This is a documented internal simulation, not a classroom pilot, client review, representative learner test or measured outcome. I ran the ten-day flow using only this folder, reviewed the official syllabus against the crosswalk, rendered the four PDFs as a contact sheet, inspected them at A4 proportion, extracted their text, and checked the SHA receipt and links with the local verifier. The route audit below is about whether a teacher can offer modes with the same target; individual adjustments still require the school and learner.
Teacher run
I assembled Day 1 from Card A and the Evidence ladder without external images or a prepared lecture: launch, model, guided reading, learner practice, audit and exit each have a script and 2 + 4 + 5 + 7 + 4 + 3 = 25 minutes. The same timing appears on Days 2–4 and 6–9; Days 5/10 allocate source access and independent response. The public answer page supplies one acceptable response, what to accept instead and a concrete next move each day. A teacher would still need to choose an actual local brief, secure any real stakeholder participation, teach named design-process models and design history, and administer school assessment for the full 55-hour unit.
I tested a likely issue on Day 4: “tray fits the tools” cannot be verified from Card C because dimensions are absent. The key keeps that as an evidence gap and accepts two features inspectable on the paper mock-up. On Day 7 both alternatives preserve the fictional corridor and desk; moving only a heading does not count as a different information system. On Day 9 the teacher can see a before/after change and criterion-linked explanation without requiring polished drawing skill. Print files use full-word roles and contrast as well as shading; no meaning requires colour.
Learner run
I used Route B on Day 3: with reader/function/present-issue/constraint cards, I could construct a problem for B without adopting an answer from the teacher key. On Day 6 I laid out heading, four group tiles and date tile, then dictated an annotation. This still shows a spatial representation; dictation alone would not satisfy that construct. I answered unseen File G before reading the key: “most visitors confused” overstates the sole scripted report and actual observation is absent. Two paper-checkable criteria were full station names and the two-sheet black-print limit. For H, I drew two concept maps with the same positions/order but different label systems; I could revise a legend placement and explain that the improvement is proposed, not measured. The tests are “fresh” relative to lesson briefs only, and the key's public URL means prior access must be managed locally.
Supporter and funder run
A parent/supporter can print Cards A–F and use ten short extras without buying materials or asking a child to reveal private traits. A learner can switch to full-word cards, zoomable layout or speech for annotations and still meet the same design target; reading ability and handwriting neatness are not silently treated as design reasoning. The four aids each provide A4 SVG/PDF, exact text, and a full-word tactile sequence. The PDF is untagged, so the text version is the access route for screen readers. A funder can inspect the syllabus URL/version/page crosswalk, original-art generator, font notice, manifest, and explicit missing authentic work. No adoption, impact, accessibility conformance or real-user efficacy claim is made.
Corrections and remaining limits
- Kept fictional briefs and checks separate: Files G/H do not appear in the teaching cards or learner rehearsal rows.
- Kept QCAA's Explore/Develop phase language in the crosswalk while labelling the original five-step aid as a teaching organiser; it is not a copy of the named Double Diamond or any third-party process diagram.
- A scripted user quote is not primary stakeholder data. Real research, named process-model comparison, historical style/source analysis, intellectual-property documentation, actual interviews, broad Topic 1 work and school summative assessment remain open.
- Case B's corridor is unspecified; diagrams must not invent real directional arrows. Case E and File H state their fictional positions explicitly.
- No individual accessibility preference, cultural requirement or safety rule is inferred from a group label. Any actual brief and assessment adjustments need local review and consent.