# S5 — independent first-use review

## Scope and starting understanding

This is a simulated average 18-year-old learner who reads slowly, has limited political-science vocabulary, prefers short visible instructions, and sometimes uses keyboard navigation and enlarged text. It is an actual browser walkthrough, not a human learner study. I used only the game at `http://terminal.local:4173/?reviewer=S5`, its visible help, glossary, cards and source drawers. I did not inspect source code, external original-source links, hidden answers, design history, or other reviews. I chose Malawi, the default **For class** mode, and **Solo**.

Before opening help, my understanding was: pick a country, explain an election result that already happened, and choose three useful pieces of evidence. I understood that I could not change history. I did not yet understand why two pieces were called “anchors,” why the third should complicate my answer, or what “foreground” meant. My simulated first reaction was, “This looks like a serious school investigation. Am I supposed to discover who won, or explain why?” The known-outcome box answered the first uncertainty. Malawi appealed because a court ordering another election sounded like a clear story I could follow.

## First ten actions

Observations and screenshots are excluded from this action count.

1. Opened the assigned URL.
2. Selected the Malawi radio option.
3. Pressed Tab from that option; focus reached **Enter the hearing**.
4. Pressed Return; entered the workspace.
5. Chose **A new contest was enforced**.
6. Clicked **Record my opening view**.
7. Clicked **Choose evidence**.
8. Opened **Read the full card** for MW3.
9. Opened MW3 **Source details**.
10. Opened **How to play**.

The opening screen defined incumbent, opposition and coalition beside the country story. That was useful at exactly the point I needed it. I initially treated “court decisions” as enough explanation, because it was the most concrete offered opening.

## Observed route and sample completion

I read the full cards and source drawers for MW3, MW5 and MW4. I selected MW3 as Anchor 1, MW5 as Anchor 2, and MW4 as the complication. My notes were simple: the first result stopped being final; someone still had to run the next vote; judges did not decide whom voters would choose. I did not read every Malawi card fully. The interface explicitly allowed selective close reading, so that felt legitimate.

Help's invented library example clarified the connection better than the opening abstract question. The glossary clarified “anchor and complication” and “observation and inference.” I built a court → fresh-election order → another vote connection. In the first hearing question I chose the reading separating rulings, implementation and the eventual winner. I applied **Narrow a step**, changing the option to “Mutharika had to face another vote once the order was carried out.” For the figures question I reopened its source records, chose the qualified comparison, and defended using the court decision rather than treating the original count as fair. Both multiple-choice readings received supported feedback. This does not demonstrate deep understanding: the incorrect alternatives used very strong claims such as judges directly appointing the winner.

I chose Malaysia for the second case and **Similar result, different remaining options**. I closely read MY3 and MY5, plus MY3's source drawer. I wrote the following account, which the filing screen counted as 71 words:

> MW3 shows the courts cancelled the first election and ordered another one. This meant Mutharika could not just keep his declared win. MW5 says the commission and other groups actually organized the new vote, so the court order was not the only step. But the commission is describing its own work. MW4 also shows the challengers joined together. So I think courts explain another chance more than they explain who won.

My comparison was 41 words:

> Malawi's courts made another vote possible. In Malaysia, MY3 shows challengers could put an experienced former leader on their side. MY5 says not all opposition parties joined. Both governments lost, but this does not show courts were the reason in both.

This comparison is plausible but imperfect. “Both governments lost” blurs a presidential contest and parliamentary government. It also identifies different routes without explaining much about how Mahathir's experience changed opportunities. The inclusion checks accepted it; human discussion would still matter.

At filing, every check except the separate source-limitation field was included. I had already written a limitation inside my account, so the extra field felt repetitive. After adding it, I clicked **File this hearing record**. The UI visibly displayed **“Hearing filed · interpretation awaits discussion.”** There was no completion blocker. Screenshot: `/workspace/scratch/s5-hearing-filed.jpg`.

## Words, controls, and recovery

These are simulated learner reactions to actually observed wording:

| Exact wording | Expected meaning or uncertainty | Recovery |
| --- | --- | --- |
| “anchor file” / “two anchors” | I first thought both meant countries. | Exhibit labels and glossary separated country from evidence. |
| “foreground” | Did not know it meant choosing what receives attention. | Inferred it from the three slots; glossary did not define it. |
| “denominator” | Expected an explanation of “out of which total?” | Glossary's valid-votes entry itself used “denominator”; this remained weaker. |
| “joint ticket” / “tickets” | Could mean voting slips rather than candidates running together. | MW4's president/running-mate wording helped. |
| “provisional,” “bounded,” “warranted,” “trajectory” | School assessment language requiring rereading. | Longer context supplied partial meaning; I avoided the trajectory comparison. |
| “What does it unsettle?” | Unsure whether to reject my whole explanation. | Help's complication example made a partial limit acceptable. |
| “Apply to my exhibit” | Expected my written account might change automatically. | Feedback said the board step changed; my paragraph remained unchanged. |

My biggest next-step uncertainty was in **Make a connection**: each of four steps offered a starter, an editable wording field, and an evidence selector. I could proceed, but had to work out whether all three were required. “Attach an exhibited item, if relevant” helped. After two hearing decisions, another overall revision selector felt like recording the decision again. **Use MY3 in comparison** inserted the ID into my draft; I had expected a selected-card marker instead. Its follow-up message explained what happened.

## Layout, keyboard, and appeal

Actual screenshots showed a restrained cream, dark-green and paper-document style. It looked credible and attractive without feeling childish. Large headings, numbered stages, focus movement to the new stage heading, and the persistent exhibit helped orientation. Text-entry focus had a conspicuous outline. Long entries in the narrow exhibit inputs were horizontally clipped, so I could not reread the complete reason at a glance. Repeated source drawers made the evidence page very long and repeated detailed decimal discrepancies even when my main concern was institutional action.

The sampled keyboard route worked: Tab/Return entered the game, arrow keys selected **Courts** in a starter menu, and Escape closed help and glossary and returned focus to the triggering control. This was not a full keyboard accessibility audit. I attempted browser enlargement shortcuts; screenshots showed no visible change, so enlarged-text behavior is unverified. I did not perform a physical mobile test.

## What to keep and fix

Choosing the complication was meaningful: MW4 stopped me treating “a new election happened” and “a different candidate won” as the same explanation. Defending an already limited account was also worthwhile. The tiring choices were repeated administrative decisions, multiple selectors for each chain step, and duplicate writing about limitations.

Keep the narrow evidence distinctions, open source access, retained first view, and short final accounts. Add one visible next-action sentence per stage. Define foreground, denominator and ticket in plain language where used. Present each connection step as one editable answer with an optional starter and evidence attachment. Keep detailed source cautions available, but show a short card-specific caution first. Clarify that applying a decision changes the board and requires the learner to revise their paragraph. Let the limitation field point to an existing sentence, or explain why a separate phrase is needed.

My simulated verdict: I could finish and explain the central distinction, but I would want a teacher nearby for language and comparison framing. The site's roughly 55-minute target is not validated by this tool session; slow close reading of repeated source notes could consume much of a lesson. This is a thoughtful activity whose workload would feel lighter with shorter instructions and fewer repeated controls, without reducing the reasoning demanded.
