This is a document and tool simulation only. No external teacher, learner or funder has trialled this continuation; there is no measured learning impact. I read the lesson sequence in clock order, worked the numerical tasks from the learner packet, compared the two new checks with the staff key, rendered all four A4 PDFs to images and inspected their layout and extracted text.
Teacher simulation
I put Source G next to a blank graph. Day 11 explicitly supplies the axis ranges and first two repeated-x points, Day 12 keeps all nine drafts visible, and Day 13 supplies a row-by-row residual scaffold. The shift to Source C on Day 16 is a new kind of variable, not another scatterplot. Day 19 requires just the 12 printed text pairs, no survey or equipment. Every standard day uses 2+5+7+7+4=25 minutes; checks use 2+3+10+6+4=25. The likely friction is sorting 12 cards within seven minutes for a class; the typed/text list route keeps the period runnable without cutting cards. The teacher samples exits and saves independent first checks. Actual pace and accessibility need classroom trial.
Learner simulation
I traced a graph route and a text-coordinate route. Both show x=1 twice, and I=(5,22) remains plotted. With M(x)=3x+2, I's model value is 17 and its residual +5 clue icons; none of that tells why the design has extra icons. I reconstructed Source C's margins: 30 two-sided +20 one-sided=50 and 24 Puzzle +18 Story +8 unassigned=50. 18/24=75% describes Puzzle, while 30/50=60% describes the full register. Dropping the unassigned row gives 27/42≈64.3%, still a different denominator. In the new checks, cue-board x=4 gives 17−13=+4, and sticker designs give Ocean foil 8/12≈66.7% versus all foil 19/35≈54.3%. These are my desk calculations, not observed student responses.
Potential funder / publication simulation
The workbook SHA and exact official row/level/wording crosswalk make alignment inspectable. The four original SVG/PDF pairs and full text alternatives can be shared at no material cost; they do not include borrowed logos, photos or third-party lesson-shop assets. The source ledger visibly separates ACARA rights from original SubjectNest rights and makes the public-key limitation explicit. This is a bounded, reusable 10-session pack; a funder should not infer whole-year coverage, local-syllabus compliance or classroom efficacy from it.
Print/access review
- All four pages rendered as one-page A4 PDFs. I viewed the contact sheet: headings and axes are within page edges, categories and blank cells are clear, and the graph has ample marking space. The residual ruler includes all nine source rows; the table retains No theme assigned.
- PDF text extraction preserves main text and table labels. The SVG includes title/description, and DejaVu Sans is embedded in PDFs with its notice bundled. Colour accents support but do not replace labels.
- A raised tactile version is an adaptation instruction, not a generated tactile asset. An exact read-aloud supports content access but does not demonstrate independent print decoding.
Still to validate
An Australian Year 10 mathematics teacher should trial pace, representation routes and local sequence; an independent curriculum reviewer should judge fuller Year 10 coverage. More real/official reports can be added only after their rights, date and claims are checked. The constructed cases intentionally make no claim about actual games, people or objects.