Date: 29 September 2026. This is a content and paper-route inspection, not a classroom pilot, independent legal opinion, First Nations cultural review, translation review, specialist accessibility test or impact result.
Teacher: can the first fortnight run?
The ten scripts each allocate 2+4+5+7+4+3=25 minutes, name a target and materials, include an explicit model, an error to challenge, and a short exit. A teacher can print Cards A–H and five full-word aids, display a lesson and hand out the learner page. Twenty extra worked contexts let the teacher switch away from a prompt without changing its legal target. A real school would add longer reading, local cases, current legal source checks, lesson extension and the school-developed Unit 1 assessments. The 7-minute independent response is deliberately an initial diagnostic window, not a complete legal analysis period.
Learner: does the route lead to a defensible answer?
The default student desk gives one clear question each day and avoids linking a teacher key. Day 5's new Horizon file is distinct from practice Card A's Banyan hub. Day 10's South Quay file is distinct from Cards C/H. Both demand citation of file evidence plus a limit, and the worked key is on a separate, public teacher path. The three routes per day preserve the same source/legal distinction. A speaking/AAC/dictated answer and full-word tokens can show reasoning while the teacher records support. No learner must recount a personal allegation, court experience, disability or cultural identity.
Source and legal critique
I checked the official QCAA 2025 v1.3 syllabus printed p. 12 and course/assessment pp. 4–5: Unit 1 Topic 1 is Legal foundations; the unit is 55 hours; this 250-minute starter cannot satisfy the whole topic or assessment program. I checked the Queensland Acts Interpretation Act 1954 s 14A against the operative authorised PDF: purpose preference does not create or extend criminal liability. The fictional Card H and Check K therefore do not create an offence. I checked Queensland bill/assent steps against Queensland Parliament, and the first-level/serious-matter court descriptions against Queensland Courts. Power classification is sourced to PEO. No synthetic named statute is presented as enacted. Exact current criminal offences, penalties and defences are outside the pack and must be verified before a live case discussion.
Cultural and accessibility critique
Day 9 has a necessary but narrow source: an 1986 Australian Law Reform Commission report. It cannot stand in for current Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community voices; the lesson names that gap and asks for appropriately authorised partnership. No community-specific law is invented. The print aids use words and numbering as well as colour; each has complete text and a tangible rebuild route. PDFs have selectable text but are untagged. Visual paper inspection found readable one-page A4 output and no clipped labels; it cannot substitute for screen-reader or classroom testing.
Reviewer/funder claim
The pack offers an original, source-traceable, reproducible two-week partial elective starter with 30 route choices, 20 context swaps, two public formative checks, separate keys and five original visual/text/tactile aids. It does not show a year-ready Legal Studies course, QCAA endorsement, secure assessment, learning gains or legal/cultural expert validation. The current legal source links and visible QA limits make those next gates inspectable.
Next gap after Day 10
Extend Topic 1 with authentic legislation, judgments and careful contemporary issues; co-design living-law learning with appropriate First Nations partners; teach Unit 1 Topics 2–4; create the school-selected Unit 1 assessment and progression into Unit 2. Review every legislative link and syllabus version on deployment and before reuse.