Status: Desk simulations and machine checks only. There was no classroom pilot, real fieldwork, real-place verification, specialist access session, cultural review or learning-impact study. The pack offers a 4-hour-10-minute opening of a 55-hour Unit 1; teacher judgement, authentic cases, Topic 2 and formal QCAA-aligned assessments remain. All run data below are from the invented cards.
Teacher run
- Set up Day 3: Printed grid reader at A4, placed the full-word alternative alongside it, and laid out coordinate cards for A1–D3. The 2+4+5+7+4+3 minute sequence fits a short session on paper; a real class may need longer for access support or discussion. The geometry is 100 m × 100 m = 10,000 m² = 0.01 km² per cell; 12 cells = 0.12 km². B2 is west of C2, not north of it. A teacher who called M a depth would create a false claim, so the key explicitly says category only.
- Set up Day 4: Physically grouped A1–A3, B1–B3, and C/D cells. Totals are H 0, M 8+15+6=29, L 12+4+18+5+10+3=52 dwellings. A high hazard label with zero counted dwellings does not imply “safe”; another asset or person could be present. The cell map never becomes a real forecast.
- Set up Day 8/9: Read Card C twice: B2 is the only crossing supplied, not the only crossing in some actual town. The closure allows a possible access inference, not a safe alternative. Card F's 30 western-route learners, 14 eastern and 8 walking total 52. A western crossing closure directly identifies 30 route users, not 30 harmed or 52 stranded students. Action wording was changed to an authority-verified plan rather than a direction to travellers.
Learner run
- Day 5 fresh G: Without using the A counts, I read B2 as middle-row M with 9 structures, directly west of C2 L with 10. I calculated M=4+9+5=18 and L=6+10+7=23 structures. H has no listed structures. I could explain the west→east band and still could not infer occupants, water depth or damage. A 50 m side gives 2,500 m² per cell and nine cells 0.0225 km² if extra scale practice is chosen.
- Day 10 fresh H: I described rain/saturation interacting with geomorphic downslope movement, not rain as a movement by itself. I located B2 annex/path in the labelled corridor and C2 main clinic on the flatter side. I totalled 2+1+3=6 model structures, not six people. I could propose verification by competent local engineering/emergency/transport authorities, but I could not approve the unverified path or claim a real slope is hazardous/safe.
- Access route equivalence: Rebuilt Card A's B2→C2 relation using a raised 3×4 tile board with full-word M/L and number cards. The spoken description still had to say “B2 west of C2, 15 model dwellings versus 18”; moving tokens alone did not satisfy the communication target. A future accessibility user test is still needed, and an untagged PDF alone is insufficient for screen reading.
Potential funder and source audit
- Inspected the official syllabus, printed pp.4–5, 7–8 and 14–17. Geography 2025 v1.3, not a guessed subject code. Unit 1 is 55 notional hours and contains two interrelated topics of equal importance. The starter's 250 minutes do not complete Topic 1. The real two-location natural-hazard case study and ecological-hazard case study remain open.
- The QCAA-required minimum five-hour field study is in Unit 3 Topic 2, not this Unit 1 starter. No “fieldwork complete” claim appears in the learner flow. Unit 2 Topic 1 fieldwork is recommended. The public formative checks have a public worked key and cannot be marketed as secure school instruments.
- Checked the source and rights ledger: every place, map cell, value and SVG is original; agency sources are linked for factual concepts and not copied as maps/images. No external map tile or current warning is in the pack. “Less developed” / “more developed” are official case-study comparison requirements, not labels assigned to invented neighbourhoods or to people. A school must make the real comparison through credible, contextualised evidence.
- Ran the local verifier for headings, timing, 30 routes, 20 optional swaps, check separation, internal links, A4 geometry and SHA-256 receipt; results belong to the generated output and should be rerun after any edit. Paper render inspection can reveal clipping but does not show actual classroom usability or accessibility.
Next evidence before a 10/10 claim: classroom teacher trial with diverse learners; consented access review; two real, source-verified case-study locations using licensed/current spatial layers and contextual development evidence; school assessment moderation; translation and local cultural review where commissioned. Do not replace current warnings or local professional advice with an invented grid.