The official QCAA Digital Solutions page lists Digital Solutions 2025 v1.4, General senior syllabus as of 29 September 2026, with a v1.4 amendment report. The requested v1.3 is no longer the current link. The v1.4 PDF cover says March 2026; running page headers say February 2026. A search cache still returns old v1.2 text for the same syllabus URL, so this mapping was checked against the landing-linked v1.4 PDF. These details are pinned in source-snapshot.json.
Official scope: Unit 1, “Creating with code”, PDF p. 17 / printed p. 15. Topic 1, “Understanding digital problems”, PDF p. 18 / printed p. 16. The four-unit General course assigns 55 notional hours to Unit 1 (PDF p. 7 / printed p. 5). This pack's ten 25-minute blocks total 250 minutes = 4 hours 10 minutes. It is an opening sample, not a complete topic or unit. The syllabus says schools select a single technology context for the unit (PDF p. 17 / printed p. 15); this pack uses web applications throughout. Local rows T1.1–T1.8 below are not QCAA codes; they enumerate the eight top-level bullets in Topic 1 for audit.
| Local row | Official Topic 1 source position and intent, paraphrased | Where practised | What remains / limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| T1.1 | PDF p. 18 / printed p. 16, bullet 1: break a problem into parts with computational thinking and thinking tools | Days 1, 3, 9–10; need and flow diagrams | Introductory decomposition; no full school project |
| T1.2 | Same page, bullet 2: describe personal, social and economic effects | Days 6–8, both checks | Effects are hypotheses about fictional cases; no measured impact |
| T1.3 | Same page, bullet 3: analyse a human need/opportunity, essential features and ways digital technologies may address needs | Days 1–3, 6 and 8 | Web-app lens only; no real user research or review of all listed technologies |
| T1.4 | Same page, bullet 4: explore similar existing solutions | Day 6 compares paper, static page and a form | Invented options only; a school should inspect real solutions when appropriate |
| T1.5 | Same page, bullet 5: explore emerging technologies in relation to problems | Day 8 compares a tag filter and a hypothetical ML tool; Check B | Conceptual comparison; no model built, trained or evaluated |
| T1.6 | Same page, bullet 6: analyse scope, constraints, requirements, user perspective/interface issues, missing facts and impact criteria | Days 1–10; particularly 4–5 and 9–10; both checks | Broad first pass only; no validated user-experience requirements |
| T1.7 | Same page, bullet 7: evaluate information and ideas | Days 4, 6–10; checks | Source-limited classroom arguments, no field evidence |
| T1.8 | Same page, bullet 8: use technical language, appropriate conventions, references and sketches/diagrams across communication modes | Cards, oral/written/diagram routes, source notes and print mats | Initial communication practice; full conventions and sustained technical proposal remain |
Unit objective boundary: Unit 1 lists eight objectives on PDF p. 17 / printed p. 15: describe relevant features, symbolise/explain, analyse, determine requirements/criteria, synthesise, generate components, evaluate/refine, and communicate. This starter samples the exploration side. It does not demonstrate learner generation of a programmed user interface or component, full solution testing, or all objectives in a school assessment. The original offline lab is a teacher-supplied sorting aid; using it is not the same as a student programming a solution. Topic 2 and later Unit 1 subject matter remain to be taught.
Assessment boundary: QCAA's Unit 1/2 directions (PDF p. 8 / printed p. 6) leave schools to develop their assessment programme within its specifications. The two public checks and public key are formative only and not secure exams or formal assessment instruments. No A–E or QCAA result is inferred from them.