SubjectNest resource library

Foundation / Science / Term 1 / Weeks 01 02

Development draft · local review needed

Author desk run-through · ScienceFoundation Science · T1 W1–2 · Qa Run Through

Download editable text

29 September 2026; author simulation and file inspection only. No child, practising teacher, access specialist, family or funder has piloted the pack. The verifier checks exact official rows, timing, route/extra counts, held separation, A4/PDF text, local links and hashes. Actual local observations and safety decisions cannot be supplied by an authoring test.

Lens in desk run Action and result Correction / remaining work
New Prep teacher, Day 1 Followed README → preflight gate → safe-notice poster → one real-object/date blank log. The teacher can run 25 minutes with a broad local paper/card/fabric object, or accurately mark a model-only day if unavailable. Site safety, verified material and individual access must be checked for the actual room. No result is prefilled.
New Prep teacher, Day 3 Read the prediction/check mat before trying a gentle edge-lift. Predicted and actual result have separate fields and NOT TESTED is a legitimate outcome. Object size/method changes can affect comparison; the teacher notes those conditions rather than claiming a material rule.
Child using nonvisual/no-touch/AAC route simulation Read exact linear rectangle/oval/line model, directed adult placement of broad line cards, used ? for untested feature and verbally attributed adult-described real information. An adult report is not recoded as child's own direct sensory observation. Real AAC vocabulary, tactile size, hearing/vision access and fatigue need child/support-team review.
Week 2 picture/science boundary Compared invented diagram C with blank real-observation fields. The model allows a precise mark description, but no material, actual hole or bend claim; generic room signs remain English/design unless tied to actual dated observations. The Week 2 Science task needs a new actual source/date if a material claim is wanted.
Fresh-check view Day 5's approved new envelope and Day 10's zigzag/two-bar model are absent from prior learner/practice sources. The keys accept variable actual-object features and give fixed answers only for the fictional drawings. Human teacher must choose safe objects and check local familiarity; without them, mark paper-only evidence.
Time-poor family A five-minute approved broad household-object question could be reported, but classroom routes are complete without it. Home involvement is optional; no purchase, photo, upload, personal story or forced touch.
Potential funder/reviewer Followed pinned workbook hash, QCAA Science links, seven exact rows, original rights boundary and empty evidence templates. Six PDFs visually inspected as A4 with embedded selectable text. No adoption, outcome gain, full state mapping, accessibility certification, translation, local data or school approval is claimed.

Specific critique: A safe-looking printed object might tempt a teacher to write “paper feels smooth”; the diagrams are conspicuously labelled MODEL and every real claim needs source/date/method. A symbol can be mistaken for an official safety sign; D says the straight/curve/? key is temporary and locally explained. A first-year child can give a strong question without a test result; the record preserves NOT TESTED and a sensible next lesson. Day 8 requires at least two comparable actual results before calling anything a small local pattern.

Still required: local practising teachers review material selection, safety, pacing, inquiry judgment and actual school Science/Prep requirements; children and support teams test the modes. Any First Nations language/cultural work requires relevant language-owner/community authority and specific reviewed sources. Original SubjectNest QA narrative © 2026 NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd, CC BY 4.0.