Status, 30 September 2026: author desk simulation and print inspection, not a classroom pilot, child observation, tactile validation, independent educator review or learning-outcome study. This is a two-week partial Visual Arts sample in a larger year sequence. No QCAA endorsement or full-year completeness is claimed. The read-only verifier checks source pins, contents, aids, links and SHA receipt; it cannot establish that a child will be engaged or learn from this pack.
Teacher: run a Day 23 class tomorrow
I can open the 25-minute script, print the gap page or read its exact alternative, then choose dry paper, approved broad pieces or a no-material gesture route. At minute 0 I recall yesterday's contour/fill; by minute 12 children have compared close and farther placements; by minute 19 they have authored a new arrangement. At the 4-minute notice point I need to record placement + intended visual effect. That is feasible on the blank art record, but a whole class would need local grouping and support staff plans, which this pack does not supply. The side-by-side panels are large enough to point to; their empty gap is meaningful without colour naming.
Teacher critique: The Day 21 fictional fork could be mistaken for a botanical diagram. I added “NOT A REAL PLANT,” a separately empty real-source box, and an explicit Science source boundary. Day 26 paper/card labels could invite an invented “card is stronger” statement. I added “ACTUAL PROPERTIES: UNKNOWN” on the aid and required a real approved inspection before any property observation. Day 29's real artwork encounter may be unavailable; the script holds AC9AVAFE01 if no cleared work/maker/source-stated community purpose is supplied, and a planned audience never becomes AC9AVAFP01 evidence.
Learner: try two routes without being shown an answer
On Day 22 I can see an outlined and a filled version of the exact same form. If I do not want to mark paper, I can point, sign or use AAC to select the form and explain “I want the white middle” or my own reason. The adult records my decision and who made any marks. On fresh Check K, I hear only the invented source and task, then show two treatments before the teacher opens the key. A two-option response can be spoken or directed; it is not scored down for a different invented meaning. On Day 30, the fresh circle and stepped tool start apart so my chosen overlap/gap is not already supplied in the source.
Learner critique: The PDFs are not tagged, so a screen reader may read them in the wrong order. The eight exact linear descriptions and separate learner prompts are the operational alternative. A child who dislikes touch has a no-touch route. The large fixed tactile boundary route is proposed only; it needs local accessibility-user and safety review before real use. No child should have to identify a personal or cultural symbol or share with an audience.
Supporter/caregiver: no-purchase home route
Each learner card includes a short home bridge using air gestures, description, broad existing household paper only with adult agreement, or conversation. A time-poor adult can ask one precise question: “Which edge, gap or front piece do you want someone to notice?” The adult does not need to buy a kit, download a child account or send us a photo. Check-day home prompts occur after first responses are collected so the held source is not rehearsed.
Funder/assessor: follow one claim to evidence
The curriculum table pins four exact ACARA workbook rows and Queensland Prep source URLs; the verifier compares imported row numbers and exact wording to the SHA-pinned official workbook. Ten scripts each total 25 minutes; thirty A/B/C participation routes, twenty modelled contexts, two fresh learner checks with separate next-step key, and eight original A4 SVG/PDF pairs are locally enumerable. The rights ledger allows reuse of our original text/art while leaving ACARA/QCAA quotations and any future real artist work under their own terms. The SHA manifest is a file receipt, not a proof of classroom effectiveness.
Funder critique: This pack cannot honestly support a grant claim that children improved, families adopted it, schools saved money, First Nations works were included with authority, or accessibility was user-tested. Those would need consented implementation evidence and local partner review. A funder can inspect concrete materials now and see the missing real-source, audience and physical-process gates. No translation, audio, live interaction or tested engagement is claimed for this fortnight.
Release and local review notes
The author checked page geometry, text extraction, SVG/PDF consistency, exact linear alternatives, deterministic regeneration and local links before freezing the file hashes. A teacher still needs to check actual print size/contrast on school equipment, choose locally permitted art materials and a named rights-cleared real work if Day 29 will address AC9AVAFE01. A child/accessibility user and cultural authority should review relevant routes before public claims about their lived suitability. If the school has no such work, teach the invented-form question route and leave that curriculum encounter unevidenced; do not silently substitute the prompt graphic.