# Informed learner retest — revised Hearing candidate

This is an **INFORMED** retest by the same AI-simulated high-school learner who wrote T2’s original review. It is not a fresh blind participant, a real minor, or learning-effect evidence. The original blind report remains unchanged. This retest used visible UI only and reused my own earlier authored responses; no source code, designer answer, or prior reviewer report was consulted.

## Route, fresh state and limits

The initially supplied root URL, http://terminal.local:4173/?reviewer=T2_retest, served **The Order Was Given** with the earlier Lydora Forum state. I made no game actions there. After the parent restored the preview, I made the single authorized ordinary navigation to:

http://terminal.local:4173/The_Hearing_candidate.html?reviewer=T2_retest

That route showed **The Hearing · Who Holds the Advantage**. After Malaysia entry, I verified the new visible **Office / holder**, **Challengers and checks**, and **Opportunity at stake** map before testing the revised tasks. The actual candidate began with an empty 0/3 board, no recorded first explanation, and no old written responses. This verifies a visibly fresh candidate workspace, not its underlying storage implementation.

Keyboard activation and normal form entry worked. An audit-disclosure/readback call later failed with **exec-server transport disconnected**. On the parent’s instruction I stopped further game actions. One subsequently authorized nonmutating screenshot capture succeeded without reconnecting or resetting the runtime. Ordinary tab close also succeeded. QA tab **81 is closed**.

## Exact targeted results

| Check | Result | Observed evidence and scope |
|---|---|---|
| Basic political power is visible without hunting | **PASS** | Opening view states BN held national government before May 2018 and depended on a majority in the 222-seat lower house. PH/Mahathir, different PR/PH alliances, and PAS outside PH are visible. The opportunity row names local seats, governing alliances, criticism and later reform, with a pointer to MY2’s legal and registration powers. |
| A precise research target is required | **PASS — inclusion UI** | “My research target required short phrase” appears in Make a connection. With my connection and 72-word paragraph filled but target blank, Finish & save showed **To review — A precise event or opportunity named as the research target**. After my own target was entered, that item became **Included**. I did not isolate a final-submit blocking test or test semantic precision grading. |
| Target carries into comparison | **PASS** | Malaysia’s “your explanation target” displayed my exact question, rather than only the broad case question or selected opening. |
| Target carries into readable preview | **UNTESTED** | Preview was not opened before the infrastructure interruption and stop instruction. |
| One-at-a-time agenda | **PASS** | Hearing initially displayed Question 1 while Question 2 remained available in the agenda. The agenda says each question needs a reading attempt and reasoned decision. |
| Question 2 navigation and Show both | **PASS** | Direct Question 2 activation displayed only its legal-announcement challenge. “Show both questions” then displayed both challenge headings, answer groups and decision controls. |
| Status labels describe work, not correctness | **PASS** | After Question 1: **Reading attempt recorded · Decision recorded**. After Question 2’s answer but before its reason: **Reading attempt recorded · No decision yet**. The agenda explicitly says statuses do not judge correctness; source-reading feedback remains distinct. |
| Both decisions remain required | **PASS — inclusion UI** | After Question 1 only, the final two-questions item stayed **To review**. After both reading attempts but no Question 2 decision it still stayed **To review**. Only after recording Question 2’s reason did **Two practice answer choices and two hearing decisions recorded** become **Included**. No full final filing was attempted. |
| Source-supported points and limits remain accessible | **PASS — sampled** | MY3’s details expose **What the record supports** and **Where the claim stops**, followed by the original source, date, location, limit and link. MW3 similarly separates the fresh-election order/appeal/majority interpretation from claims about responsibility or voter effects. MY3, MY5 and MY4 full cards/source details opened successfully. |
| Full numerical audit remains accessible | **PARTIAL / expansion UNTESTED** | MW3’s source details visibly contain the **Full source limitation and numerical audit** disclosure. The attempt to activate/read it met the transport disconnect. I verified its discoverable control, not the expanded numerical contents. |
| Own connection can be inspected while drafting | **PASS** | In Finish & save, opening **Your current connection · inspect while writing** showed my own actor, action, affected option and possible effect beside the paragraph. It explicitly calls these my words, not a checked causal conclusion, and directs editing to Make a connection. |
| Casual readable draft is clearly not completed analysis | **UNTESTED** | I did not switch into casual mode or open/download its readable draft. The class draft remained unfinished. No claim is made about the casual artifact’s labeling. |
| Representative revised screenshot | **PASS** | Captured the current MW3 source/task view once, inspected it, and saved the identical bytes using the documented shared-files workflow. The matching local file is nonempty and matches the reported **144,706 bytes**. No personal name or real personal data was entered. |

No product failure was established in the tested revised controls. “Untested” does not mean pass.

## Does this address the earlier context problem?

**Yes, for the basic orientation problem in the tested Malaysia route.** I no longer need to unfold a people/terms panel or find MY2 simply to know who held office, who challenged, how governing control worked, and which opportunities were contested. The new Malawi comparison map also distinguishes reopening, implementing and winning a contest before its longer evidence.

The source cards still carry the deeper specifics and qualifications. That is appropriate layering rather than removal. This informed retest cannot establish that every new student will understand the map immediately, or that all political context in all four cases is sufficient.

Two small residuals remain visible: the next-step text still uses the past-tense formulation “Next required item: You confirmed that the paragraph states a source limit,” and the comparison introduction still uses “failed analogy.” These do not block the verified improvements, but remain less direct than an action instruction or everyday phrasing.

## Authored test content

**New research target, exactly entered**

How did PH choosing Mahathir in 2018 change the leadership option available to voters?

**New competing-account wording, exactly entered**

The uncertain link is why voters became willing to replace BN: anger about costs and 1MDB, rather than confidence in Mahathir, may have driven it.

The evidence board was MY3 / MY5 support and MY4 complication. I reused my original actor/action/option writing, 72-word paragraph, complication reason, correct source-reading choices and keep reasons. I reused my evidence request about interviews with people switching BN to PH. These were learner-authored test inputs, not designer answers. No comparison paragraph, final self-check, final filing, export, fresh Vale answer, or closing reflection was completed in this retest.

## Screenshot

The screenshot represents the revised “Recorded point,” source-supported statement, claim limit and evidence-board presentation. It is not evidence that the unverified full audit or preview worked.

![Revised MW3 source point, claim limit and evidence board](sandbox:/workspace/scratch/t2-revised-task-1793410092212.jpg)

[Exact captured screenshot](sandbox:/workspace/scratch/t2-revised-task-1793410092212.jpg)

