# Desk run-through · teacher, learner, potential funder · 29 September 2026

This is a **document, print and local-tool simulation**, not a classroom, accessibility, equipment or funder trial. I followed the clocks, recalculated the learner tasks and checks, ran the denominator calculation for all/selected/empty groups, rendered all five A4 PDFs and visually inspected their page layouts. No outside participant used the materials.

## Teacher use

The first four sessions build one continuous routine: define the counted unit and paper-only criterion, separate source method from missing method, rebuild the 48-tile register, then correct the card's 23/36 subgroup framing. The normal daily clock is 3+7+12+8+5=35 minutes; both check days are 3+5+12+10+5=35. The method mat makes `NOT OBSERVED` prominent, and the teacher key has a misconception-specific response per day. Source packet and print aids can be queued before Day 11. A teacher may need to shorten peer discussion in a large group; the three routes and one short exit preserve a runnable core. That pacing judgement remains untested with real learners.

## Learner use

I rebuilt Source B in two directions: pass `14+9+2=25`, redraw `4+9+10=23`, all `48`; rows `18+18+12=48`. Hatch/Ring alone gives `23/36≈63.9%`, while all gives `25/48≈52.1%`. The category filter returns those outputs without editing a source cell; its paper route gives the same result using labelled frames. In Check A, Grid+Arc gives `18/27=66.7%`, versus full `20/35≈57.1%`. In Check B, Tall+Square gives `14/24≈58.3%`, versus full `15/32≈46.9%`. A learner who gets a correct subgroup percentage but calls it “all” receives a scope next step, not a generic arithmetic failure. These are my calculations, not observed student responses.

## Potential funder/release use

The official workbook SHA, exact row/level/wording and limits are visible in the crosswalk. Original fictional source texts, five vector page designs and offline code have explicit separate rights; no paid worksheet, photo, logo, unreviewed cultural source or real-person dataset is needed. The public-key status is explicit, so the checks are honest practice evidence, not secure examinations. This is an inspectable ten-day integrated supplement; neither full Year 10 coverage nor classroom effect follows from it.

## Visual/tool review

- I rendered all five A4 PDFs and viewed a contact sheet. Blank work cells and two-panel writing space remain within page edges. The deliberately misleading “64%” panel is visibly marked as a **fictional teaching source** beside a full-register layout; its small caption is still legible at print size.
- Text extraction retains the key numbers, category names, model/record limits and `NOT OBSERVED`. SVGs contain title/description and PDFs embed DejaVu text. The text alternative explains every layout's hierarchy and a tactile adaptation route; standard files are not Braille or raised print.
- The offline filter's pure calculation was exercised for all (25/48, 52.1%), Hatch+Ring (23/36, 63.9%), Solid (2/12, 16.7%) and empty selection (no denominator). It changes scope, not data; paper cards are equivalent for this maths question. The in-app browser surface was unavailable during this desk run, so live click and assistive-technology behaviour were **not** observed; the HTML controls and labels were inspected statically. A browser/user trial remains open.

## Open review

An Australian classroom teacher should trial timing and adaptations, and a curriculum reviewer should assess fuller Year 10 and local sequencing. Any real visual-access, environmental, safety or visitor claim requires a separate authorised study. No such outcome is supplied or implied here.