Ten 12-minute blocks split Digital Technologies (Days 11–15) and Design and Technologies (Days 16–20). All data, users, requirements, scores and costs are invented. The offline algorithm lab has no network or personal data; it never decides real access or safety. The design/data mat, learner copy, public checks and teacher key are self-contained. Paper prototypes are not tested or approved products. A local teacher checks equipment, privacy and design safety before live use.
Day 11 · Content, structure and style have different jobs · AC9TDI10K02
Kit: original mock page source <h1>Shared-tool desk</h1><p>Return slot: 3 pm.</p> plus a separate style rule h1 { color: navy; }. 0–2: Name all text as invented page content, not a deployed website. 2–4: Predict which part names a heading and which only changes appearance. 4–10: Label content words, HTML structure and CSS style; change colour to black and explain why heading meaning should survive, then suggest a more descriptive heading. 10–12: Check: changing CSS colour does not turn a paragraph into a heading. Routes: coloured/labelled strips; linear text markup; spoken/AAC source audit. Response move: if styling is mistaken for semantic structure, remove CSS and read the tag names. Home: sketch a two-heading paper page, no device needed.
Day 12 · Compression helps some strings and hurts others · AC9TDI10K03
Kit: original run-length rule 5A means five A symbols. Compare AAAAABBCC (9 characters) with 5A2B2C (6), and ABCDEF (6) with 1A1B1C1D1E1F (12). 0–2: State this toy scheme does not describe real file formats. 2–4: Predict which string shrinks. 4–10: Encode and decode both, count characters including digits, explain when repeats help and when overhead grows. 10–12: Check: a scheme is reversible only if the decoder knows how to read count-symbol pairs. Routes: symbol tiles; tally/length table; direct a partner's decode. Response move: if 5A is read as the characters 5 then A with no rule, restate the codec. Home: test one original six-symbol string without storing personal text.
Day 13 · A rule needs edge cases · AC9TDI10P05, AC9TDI10P06
Kit: offline fictional label gate: output READY only when a label is readable and a fictional reviewer flag is true; otherwise RECHECK. This is a toy logic exercise, not real approval. 0–2: Read the rule in words. 2–4: Predict all four Boolean combinations. 4–10: Fill a truth table, run the optional code or paper trace, and compare each output with the expected rule. 10–12: Check: readable alone is insufficient. Routes: two-switch cards; text truth table; execute/test local Python if available. Response move: if or replaces and, show the readable=True, reviewed=False counterexample. Home: create one new fictional test, no real names.
Day 14 · Collect only what the mock service needs · AC9TDI10P14, AC9TDI10P04
Kit: imagined equipment booking form asks for slot, item code, nickname, home address, birth date, and favourite song. No information is collected. 0–2: State this is a paper design critique, not legal compliance advice. 2–4: Predict which fields are plainly unnecessary for reserving an item slot. 4–10: Draft a minimal mock record with slot and item code, ask whether a user identifier is even required for this task, and create a user story allowing someone to check a booking without over-collection. Connect the principle to the OAIC APP 3 guidance while noting that legal obligations depend on the entity and context. 10–12: Check: “nice to know” is not a reason to collect a real home address. Routes: field sort; text form revision; privacy-review dialogue. Response move: if every field is retained, ask what function each one serves. Home: critique an invented form only, not a real family account.
Day 15 · Fresh Digital Technologies check · AC9TDI10K03, AC9TDI10P06
Kit: new toy codec and logic case T-A, public with its key. 0–2: Revisit reversible encoding and a four-case truth table without using the new strings. 2–4: Explain response modes; use a locally novel case if prior access matters. 4–10: Collect a first decode/test response. 10–12: Mark symbol counts and decisive edge case separately. Routes: tiles; text table; spoken/AAC trace. Response move: after collection, make a new counterexample to test an incorrect or. Home: invent a harmless message with repeated symbols.
Day 16 · Write a brief before choosing a material · AC9TDE10P01, AC9TDE10P04
Kit: invented shared desk needs a small paper-only instruction-card stand; no load-bearing use, sharp tools or public deployment. 0–2: Identify users as hypothetical. 2–4: Predict two needs: readable label and stable position. 4–10: Write a brief with audience, task, A4-paper limit and criteria legible from one desk position / stands for 30 seconds in the paper demonstration / uses one sheet. State what must be tested rather than claiming it will work. 10–12: Check: “attractive” alone is not an observable criterion. Routes: criterion cards; text brief; spoken stakeholder interview with invented user. Response move: turn vague words into a testable condition. Home: draft a different fictional paper brief.
Day 17 · Compare materials against the brief · AC9TDE10K06, AC9TDE10P04
Kit: invented test table for two folded-paper designs: A stands 20 seconds and can be read at the desk; B stands 35 seconds but its label is partly hidden. Scores are fictional observations, not material facts. 0–2: Repeat the Day16 criteria. 2–4: Predict whether either passes all. 4–10: Compare each row, decide neither fully meets the brief (A misses 30 seconds, B misses legibility), then propose a paper-only modification to test. 10–12: Check: one successful criterion cannot erase a failed one. Routes: criteria grid; tactile pass/needs-work tokens; design review memo. Response move: if B is called “best” from duration alone, restore the audience's reading requirement. Home: list one test a real prototype would need.
Day 18 · Prototype, observe, iterate · AC9TDE10P02, AC9TDE10P03
Kit: one clean sheet of paper and a paper instruction card; folding only under school safety practice. 0–2: Give safe workspace and no public-use boundary. 2–4: Select one fold to improve a card's visibility. 4–10: Build or direct a one-sheet stand, run a paper demonstration against the Day16 criteria, log actual duration/legibility if measured, then change one fold and note the result. A text-only design remains a plan, not a made/tested artefact. 10–12: Check: a single successful classroom demo does not certify durability or access. Routes: hands-on fold; tactile directed fold with willing partner; written iteration plan marked untested. Response move: if no observation was made, label proposed result as prediction. Home: sketch an iteration, no making required.
Day 19 · Plan time, cost and risk for a mock redesign · AC9TDE10P05, AC9TDE10P04
Kit: fictional production plan: ten stands, 2 paper-credit units each plus 5 setup credits, 20 minutes to cut/fold and 10 minutes to check; no real pricing. 0–2: Identify the planned audience and the fact that no batch was produced. 2–4: Predict total credits and time. 4–10: Compute 10×2+5=25 credits and 20+10=30 minutes; add a risk (print unreadable) and control (test one high-contrast label before batch). 10–12: Check: a cost/time plan is not evidence of safe production. Routes: number tiles; table plan; spoken risk briefing. Response move: if checking time is omitted, show the project step it protects. Home: add one accessibility check to an imaginary schedule.
Day 20 · Fresh Design and Technologies check · AC9TDE10P01, AC9TDE10P04
Kit: new fictional desk-pocket brief T-B, publicly accessible. 0–2: Recall user, material, test and criterion distinctions. 2–4: Give neutral access instructions or locally new equivalent. 4–10: Collect a first criteria/selection response. 10–12: Mark the proposed test apart from any actual prototype observation. Routes: materials cards; written criteria; dictated design memo. Response move: after collection, try a paper prototype only if locally approved and call its evidence what it is. Home: one alternate brief for a new fictional user.
Original examples/code © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, CC BY 4.0 except code licence. Third-party standard/guidance is linked and not reproduced.