# Desk run-through · teacher, learner and prospective funder

**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 OBSERVED` route. No actual classroom sign was made or tested in this run-through, so I do **not** claim `AC9S6I03` observation/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`, hypothetical `8/24=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](print/TEXT-ALTERNATIVES.md) 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.