Every organisation, object, statement, record and number below is invented for this inquiry. This is a desk design case, not a school, public art installation, trial of accessibility, material test or real study. The 48 “tiles” are paper mock-up records. Nobody used or judged a display as a visitor. A passing internal border-print check is not evidence that an artwork is legible, inclusive, safe or suitable for public use. Keep each denominator and observation status attached to quotations.
Source A · editor's paper-only design brief
A fictional maker proposes a portable mosaic made from paper tile mock-ups for a future imagined exhibition. The editor asks only whether the team should make a better documented paper prototype and test plan. The decision does not authorise installation or make a claim about real viewers. The brief asks the team to show the full register, explain its in-house check, identify omitted categories, create an honest two-panel visual report and specify the next check.
The team provisionally writes this design criterion: “At the selected print setting, a border drawn 5 mm inside each paper tile remains visibly unbroken on that single print.” This is an internal inspection rule for a printed mark. It does not measure visual accessibility to different people or durability in a place. The unit counted is one printed paper tile mock-up; the two recorded variables are drawn pattern family and internal border-check status.
For a later design iteration, the fictional editor also asks the team to count sheets used and use available paper offcuts for desk mock-ups where suitable, recording any effect on the print check. This is a proposed material-use criterion, not measured waste reduction or a claim that an installation is sustainable.
Source B · invented complete 48-tile register
| Drawn pattern family | Border check passed | Needs redraw | Row total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hatch | 14 | 4 | 18 |
| Ring | 9 | 9 | 18 |
| Solid | 2 | 10 | 12 |
| All paper mock-ups | 25 | 23 | 48 |
The entries were constructed for teaching. 14+9+2=25, 4+9+10=23 and 18+18+12=48. Among Hatch and Ring only, 23/36≈63.9% pass. Among all 48, 25/48≈52.1% pass. These are proportions of fictional paper checks, not a rate of people who can use a design. “Pass” in one register does not settle the judgement of a second observer.
Source C · invented promotional card
NEARLY TWO-THIRDS PASSED. READY FOR PUBLIC DISPLAY. Our team checked the most promising paper patterns; the mosaic is clear for everyone. Approve it now.
Small line: Hatch and Ring paper mock-ups, 23 passed of 36 checked in those two families.
The card's selected 23/36 calculation is arithmetically correct for Hatch and Ring, but the display headline leaves out the 12 Solid paper tiles and presents the result as if it described all mock-ups. Even 25/48 for all papers would not prove a claim about public installation, clarity for everyone or accessibility. The card is a fictional persuasive source from the same team that made B, not independent confirmation.
Source D · invented method note
“One maker printed each tile drawing at one desk printer setting. The maker marked border lines as pass/needs-redraw by sight. No second observer independently coded the same sheets. We did not record exact paper stock, print contrast settings, viewing distance or disagreements. We did not invite people to use the mock-up. We kept every tile in our register, but our promotional card features the first two pattern families.”
This note tells us how to question reliability. It does not let a learner repair the missing method by inventing a calibration, second observer or user response. A further paper check could predefine the border rule, log print setting/material and blind-code the same labelled sheets with two reviewers; a genuine accessibility evaluation would require appropriate local expertise, permission and real users, none of which is supplied here.
Source E · editor's decision request
“For our fictional design meeting, recommend another paper-prototype check, a rewrite before any decision, or a pause. Show the all-tile figure as well as the selected-family figure. Make the limitation visible at first glance. Tell me what someone actually did, what was only proposed and what we still do not know. Do not call this ready for real people or installation.”
This is a writing audience and design constraint, not an actual funding or permission request.
Source F · two fictional layout drafts
- Draft Spotlight puts 64% in the largest type. The caption says “paper border check in selected Hatch/Ring patterns” near the bottom; Solid tiles and the 48-tile total are absent. Its hierarchy encourages an all-tiles reading unless the small caption is found.
- Draft Full Register puts 25 of 48 paper mock-ups passed the team's single-print border check (≈52.1%) in the title area. A second panel shows Hatch/Ring 23/36≈63.9% as a subgroup, names the excluded Solid family and prints “no visitor or accessibility test” alongside the number. Its order helps a reader recover the scope.
Both are original teaching mock-ups. A learner may disagree about which is clearer, but must point to concrete first-glance wording, inclusion and visual hierarchy. No real visitor response to either draft was observed.