Status: Author desk simulation on 29 September 2026. This is not a classroom pilot, accessibility user study, state approval or measured improvement in learning. The repeatable verifier checks counts, official rows, arithmetic invariants, PDF properties, links and hashes; a person must still inspect the actual reading and teaching. No real child data was used.
| Lens | Run performed | Finding and next action |
|---|---|---|
| Teacher planning tomorrow | Followed Day 11 from original log to exit and private next move; tried Day 14 with a deliberately hanging because clause; answered held-out Check A independently before looking at the key. Checked all ten six-step totals and the three routes/day. | The sequence continues the first fortnight but tests scope/label rather than the earlier unclear first question. A teacher can run one 25-minute block using selectable text and a blank aid. A real class may need more time for discussion, reader testing or accessible format preparation; extend locally rather than rush the construct. |
| Learner needing a flexible route | Read Text D with the linear number map; used Day 16's caption repair and Day 17's scene-map choices; rehearsed Day 19's two reader questions with a paper draft. Checked that both quiet speech/AAC and written choices demand the same source-bound explanation. | The text can be analysed without colour, handwriting speed, device access or public performance. Adult reading can give access but must be recorded as listening-supported comprehension. Local screen-reader, Braille, AAC and translation review remain open. |
| Time-poor family | Used an optional paper-card Day 11 route and Day 18 named-whole question without a device, account, household finance, travel or interview. | The home route is optional and works with scrap paper or a spoken answer. No parent is asked to assess a held-out check, buy an aid or disclose personal data. |
| Funder/curriculum reviewer | Compared all selected Year 7 English codes, source rows and descriptions against the pinned ACARA workbook, audited the original/ACARA/font rights split, checked the two check passages stay out of teaching, and inspected three SVG/PDF/text aid pairs. Regenerated the pairs and compared bytes. Worked the arithmetic and the sample answers in the separate key. | The evidence supports a reviewable authored fortnight with exact partial alignment; it does not prove complete Year 7 English, broader literary diversity, local compliance, assistive-technology success or student outcomes. Seek educator, maths specialist and learner review before stronger claims. |
Specific corrections made in desk review: The initial Day 20 key expressed a percent conversion as multiplication by 100%, which is not the intended mathematical statement. It now says 0.4 = 40/100 = 40%. Text D keeps 3:4 outside the equality 3/4 = 0.75 = 75%; the ratio needs context. Check A separates a route's repeated output from the new symbol's identity. Check B ties 40% to a named 40-cell whole. The literature note explicitly states that these original texts do not fulfil the wider First Nations Australian and diverse Australian/world author selection requirement.
Field pass still needed: Ask a Year 7 English teacher to time Days 11, 17 and 20; a mathematics specialist to review the number explanation; willing learners using their own access supports to try the text and aids; and a jurisdictional curriculum lead to select complementary literary works. Record feedback without names in public files and revise this dated pack. A desk check cannot substitute for that use.
Original resource rights: © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, SubjectNest, CC BY 4.0. Credit, source, licence and changes.