# Simulated use and critical review · 29 September 2026

This is an actual read-through of the authored instructions, source cards, keys, algorithm branches and rendered aids. It is **not** a classroom, family or funder field trial.

## Teacher route

For Week 3 Day 12 I gathered clean scrap, one blank story card and a stable mat. I read the three **invented material arrangements**, asked for a prediction, and treated the physical trial as a new observation whose outcome could not be prefilled. The phases add to **4 + 6 + 12 + 10 + 3 = 35 minutes**. A teacher should choose only two arrangements for the 12-minute trial, then collect remaining logs later. Day 15 uses the prior prototype so the 15-minute assignment period is plausible; it does not require a new build from nothing.

For Week 4 I traced the algorithm through three inputs: STORY gives the STORY output; NUMBER gives the NUMBER output; `not clear` returns to choice after a cue change, while `clear` ends. A paper trace is an honest alternative when no approved device exists. I checked each script's device language: actual system/components, creation, locating and guided digital sharing are recorded **only after actual approved tool actions**. No account or upload is needed.

## Learner route

A simulated Week 3 learner says “Mina must have trouble seeing” after reading the brief. The correct next move is to return to Mina's exact request—three ordered visible cards—and label vision as **unknown**. If a stand tips during a real test, that is valuable evidence; the learner names the observed tip and revises one feature. [Teacher key](TEACHER-KEY.md) does not contain a fixed physical-test outcome.

A simulated Week 4 learner traces STORY correctly but sends NUMBER to the same output. The teacher uses two tokens to trace both choices; the learner moves the NUMBER output card and retests. If the learner builds a paper screen, algorithm reasoning can be observed, while digital-tool operation remains unobserved. The learner later chooses a real name for a mock slide; the teacher revisits the no-personal-data rule and asks what original symbol could communicate the station instead.

## Home route

A caregiver can use paper rectangles and a pencil. Week 3: child directs folds/placements, gives a prediction, and marks what a gentle home test actually showed, with adult operation if appropriate. Week 4: child moves a token through two choices and a retry path; no device, account, photo, purchase or private family story. A home paper route does **not** become evidence of digital-tool use. Rich adult-read words are not called independent decodable English.

## Funder route and limits

Open the [two week guides](../week-03-story-card-stand.md) and [Week 4 guide](../week-04-two-choice-learning-guide.md), inspect the [learner cards](LEARNER-CARDS.md), separate [teacher key](TEACHER-KEY.md), [exact ACARA rows](CURRICULUM-CROSSWALK.md), [source/rights ledger](SOURCES-AND-REVIEW.md) and [manifest](MANIFEST.sha256). Both original printable PDFs were rendered to page images and visually inspected: readable black text, generous blank drawing areas, intact margins, no clipping; the choice-path label initially intersected a connector and was moved inside its panel. The [text/tactile route](print/TEXT-ALTERNATIVES.md) expresses both pages. The supported claim is a reproducible, original **two-week draft** with two larger assignments and explicit evidence limits. Student outcomes, classroom uptake, complete band coverage, translation, app privacy compliance and local state alignment are not demonstrated.

## Corrections and next tests

- Kept **fictional quote**, **learner prediction** and **observed class trial** separate in every relevant step.
- Made algorithm branch/return paths traceable and tested them with all named input cases; paper and digital evidence are recorded separately.
- Ensured the Week 3 transfer changes a real constraint (two cards, no clip) and the Week 4 transfer changes mode (no screen/sound), rather than repeating the taught product unchanged.
- Retained the Years 1–2 band and later food/fibre, food-specialisation, account and longer-term design work as open scope. A local educator must check the school sequence, tool policy and users before live use.