Date: 29 September 2026. This is a document and tool simulation by the author, not a lesson observed with a child, an educator usability study, an accessibility user test or a grant evaluation. The fictional trial records are deliberately not presented as measurements.
Teacher desk run
- I prepared the five one-page A4 aids, the source packet, learner card, two checks and private key. The lesson stages sum to 35 minutes on each day; the normal pattern is 3 + 7 + 12 + 8 + 5, while checks have an independent 12-minute response before discussion. Setup for an actual fold test, read-aloud, scribing or movement between stations could exceed the script; teachers should extend it rather than rush an access route.
- I followed Day 11 with poster A and sheet B: the poster and sheet share the same team, so they are not independent confirmation. The 18 upright includes the six after tabs; the narrower 12 were unchanged. The visual poster actually places the 18 headline largest and moves the condition into a separate middle box, giving learners a real visual hierarchy to critique.
- I simulated Day 14 on paper. It has a controlled-feature record and a
NOT OBSERVEDroute. No actual classroom sign was made or tested in this run-through, so I do not claimAC9S6I03observation/measurement evidence. I checked that the lesson forbids unsafe installation, wind/water stress or collecting personal viewer information. - I checked the first-response protocol: Check A and Check B are in a separate file, are absent from the clean learner daily page and have answers only in the staff-only key. A public file cannot be a secure exam bank; a teacher must control first exposure. These are formative prompts, not validated achievement measures.
Learner simulation
- For Day 13 I drew
24 = 2×12 = 3×8 = 4×6; 23 has no factor pair beyond 1×23; 25 = 5×5 is square and composite. I could choose 4×6 for labelled checking but could not infer that layout makes a test fair by itself. - For Day 16 I used one whole of 24.
6/24=1/4, hypothetical8/24=1/3,12/24=1/2,18/24=3/4; order is 1/4 < 1/3 < 1/2 < 3/4. I labelled the 8 a proposed retest allocation so it does not masquerade as Source B data. - For fresh Check A I found 14 + 7 + 7 = 28, 21 readable at closing including seven rewritten; 28 is composite and 29 prime. The indoor record did not warrant outdoor placement. For Check B I found 16 + 8 + 8 = 32 and placed 8/32, 1/3, 16/32, 24/32 in that order on one line. A careful decision was a smaller repeat test before making 100.
- The three routes on each day let a learner manipulate, read/write or explain/direct with AAC/sign. They are not claims that each route yields identical evidence: a drawn protocol is not a conducted experiment, and a planned poster is not a completed visual artwork.
Print, link and source review
All five original SVGs were rendered to vector PDFs, converted to raster previews and visually inspected in a contact sheet: no clipped heading or field was seen; section order, contrast, source condition and large blank writing areas remained legible. PDF metadata confirmed one A4 page each, text extraction returned content and DejaVu Sans was subset embedded. The plain-text/tactile alternatives preserve the poster's emphasis and every worksheet label. The local verifier checks the official workbook hash, 16 exact content-description code/level/row/wording matches, source/check arithmetic, lesson and assessment structure, local link/anchor targets, print metadata, licences and every pack-file hash. These checks are mechanical; they cannot establish classroom accessibility, historical completeness, science reliability or pedagogical effectiveness.
Funder/public-claim review
The pack contains original reusable teaching material under a stated licence, plus exact sourced national code references. Its useful testable claim is “ten authored 35-minute integrated sessions with two new-case formative checks and five printable aids”. It is not a full Year 6 curriculum, full weekly subject allocation, measured improvement, First Nations or localised content, validated translation, accessible certification, real environmental benefit or ACARA endorsement. A future evaluation would need educator and learner pilots, permissioned observations, jurisdictional mapping, accessibility review and outcomes measured against a defined baseline. Those activities have not occurred here.