Question: What would count as a useful improvement, and what is still unknown? Kit: D, source audit and blank paper. 35 = 3 + 7 + 12 + 8 + 5.
- 0–3: Retrieve D's request: a second supervised trial, not public installation.
- 3–10: Model four criteria to negotiate: readable headline and instructions in the agreed viewing setup; upright at a fixed check; simple paper use; safe setup. These are proposed criteria, not proven accessibility or sustainability measures. Ask who would need to review them locally.
- 10–22: Small groups sketch or physically draft two fold or layout versions. Label which feature changed. Select a common paper size, table, check time and recording method; note what remains uncontrolled. If no making occurs, mark both as design drawings. No actual audience testing is required.
- 22–30: Groups exchange criteria and use them to evaluate only what can be observed or inferred from the design. They revise one criterion if ambiguous (e.g. “good” → “upright at one agreed short check”). Routes: paper mock-ups; large-print/tactile component cards; structured oral/AAC negotiation recorded word for word. Record who proposed a criterion and the group's agreement without personal data.
- 30–35: “Can ‘uses less paper’ be claimed without measuring two designs?” Key: no, calculate/measure or state as a goal. Response move: split each note into
observed,plannedandneeds evidence.
Another domain: Design tabletop story prompts, exhibition labels or event menus. Home: name a testable criterion for any imaginary paper stand.