Date: 29 September 2026. This is an author desk test of the original files and prints, not evidence from a classroom, student cohort, independent assessor or funder. No actual speaker performance, support-plan suitability, site deployment, translation or real workplace outcome was measured.
Teacher path
I opened Day 1, Card A and the reader-action mat. In a timed rehearsal, the 2+5+6+7+5-minute sequence gave an opener, model, paired notice scan, independent message and a collected exit. I could identify a concrete next move: a learner who says only “the room changed” is asked for the actual destination and evidence. On Day 5 I used Card E for the model, then read the new observatory Check A without previewing its key. The timing explicitly reserves 12 minutes for a first response and five for feedback. This is workable on paper; a real class may need more time, text chunking or language support.
Learner path
I answered Check A using the labelled-strip route: reader = model-desk volunteer, action = invite movement of paper pointer, boundary = cannot verify tonight's sky, welcome = one action plus referral. I could point to the lines for each claim. I then answered Check B in prose: the dated organiser note confirms west garden gate at 2:15 pm Sunday and only twelve demonstration receivers for the first session, with a printed-route option. I did not infer “first twelve people get receivers” because allocation order is absent. The checks require explanation beyond extraction; the public key offers more than one defensible wording. This was an adult author simulation, not learner usability research.
Supporter and funder path
From README, I could reach the learner text, public check, staff key, syllabus crosswalk, rights ledger, text alternatives and verifier without an account. The pack is usable offline after copying. I could see that Essential English is a distinct Applied (Essential) pathway and that 250 minutes samples only Unit 1 of a 55-hour unit. The text selection and assessment holds are explicit in crosswalk. A supporter can read or scribe while retaining the same evidence target. A funder can inspect file hashes and authorship claims, but the pack has no outcome study, full Unit 1 coverage or validated translation.
Print and link inspection
I generated five original A4 SVG/PDF mats and rendered every PDF page to an image at 700-pixel height, then reviewed a five-page contact sheet. Titles, three boxes, example, prompt and tactile direction were legible and inside the page; no clipping or colour-only information was seen. The verifier checks PDF dimensions, one-page count, selectable text, SVG titles/descriptions, full text alternative references, local Markdown links and manifest hashes. Text alternatives also allow the entire aid to be used without graphics. The visual review is a rendering inspection, not an accessibility audit by assistive-technology users.
Critique and next iteration
- The ten cards vary among a notice, procedure, transcript, invitation, role brief, trailer, complete short story, paired messages and draft revision. The classroom still needs authentic selected texts, including the syllabus' Australian and First Nations author requirements across the course.
- The short-story comparison brings representation into the fortnight; it does not replace a sustained literary study or a school-designed Unit 1/2 assessment.
- Audio and visual performance routes are specified, but spoken responses were not tested with actual learners. A teacher should tune time and support after observing responses, and should use real organisational policies for real work practice.
- Public answer keys make the checks reusable for feedback, not secure testing. If learners have seen a key, write a new fictional source and preserve the same evidence target.