This is an adult desk simulation and local tool/print audit, not a real student trial, qualified accessibility certification, QCAA approval or demonstrated learning gain. The lenses below identify concrete faults that were corrected in the authored pack. Local teachers and learners still need to test the materials in their own context with appropriate consent and revise them.
| Lens | Actual walk-through | Fault found and correction | Remaining limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| New teacher, Day 11 | Gave a fictional reader 20 cards and another 40, then followed the 35-minute script and public key. | Lowest unit price alone mislabelled the 20-card cash choice. The source and whole-set lab now require both quantities, intact packs, mixed-set testing and “delivery unknown”. | A model price says nothing about real availability or quality. |
| New teacher, Day 15 | Tested a two-year simple-interest correction under the script's six timed phases. | The draft public wording hid per year behind every month. The percent/period mat now puts rate period next to years and keeps upgrade cost unknown. | No real financial product, interest terms or affordability is evaluated. |
| Learner, Day 18 | Compared $75 exclusive with $86 inclusive, first by sticker, then by fully-taxable total. |
Without a status label, a learner could add another 10% to B or treat A's $75 as final. The card and print mat now say assumed fully taxable and distinguish exclusive/inclusive. | Actual product tax classification requires an authorised source and professional/local judgement. |
| Learner, Check B | Made a first-response comparison of the unseen-in-lessons ceramic-pattern paper-card offers. | The $90 sticker drew attention away from its mandatory $7; the check now requires both total and discount base, and the key keeps delivery unknown. |
Published check/key cannot be used as secure examination. |
| Accessibility | Followed one source pair through read-aloud, labelled tactile cards and a no-device route; inspected each A4 page without using colour. | A bare “use manipulatives” instruction did not convey the algorithm. Text/tactile routes now enumerate every field and labelled token order; the whole-set paper route includes mixed packs. | Real assistive-technology fit and learner preference need direct local testing. |
| Potential funder | Traced “ten sessions” and “curriculum connection” to actual scripts, official sources, rights and hashes. | A short bridge could be mistaken for full Year 11 coverage. Crosswalk marks partial opportunities and school-controlled sequencing/instruments; no outcome or uptake claim is made. | No external evaluator, school sign-off, usage data or classroom efficacy evidence. |
Replay receipts: python3 verify_pack.py; sha256sum -c MANIFEST.sha256; Ruff on original generators and verifier; pdfinfo, pdftotext, pdffonts and visual inspection of all four one-page A4 renders; real browser runs of the offline lab for 20, 40, 75 and invalid inputs. The source ledger separates official authority from original art and models. The verifier checks local claims and source-snapshot consistency but cannot assert that live syllabuses stay current after 29 September 2026.
Original resource rights: © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, SubjectNest, CC BY 4.0. Credit author, source, licence and changes.