This is a document and tool simulation, not a class trial. I inspected the five rendered A4 PDFs as a contact sheet, extracted their text, ran the optional model at two factors and calculated both fresh checks independently. No teacher, student or funder outside this desk review used these materials.
Teacher route
I set out Source A and B, the claim audit and model/data aid, then followed Day 11–14 timing: 3+7+12+8+5 minutes each. The source packet explains all abbreviations and provides the missing method details to seek; the teacher does not need to invent a new optical fact. Day 14 can be taught entirely on paper, and the method mat prominently says NOT OBSERVED. Day 15 and 20 have separate first-response periods and a teacher-targeted worked key that is publicly accessible. These are fresh relative to lessons, not secure exams; adapt cases if prior access matters. The practical friction is that source pages and aids need to be printed/queued before Day 11; the README order makes that explicit. A teacher must apply local safety, equipment and accessibility policy for any actual experiment.
Learner route
I traced one path on paper: B predicts 10 at n=4 and lists 20, so the signed residual is +10; that permits “conflict with this model in this invented record”, not “paper causes x”. I traced a second route with tactile-number-strip instructions and spoken source attribution; both require the same two numbers. In Check A the unseen baseline 96 gives 96×2^-3=12 against 18, a +6 gap. In Check B the unseen baseline 120 gives 15 against a three-sheet middle 22, a +7 gap. The check key separates exponent, source, method and language so a learner's next task can target their reasoning. These are desk calculations, not observed learner performance.
Potential funder / release route
I followed every referenced local aid from the entry page and checked the official ACARA row/wording against the pinned workbook SHA. The five A4 graphics use original vector geometry; their text equivalents expose the visual hierarchy and a tactile adaptation route. The offline tool runs without network or stored learner data and reports that factor .55 has mean absolute gap 3.6758 versus 4.0000 for .50 on these five fictional values. The visible source and rights ledger marks curriculum ownership separately from original assets. The pack is usable as a contained ten-day supplement, while any impact, curriculum completeness, translations, First Nations adaptation, physical result or real classroom accessibility success remains unverified.
Visual and usability observations
- All five PDFs were rendered and viewed together at page scale. Text is within page borders; headings, model/record distinction, numbered boxes and blank writing space survive the print layout. The model/data page intentionally keeps a large work area after the five rows.
- PDF text extraction retains the main wording, numeric contrasts and the
2⁻⁴notation. DejaVu Sans is embedded; full font notice is alongside aids. - The poster's oversized hypothesis and separate qualification deliberately create a critical-reading task. Its qualifier remains legible; staff must read it with equal weight.
- There is no generated speech audio because an unverified voice could imply measured results and the supplied complete text supports local read-aloud. A future voice version can be made after editorial/listening review.
Open validation
An Australian classroom teacher should trial the timing and access routes with actual learners, and an independent curriculum reviewer should assess the broader unit fit. Real equipment work needs its own local risk assessment. Until then, describe this as desk-reviewed and technically verified only.