Independent-review wording audit
October 25, 2026, edition 0.7.0. Scope: tracked documentation, notebook prose, UI captions and generated-site/report text. This editorial pass changes presentation and current instructions; it does not change repository visibility, deploy a website or invent verification results.
Corrections
- Replaced development/draft labels in current learner entry pages and site headers with the edition and learning-companion identity.
- Made source acquisition and hosted guidance independent of GitHub visibility. Authentication is described conditionally; Binder still requires a service-accessible source.
- Replaced future-publication route language with actual repository/served-site linking instructions.
- Separated historical implementation notes from the current maintainer runbook. The runbook reflects local and CI reproduction rather than an obsolete terminal outage.
- Consolidated repeated interface caveats into the support matrix and accessibility evidence pages; lesson/report text links to or names that evidence using concise, specific scope descriptions.
- Added an independent-review guide with concrete learner, engineering and access tasks.
- Corrected stale five-page module inventory wording to the six-page teaching packages.
Meaningful distinctions retained
Data unavailability, privacy protections, evaluation limits and observed poor model outcomes are part of the teaching content. Historical audit evidence remains clearly dated. Human learner/assistive-technology studies are not reported as complete when there is no test record. The package.json private flag prevents accidental npm publication and does not describe GitHub repository visibility.
Publication wording must not substitute for fixing a real limitation. Use the edition/support matrix and actual test records when deciding whether the material fits a particular class, platform or learner.
The maintainer supplied ntiik@ucmail.uc.edu for accessibility reports. The README, policy, reporting page, evidence log and issue template now publish that route. The address is scoped to accessibility; conduct concerns use the documented conduct-reporting process.