# Simulated teacher, learner and funder desk run

**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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.