# Internal teacher, learner and funder desk run · 29 September 2026

**Method:** I read all ten scripts against the learner tasks and public key, walked the new Day 15/20 cards without the earlier source texts, traced the controlling QCAA 2025 v1.3 English PDF pages through the official web reader, checked every day's 25-minute sum and three equivalent-target routes, rendered each SVG to a one-page A4 PDF and visually inspected the three print pages. The local verifier checks file inventory, source boundaries, timing, exact source phrases, new-check separation, links, PDF geometry/text/fonts and SHA-256. This is an **author's internal simulation**, not a classroom pilot or independent teacher, student, disabled-user or funder test.

## Teacher desk: could I start tomorrow?

I can open [Day 11](LESSONS.md#day-11--a-headline-with-a-hidden-outcome), print [Text E](ORIGINAL-TEXTS.md#text-e--borrow-bench-public-web-notice) and the [source lens](print/source-lens.pdf), model the difference between twelve planned sign-up slots and twelve repairs, and collect a bounded exit answer in 25 minutes on paper. I can see each day's kit, prompt, timed routine, learner route, short-answer key and next teaching move. For Day 15, K's six display panels do not turn all received notes into displayed notes; the key locates the exact condition and Ina's final action. For Day 20, M's four slots do not turn Tari's sent file into a screened clip. Those are meaningful transfer errors a teacher can diagnose.

**Open teacher work:** Ten starter slices do not make a full senior English timetable or QCAA-approved program. The school must choose whole works meeting the syllabus's categories and Australian/Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander author requirements, decide when Unit 1 progresses, check its cohort and locally approve formal assessment and adjustments. Seven minutes is an initial response window, not a mandated composition limit; learners may need longer. A teacher should rehearse the intended session with their students and timetable.

## Learner desk: can I understand and act without a hidden answer?

The [clean page](LEARNER.md) points to original E–J source labels and asks a specific action each day. The Day 15/20 details are in separate check cards; no model response is on the learner page. The three daily routes allow direct annotation, moveable full-word evidence strips or dictated/AAC/digital composition while still asking for source, exact choice, possible effect and limit. The public checks are clearly marked as publicly accessible and nonsecure. In the Map Room case I can say K invites notes yet selects for six panels; L shows Ina asking to review use, and the ending does not show submission or rejection. In the Screen Shelf case I can use the screen/desk contrast without claiming Tari's film was screened. I can stop after the core lesson without losing a required home task.

**Open learner work:** These routes have not been tested with actual learners, including readers who use braille, AAC, screen readers or EAL/D pathways. The PDF is searchable and visually legible but untagged, so the full text version is the preferred reading-order source. A local educator must arrange formats and check that support does not silently replace the reading construct when that construct matters.

## Funder desk: what can be verified and what cannot?

The pack provides ten authored short scripts, six original practice texts, four new-check texts, thirty routes, optional extras, worked feedback, three original SVG/PDF/full-text/tactile aid pairs, a QCAA-point-to-lesson crosswalk, a rights ledger and a hash receipt. The official page/PDF version is named and checked, and the direct-PDF-download 403 limitation is explicit rather than disguised as a pinned binary. Local file and link checks are reproducible; source claims have narrow boundaries. This establishes an authored and internally reviewed prototype **only**. It does not establish uptake, teacher time saved, learning improvement, disability access parity, cultural authority, state approval or QCAA endorsement. Those require independent human testing and evidence.

## Critique and corrections made in this desk run

1. **Universal invitation risk:** E/H and check headlines use “everyone/every” as objects for analysis; the texts themselves state the narrower slot and no-guarantee conditions. Keys explicitly disallow a guaranteed repair, production slot, display panel or screening.
2. **Fiction versus evidence risk:** Every public notice, dialogue and scene carries a fictional maker label. The source ledger excludes real service, policy, consent or community testimony claims.
3. **Assessment security risk:** Checks and worked keys are public. The guide now tells teachers to use a locally new parallel case where first-encounter evidence matters.
4. **Course-completeness risk:** The original short texts are useful practice but cannot meet QCAA's full Units 1–2 text selection; the guide and crosswalk name the exact outstanding school work.
5. **Print access risk:** The three visual sheets have SVG title/description, selectable PDF text, full text and tactile instructions. The PDFs remain untagged and actual disabled-learner review is open.

**Next real-use gate:** A Queensland General English teacher, students with varied access needs, school assessment lead and relevant cultural/language authorities should review and trial a locally adapted sequence before broader effectiveness or inclusion claims. This pack makes no claim that any such pilot occurred.