Review date: 29 September 2026. This is an authored desk test of files and scenarios, not a live classroom trial, child interview, accessibility assessment by a disabled user, curriculum-authority approval, funder review or measured learning outcome.
Teacher lens
I traced Science Day 16, HASS Day 13, HPE Day 18, Technologies Day 19 and Music Day 17 against the listed kit and four timed stages. The Science circuit can be demonstrated in 12 minutes only if the approved enclosed low-voltage kit is set up first; without it, the lesson must be recorded as a diagram/model. The HASS four-card timeline initially left “Parliament begins” undated. I checked Parliamentary Education Office sources and revised the card to 9 May 1901, distinct from Federation on 1 January 1901. HPE Day 18 needs actual willing participation and a tested rule. Technologies Day 19 needs an approved visual coding workspace and an observed run; a flowchart is only design. Music Day 17 needs learner-created sound, not merely reading the supplied cue. Actual setup, transitions and response time may exceed 12 minutes in some classes; split or extend rather than rush access needs.
Learner lens
I answered the fictional Science A data probe as “X +3 cm, Y +1 cm; watering was not recorded, so light is not proven as the cause.” The private key accepts this and invites a fairer later measurement. I answered HASS B by keeping Federation’s date but rejecting the universal equal-vote sentence; the key points to the official AEC/PEO evidence, rather than asking a child to supply a community history. These are simulated responses written for quality review, not actual learner work. The learner file never requires a real child’s address, password, health/political view, family migration history or personal image. Response routes can change mid-task; real learners should test reading load, sensory comfort, timing and clarity before wider use.
Funder / adoption lens
The new pack has five ten-day optional menus, 50 swap-in contexts, ten distinct subject checks, private response moves, five reusable A4 SVG/PDF/text pairs, one original WAV with text/tactile alternative and an exact pinned ACARA crosswalk. The ordinary material lists and editable masters support low-cost reuse. It is a small optional slice of Year 6, not a claim that all subjects are covered for Weeks 3–4. No teacher time saving, learning gain, inclusion outcome, state/territory compliance, translation accuracy, adoption or endorsement is measured. A serious pilot would collect consented teacher and learner feedback, observe actual action, moderate assessment locally, and record revisions.
Local verification completed
- Five menus each have Days 11–20, four stages summing to 12 minutes, three explicit routes, a closure check, a response move and a home invitation. Arts has exactly two blocks per form.
- Five Day 15 and five Day 20 check stems are separate from staff answer guidance. The checks use new scenarios; staff keys identify acceptable alternatives and responsive reteaching.
- Every menu code appears in the pinned official workbook extraction with the exact code, level, source row and wording in the crosswalk. Partial/precursor/conditional boundaries prevent a code count from being mistaken for curriculum completion.
- Five SVG masters rendered to one-page A4 PDFs. I checked PDF page dimensions, embedded DejaVu fonts, extractable text and all five visual layouts. The PDFs are not tagged, so text/tactile alternatives are supplied.
- The original eight-beat cue is a 3.6-second mono 16 kHz WAV; its frame count and text/tactile pattern are checked. It is an optional demonstration, not performance evidence.
- The pack verifier checks internal links and SHA-256 file manifest. Run it after any edit; a local pass is not proof of deployment or classroom use.
Real-world next test
Have a Year 6 teacher and learners with varied access needs try at least one practical, one source-reasoning, one physical/Arts and one digital block using ordinary school safeguards. Observe preparation time, learner choice, completion time, whether evidence-status labels match reality, misconceptions and accessibility. Revise from those observations before claims about impact or scale.