SubjectNest resource library

Foundation / Hass / Term 4 / Weeks 37 38

Development draft · local review needed

Four-role author desk critique · 30 September 2026Foundation HASS · T4 W37–38 · Run Through

Download editable text

Status: author simulations of teacher, student, parent/carer and potential funder only. No independent classroom/participant review, actual event/family/account/permission/source record, marker-use/viewer outcome or physical tactile construction. Roles trace source relationships; they aren't validation of interest, consent, learning, accessibility or demand.

Teacher role: I followed ten scripts on screen: child chooses source pocket, unfolds event/marking/plan trace, attaches own significance and sharing sources, fresh check, chooses plain/no-marker guide, preserves/repairs one phrase, gives authorised source kit a useful private job, returns/hands over copies with bounded narrative and fresh check. Full actual preflight verifies an actually marked significant event, source/date precision/link, willing account, source-specific sharing and private family supported/open breadth, culturally appropriate scope, marker/audience/return permission. Eight ordinary branches are runnable; complete paper route needs no family contribution/recipient/real event. Seven-minute making requires pre-made folds/flat adult-directed routes. Local authenticity/significance/curriculum/pacing still requires educator judgement.

Student role: In author desk simulation I could choose broad tab, source bookmark, flat pocket, oral guide or direct adult/no-touch equivalent. I could ask source questions without telling my family story or explaining a pass. Reported book completion/marking differed from future label plan and today's paper making. Kemi's own reason and Arlo's cousin-sharing were separate source accounts, not everyone. I could preserve first words, repair a sourced phrase and leave absent permission/viewer fields open while keeping useful kit. Fresh B's dated plan/undated drawing didn't establish completed commemoration. These are author interpretations, not learner comprehension/interest/independence. No physical learner/tactile test.

Parent/carer role: I checked ten free optional paper/spoken bridges with no purchase/device/printer/outing, returned score/evidence, family interview/private date/photo/belief/relationship/history or public celebration act. Skipping has no assessment cost. Genuine family material only through voluntary child/family-approved private school route; school/others evidence can't silently become family breadth. Silence/withdrawal accepted. No parent/carer reviewed pack. Any translation requires fluent local review.

Potential funder role: I traced ten timed scripts/30 routes/20 worked domains/10 bridges/two held fresh checks/key/nine original pairs/exact alternatives, runnable conditional K02 route, exact primary rows/rights and hashes. Stronger actual-event opportunity extends earlier fictional archive but is no actual K02 outcome or full annual coverage. Dated routine, invitation, kit-making and simulated viewer aren't authentic evidence. No time saving, learning gain, demand, universal access, cultural certification or commercial suitability shown. K01/K03/K04 distinct actual-source holds.

Residual critique: event versus actual marking/link needs explicit source language, not object interpretation. School/community evidence may show others but leave family breadth open. Particular-person significance isn't a universal celebration meaning. Child choice/no-marker/pass must stay useful. Sensitive or culturally held event material requires appropriate recognised authority; paper route remains full alternative. Don't stage a new celebration to close gaps. PDFs untagged; individual print/screen-reader/tactile/AAC/language/pacing and independent classroom review pending.

Portable reproduction and checks

From this pack directory: python3 verify_pack.py is offline/read-only; python3 verify_pack.py --negative-checks rejects in-memory drifts and restores normal inputs. python3 print/generate_print.py --check-reproduction writes only temporary storage and compares all 19 print artifacts while preserving pack bytes/size/mtime. python3 print/generate_print.py --regenerate deliberately rewrites nine named SVG/PDF pairs/exact alternatives. python3 verify_pack.py --manifest-json prints a proposed complete hash receipt for intentional author saving. Python 3/Pillow/DejaVu, librsvg, pdfinfo, pdftotext and pdffonts required. Fixed PDF build clock is metadata, not event time. Published instructions use relative commands; no private workstation path.

Technical receipt · 30 September 2026

Independent second-agent text/routes desk review

A separate agent reviewed the text/routes read-only and found no blocking K02 evidence/privacy/cultural contradiction. It identified three refinements: fresh compound-prompt pacing was untested; ordinary pair kit could confuse individual first-response evidence; timetable fit was asserted without local trial. Fixed by pre-made neutral/oral routes, short prompt parts and unfinished/not-yet-observed rule; explicit separate per-child capture/no peer-answer credit; school-selected/adapted timetable wording. Completion speed remains untested. Incomplete print/technical work was excluded from that independent review; final render/technical checks above are author's executed checks. This is independent agent desk scrutiny, not an educator/child/parent/access/cultural/funder validation or actual K02 result.

Remaining human/local gates: educator curriculum/timetable/pacing/language/authentic-event/source approval; genuine element-specific K02 evidence and private family supported/open breadth; current child/family/source/owner/audience/marker/return/privacy permissions; recognised cultural-authority/ICIP where relevant; individual print/screen-reader/tactile/AAC/language access; independent teacher/child/parent/funder evaluation. No actual marking, family knowledge, care/use benefit, viewer learning or completed K02 outcome occurred in authoring.