# Author desk run-through · 29 September 2026

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.