Date: 29 September 2026. We desk-traced all invented examples, checked local file links, ran the arithmetic/curriculum/hash verifier, rendered and visually inspected all three A4 PDFs, and checked their text selection. This is an internal simulation; no Year 8 learner, teacher, parent or funder used the pack in a classroom or study.
Teacher route
I can begin with the README, set out one of three aids, use the 25-minute steps, then read an exact next move from the key. On Day11, three rows support 3(x+4)=3x+12; on Day15 I can keep the new grouped card out of the local handout while I rehearse a different expression. On Day18, I can show that n≤5 names six allowed whole counts, not only a maximum. On Day20, I can score equation, inequality and model interpretation separately. Practical issue: a 25-minute check may require a local timing adjustment for some learners; the first response must remain independent and access supports documented.
Learner route
I can choose a build, explanatory or critique problem daily without being labelled by ability. The balance board asks me to write the same operation on both equation sides; the inequality lesson explicitly warns that negative division reverses the relation. The graph includes every tick in its text alternative, and I can list ordered pairs or allowed integers instead of drawing. In a desk attempt at D17, algebra gave n=6, and both model totals gave 30; in D19, testing t=4 rejected the strict “more than 3” condition. Practical issue: terms such as “factorise” and “domain” need a teacher's vocabulary check and potentially a longer first encounter.
Potential funder route
I can inspect exact official code rows and the selected taught limits, original licensing, separate font terms, reproducible aids, worked checks and a hash ledger. This shows inspectable authoring, not measured effectiveness. The pack does not prove teacher time saved, learning gains, inclusion outcomes, adoption or “viral” interest. A fundable trial would need local educator participation, informed access/consent processes, a defined baseline, student work evidence, observed time and usability measures, and honest adverse findings.
Critique and changes made in desk QA
- A first Day16 practice item simply repeated its guided equation with a changed variable. It was replaced by a new rational-result equation so the learner route gives genuine additional practice.
- The graph’s tick labels were kept in selectable PDF text and fully repeated in a linear text/tactile description; a visual grid alone would not have been a complete access route.
- The Day20 answer key does not recommend a lower-token option at seven batches without first applying the pin rule, which excludes that batch count. Context constraints now govern the decision sentence.
- All model claims stay conditional. A mathematical equality for fictional tokens cannot be described as a real cheapest plan or an observed outcome.
Next review: a Year 8 teacher should trial actual timing and inspect pupil work; an accessibility reviewer and learners should test the alternatives; curriculum leaders should map the adopted state/territory requirements and remaining content. Preserve assessment freshness during that review.