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

**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](print/grid-reader.pdf) 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](https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/downloads/senior-qce/syllabuses/snr_geography_25_syll.pdf), 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](SOURCE-AND-RIGHTS.md): 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.