# Practical run-through · teacher, learner and potential funder

## Teacher with a 25-minute class

**Setup:** A teacher opens [README](README.md), checks the day's word line against the local scope, prints a learner card and the [A4 mat](print/route-and-reason.pdf), keeps [assessment](teacher/ASSESSMENT.md) private, places a few paper tokens on desks and chooses a seated/quiet route. Day 11 fits 2+5+6+7+3+2 minutes on paper. Adult-read Story C takes under the model phase when read with one pause; a class might need the optional oral response carried into choice time. On Day 15, a teacher cannot individually assess thirty children for 4–6 minutes in the same seven-minute station; schedule a few learners per day or use additional adult support, and continue the teacher-only check across subsequent sessions. Do not claim a single whole-class Day 15 score.

**Observed friction and response:** Adult-read story text could look like a decodable passage. The heading, protocol and learner card now repeat that it is adult-read. Word lines can be too easy or untaught; a preflight substitute and mode record are required. The paper route avoids roaming in school spaces. The teacher has exact next moves for each observed gap.

## Learner who wants a calm route

The learner chooses Day 14 C, moves a token alone, points to the place they paused and adds a label. The teacher reads information text D; the learner does not have to decode it. The learner tries the matched word line only if it was taught. A classmate who prefers speaking can use Day 14 B; a child who uses AAC can select symbols/verbs and ask an adult to write the sentence. The endpoint is a clearer instruction plus a recorded evidence mode, not conformity to one response format.

## Potential funder reviewing real use

A reviewer can open one folder and follow a complete path: [scripts](LESSONS.md) → [learner copy](LEARNER.md) → [print/text aid](print/TEXT-ALTERNATIVES.md) → [held-out key](teacher/ASSESSMENT.md) → [official code crosswalk](CURRICULUM-CROSSWALK.md) → [rights and limits](SOURCES-AND-REVIEW.md) → [hashes](MANIFEST.sha256). They can see ten authored lessons, three options each day, original texts and a reproducible verifier. They **cannot** infer classroom impact, full-year coverage, independent accessibility certification or multilingual accuracy from this pack. Those would require field evidence, localisation review and much more authored sequence.

## Self-critique and next iteration

1. The route story is a strong model for purposeful revision, but its novelty could absorb the entire first session. Teacher should trim discussion to one pause and revisit reasons in Day 14.
2. Day 16–19 integrate English with tens/ones; if mathematics prerequisite is missing, use counters and model while assessing the **English explanation** separately from number accuracy.
3. The three daily choice practices are broad enough for different interests, but more domain variants (e.g. gardening, sport, transport, home) should be field-tested with families/teachers for relevance before claiming excellent personalisation.
4. The PDF's text is searchable and a Markdown alternative exists. A future usability check with actual screen-reader and Braille users should refine field order and tactile map conventions.
5. The funder should see this as a transparent short block and a reusable production pattern, not proof that the 40-week plan has all its lessons authored.