Desk run-through · teacher… | Year 1 English · T1 W5–6 · Run Through

Date: 29 September 2026. This is a documented desk simulation plus file/print checks, not a claim that children or a school tested the pack. The source ledger gives the evidence and remaining human-review gates.

Teacher: plan Monday, respond Friday

Open README, lessons, learner cards and the school's own phonics scope. Mark each child's taught sh/ch/st/nd and familiar-word evidence. If final ck is documented as taught, Route A may replace core Choice C; otherwise all three core choices remain. A learner missing a core correspondence receives the oral literature and explicit small-group teaching without being scored as an independent reader of untaught print.
Day 21: choose maker, music or map context. Prepare a paper sign and figure. Teacher reads only the fictional story prose; child reads selected controlled line. The five steps total 25 minutes. Record word mapping and oral idea/question in different columns. The A4 mat works in grayscale and has tactile/text instructions.
Day 25: hold practice cards back. Give only the matching unseen route and log whether assistance was given; read the microstory aloud. A rotating group can be assessed within the 7+3 minute slots; finish remaining children later that day without presenting it as simultaneous one-to-one observation. Open teacher key after collecting the response, select a component-specific next move, then release the Day 25 practice choice.
Day 28: let a child dictate an imaginative caption and mark it as dictated; keep a separate observation for spelling and another for sentence idea/edit. If a child changes the story, ask whether it is a new imagined version or a fact in the heard source.

Teacher friction noticed and addressed: A story paragraph includes vocabulary outside the controlled inventory; bold labels and the A4 mat now separate heard-story prose from child-read print. Two assessment routes and a disclosed ledger prevent a calendar-based ck assumption. The check days explicitly allow same-day later interviews. Open classroom questions, state mapping and locally approved authentic literature remain teacher work.

Learner: choose, read, explain, make

A learner can pick among three context cards in each day without disclosing where they live or what their family does. Adult scene is spoken; child uses print they were taught. On Day 23, child reads two sentences, puts two action tokens in order and can say “the line does not tell me” about a town.
A learner who hears the rich Week 6 art-room story uses first/middle/last cards and may sign, use AAC, draw or talk. Their own caption can be typed or child-directed to a scribe. The print check and story retell are separate, so speech/motor access is not quietly converted to a decoding mark.
The A4 visual preview was rendered and visually checked: labels, boxes, five sound slots and credit are visible without clipped text. The text alternative gives the same order and tactile method. A real accessibility user trial is still needed.

Learner friction noticed and addressed: A child might infer a real map, outing, buying activity or live animal task from a scene. Contexts now explicitly use invented paper models, dry toys or drawings and require no purchase, home address or class outing. Child pages contain no teacher key or held-out answer.

Prospective funder: what this does and does not prove

The pack gives ten distinct timed lessons, thirty core child lines, ten gated optional ck lines, two original adult-read stories, two held-out route checks, a separate exact teacher key, printable original visual, text alternative and a source/rights/verifier trail. Mechanical verification checks exact official Year 1 codes against a dated ACARA workbook; the A4 PDF is inspected for geometry and extracted text. These are reviewable production inputs. They are not independent learning-outcome data, a state authority endorsement, a full Year 1 curriculum, or evidence of child/funder uptake. The next credible step is a supervised teacher/learner/accessibility pilot with consent, recorded revisions and state mapping.