Method, 29 September 2026: We traced every 12-minute block and learner case against its teacher key, checked curriculum code/row/level against the pinned ACARA v9 import and workbook hash, recalculated all arithmetic and logic examples, ran the offline code/audio/asset verifier, opened local links and rendered/visually inspected six A4 print aids. This is an internal desk simulation, not a classroom pilot or independent user test. No teacher, Year 9 learner, family, First Nations community member, HPE specialist, accessibility user, translator or funder took part.
Teacher route
I can select exactly one 12-minute block, see its kit and four time windows, offer three switchable response routes, use a matching A4 or text/tactile aid and apply a day-specific next move. On HASS Day14, the model vote gives a national yes majority but only three state yes majorities, so the teacher must not say it passes. On Day15, the new-case tally uses four state majorities and national yes; the teacher key calculates it separately. On HPE Day14/16 and Arts Days11/12/17/18, I must record actual participation/performance apart from planning or directing. A health/safeguarding question goes to local policy, not this short menu. Open risk: a 12-minute window may be too small for first-time accessible setup or a movement demonstration; local scheduling must adapt.
Learner route
I can read, hear, feel or direct the same case words; colour, audio and drawing are optional. The audio has a complete silent eight-box score. I can choose a mode without being labelled a fixed kind of learner. In Technologies Day12 I can decode 5A2B2C back to AAAAABBCC; on Day13 I can inspect all four truth-table cases without running Python. In History I am told the old-looking cards were written now, so I am not misled into citing fake primary evidence. The public check prompts are new relative to lesson practice but may have been seen before. Open risk: some terms (nominalisation in English, here “provenance”, “coefficient”, “criterion”) still need local language and EAL/D review with students.
Potential-funder route
I can inspect 50 authored blocks, 50 optional context swaps, ten public formative checks with worked next moves, exact code/row/wording crosswalk, the original-rights ledger, six selectable A4 PDF/SVG/text/tactile aids, quiet WAV and offline code. Their hashes and source limits are reviewable. This shows an authoring/QA process, not uptake, time saved, attainment, accessibility equivalence or improved wellbeing. A future evaluation needs consent, real educators and learners, timed use, comparison work, measured outcomes and transparent limitations.
Critique and repairs made during authoring
- The first Science method example used translucent paper and resembled the parallel integrated paper-screen inquiry. It was replaced with a paper-disc/ramp planning comparison; no test or result is claimed.
- The public site exposes checks and keys. Wording now says they are publicly accessible, formative and not secure; first-encounter evidence needs a locally novel parallel case when prior access matters.
- The History exercise used invented “old” text. Every card now identifies itself as authored today, and the answer distinguishes hypothetical primary status from actual authentication.
- HPE and Arts routes can be planned, directed or performed. Keys explicitly mark the construct actually observed instead of awarding movement/performance from a paper route.
- The referendum arithmetic, toy compression, unit costs and reaction atom counts are recomputed in the verifier rather than accepted from prose alone. Fictional model counts are never real vote, cost, performance or science data.
Next real-use gates: a Year 9 teacher and HPE/Arts specialist review timing and local syllabus; disabled learners and accessibility specialists test the alternatives; a privacy lead reviews any school adaptation; qualified science/history educators test factual phrasing; authorised community/language experts govern any First Nations or translated edition. No broader claim should be made before those people have actually reviewed it.