# Year 11 Health opening fortnight · role desk run-through

This is a **desk simulation and local artifact review**, not a classroom trial, clinical review, accessibility certification, user study, funder endorsement or evidence that anyone's wellbeing changed. Each role tried to use the [pack](README.md) and tested a concrete overclaim.

| Role and attempted use | Fault sought | Correction or release boundary |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Teacher preparing Day 1 quickly | Would the smiling poster invite a class-wide self-rating or a healthy/unhealthy label? | The [script](LESSONS.md) keeps evidence in a fictional third-person case, and the key says no diagnosis or health status follows. A learner can choose a parallel fictional context without explaining why. |
| Teacher checking Day 2 | Could a strengths lens erase a real barrier or turn resilience into a virtue score? | The two-lens task keeps risk and resources in view. The source gives a possible noisy entry, optional buddy and quiet area; neither lens diagnoses the newcomer. |
| Teacher reviewing Day 4 | Could an online-only form be described as a legal breach or proof of individual exclusion? | The [resource-access mat](print/resource-access.pdf) uses “possible barrier”, marks actual uptake unknown, and asks what access evidence is needed. No policy rule is invented. |
| Learner switching A/B/C | Can a tactile or spoken route meet the same evidence target as a written audit? | The [learner instructions](LEARNER.md) require exact source detail, explanation and bounded revision on **all** routes. Five full text/tactile aids preserve the words. Equivalent learning outcomes have not been tested. |
| Parent or supporter at home | Do tasks demand personal stories, a mental-health survey, purchase or online service account? | Twenty optional contexts are invented, paper-only and no-purchase. The supporter may move labelled cards at the learner's direction and ask about the fictional source, without collecting real personal information. |
| Assessor viewing Check A/B | Can published checks be used as secure examinations or health screens? | Both [checks](STUDENT-CHECKS.md) and [key](teacher/KEY-AND-NEXT.md) say **publicly accessible**, **not secure exams**. The worked answers show denominator and unknown-outcome limits. A new local case is needed if prior access matters. |
| Accessibility reviewer | Does A4 contrast and a tactile description guarantee universal access? | Five PDFs were rendered and visually inspected; SVG title/description, PDF searchable text and full text/tactile routes exist. A school still needs learner-specific testing, Braille production and access arrangements. |
| Potential funder | Could ten lessons be presented as the full Health unit or a measured resilience intervention? | The [crosswalk](CURRICULUM-CROSSWALK.md) identifies only selected Stage 1 opportunities from printed pp. 14–16, 250 minutes against a 55-hour unit, with Stage 2/3 and real inquiry left to school-led work. No outcome claim is made. |

## Local review receipts

- **Official source:** On 29 September 2026, the QCAA Health subject page and January 2026 Health 2025 v1.3 PDF were checked. Unit 1 starts printed p. 12; Stage 1 starts p. 14 and Stage 2 p. 17. The pack does not invent a Unit 1 “Topic 1”. The PDF is linked, not redistributed or falsely source-hashed.
- **Numbers and source boundaries:** The [verifier](verify_pack.py) recomputes the fictional `8/12`, `4/12`, `3/4` and `5/10` checks, checks the stated population and outcome limits, and verifies distinct case names and public answer locations.
- **Print/navigation:** Five A4 PDF/SVG pairs were regenerated deterministically, rendered and visually inspected for clipping; searchable text, font and full text/tactile alternatives were checked. Local links, source anchors, rights notices and every authored-file SHA are checked after the final edit.

**Original resource rights:** © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, SubjectNest, [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Credit author, source, licence and changes.