Method, 29 September 2026: We traced all source-to-claim examples, checked ten 25-minute scripts, 30 route prompts and keys, opened/check-resolved local links, rendered the three A4 PDFs, visually inspected each, checked selectable text and ran the source/hash verifier. This was an internal desk simulation, not a school pilot. No teacher, Year 9 learner, parent, First Nations community member, EAL/D specialist, accessibility user or potential funder participated.
Teacher route
I can begin with an original source set and a script with exact language to model. On Day12, I can point to a genuine pronoun ambiguity instead of declaring one reading wrong. On Day13, I can unpack relocation and still teach when compact writing helps. The Day15 source is new relative to lesson practice but publicly accessible; the key offers distinct next moves for reference, actor/action and evidence limits. On Day20, I can assess report fidelity separately from a literary inference. Open risk: 25 minutes may not be enough for some first-response modes; adapt time locally and retain a fresh, independently chosen answer.
Learner route
I can choose map, script or critique on any day, with the same source-precision target. The three A4 aids have full linear text routes; I need not perceive colour, draw arrows or record my voice. Text D gives room for a defensible different reading when I quote a detail. A neutral read-aloud does not turn my analysis into a wrong answer, though independent reading is documented separately. Open risk: words such as nominalisation, antecedent and cohesion need examples and a learner vocabulary check, not just a definition list.
Potential funder route
I can inspect original-rights provenance, exact ACARA code rows, separate third-party font terms, 30 switchable tasks, worked staff decisions, two new-case formative checks and a reproducible file ledger. This shows a reviewable authoring process. It does not show teacher time saved, classroom learning gains, uptake, accessibility outcomes or reader preference. A credible trial would need teachers and learners with consent/access, defined measures, baseline work, observed timing, subgroup review without stereotypes, and published limitations.
Specific critique and repairs during authoring
- Text C's
itcould leave a reader unsure whether the table blocked the arrow itself or the view of it. Day12 and the staff key deliberately require a specific noun phrase rather than presenting that draft as flawless. - The first cohesion aid named “because” without its actual reason. It now says because a table blocked the door view, and the full text alternative matches.
- Abstract nouns were at risk of being taught as always misleading. Day13 and the agency aid now model a good second-sentence use (“the sign change”) after an actor/action is introduced.
- The two checks use new source domains and keep their details out of earlier learner/practice pages. The public library exposes prompts and key, so prior access cannot be ruled out. A local parallel case is required when a genuinely first encounter matters.
- A first rehearsal example implied that a room change had been announced and a new notice existed, though the fictional source recorded neither. The final example and route key now name only the move, two questions and missing attendance count. The source timelines also state when questions occurred after each move, without implying why they arose.
- A three-minute final transfer response was tight for a multi-sentence edit. Check-day instructions now take two minutes and the response gets four, retaining 25-minute totals and the independent source reading.
Next real-use review: a Year 9 English teacher should trial timing and collect de-identified work under school policy; an EAL/D/accessibility reviewer and learners should test the language and alternate formats; the school should map its adopted syllabus and its full literature/writing/speaking programme. No completion or impact claim should precede that work.