pairs, source rows, rights, links and hashes. It cannot judge classroom learning. |

**Desk self-critique:** The geometric fiction is intentionally culturally neutral but thin as a real media encounter. The adult must source authorised, accessible real work and check maker purpose and cultural restrictions. Paper planning is a strong low-tech entry but cannot demonstrate camera framing, audio production, editing, distribution, or a viewer’s meaning. Some tactile overlaps require individually suitable materials and safe supervision. The first field trial should observe whether children grasp “front” versus “outside the frame,” whether prompts are too language-heavy, whether the optional cue truly stays optional, and whether teacher preparation fits 25 minutes. Revise after actual educator/learner feedback; do not report simulated responses as outcomes.

**Technical review commands:** `python generate_assets.py --write` (intentional regeneration), `python verify_pack.py` (read-only), `ruff check generate_assets.py verify_pack.py`, `pdfinfo`, `pdftotext`, `pdffonts`, and rendered page inspection. Determinism is checked by comparing SVG/PDF asset hashes before and after regeneration. Checks of source wording and licence boundaries rely on the linked official pages plus local review; the verifier cannot establish legal permission for a future external media encounter.

**Technical QA result:** Eight A4 PDFs were rendered into a two-row contact sheet and visually reviewed for fit, clipping, overlap order, unsolved check starts and readable field labels. The SVG/PDF shapes match the stated paper models. All eight SVGs’ printed text was independently compared with its verbatim alternative. Asset bytes were unchanged on a second generation. The read-only verifier, hash manifest and Ruff checks passed at freeze. These are desk/technical results only; no physical printer or child usability trial occurred.