Return slot: 3 pm.
` 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](code/label_gate.py): 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](SOURCE-AND-RIGHTS.md) 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](ASSESSMENT.md), 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](ASSESSMENT.md), 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](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) except [code licence](CODE-LICENSE.txt). Third-party standard/guidance is linked and not reproduced.