Scenario Test Plan — Triage Against School Policy

Context — what policy expects

Course material takes two core forms: the video presentation with voiceover uploaded by the teacher, and the PDF lesson. A student must be able to work through both comfortably on whatever device they have. The PDF is read-only; the video is not downloadable. (Broader protection of proprietary material against extraction by normal means is noted for a later pass — not addressed in this wave.)

Flow under test

1. Teacher uploads the video presentation with voiceover; student plays it through — play, pause, seek, full-screen
2. Teacher uploads a PDF lesson and supporting resources
3. Student opens the PDF: full-screen, zoom, scroll, page navigation — read-only, no download
4. Student downloads a resource file where downloads are intended
5. The same sequence is repeated on a phone

Lapse points

• Video failing to play, buffering unusably, or lacking full-screen
• Video downloadable when it should not be
• PDF readable only at a small fixed size, with no full-screen option
• Zoom absent, or resetting on every page turn
• Resource download failing silently or arriving in an unusable format
• Any of the above working on desktop but not on a phone

Context — what policy expects

A passed quiz advances the student. The score, the course progress, and the running quiz average must all reflect the result immediately and agree with one another on every screen where they appear.

Flow under test

1. Tester sits the quiz using the answer sheet, scoring above 60%
2. Quiz is submitted
3. On completion, the student is led to the next lesson — not left at a dead end or returned to the dashboard to search for what comes next
4. Score, progress percentage and quiz average are checked on the student view and the teacher view

Lapse points

• Displayed score differing from the answers actually given
• Progress percentage unchanged despite the pass
• Module status remaining "in progress" after every lesson within it is complete
• Quiz average failing to recalculate
• The student landing nowhere after submission, left to work out the next step alone

Logged

Attempt and score, with time of submission — retained so any later dispute over a result can be checked against the record.

Context — what policy expects

Three consecutive failures lock the quiz. The Teacher, Academic Director and Programme Director may unlock; the Coordinator and Founder see the record but do not act — the separation preserves accountability. Because locks will occur frequently, they are tracked in a standing interface rather than broadcast as notifications. Students on an academic success plan are expected to generate repeated unlocks on the same course: that pattern is signal, not noise — it shows precisely where the identified difficulty lies.

Flow under test

1. Tester fails the same quiz three consecutive times using the answer sheet
2. Confirm the quiz locks and a fourth unaided attempt is impossible
3. Check each role's interface for visibility of the lock: Teacher, Coordinator, Academic Director, Programme Director, Founder
4. Academic Director or Programme Director performs the unlock
5. Tester retakes the quiz

Lapse points

• Lock failing to trigger at exactly three failed attempts
• A role outside Teacher / AD / PD able to unlock
• No standing view of locked quizzes — locks discoverable only by accident
• Individual notifications firing to every admin on every lock, which at real volume becomes noise nobody reads

Logged

Every attempt, the lock event, and who unlocked it and when — the unlock is an exercise of authority and must be attributable.

Context — what policy expects

The academic success plan belongs to the start of term. It is written for a student who failed a subject at the placement test — not for any individual quiz score below 60%. A failed quiz is handled by the retake path in Scenario 03; the success plan is the term-long support structure for a difficulty identified before the course began.

Flow under test

1. Confirm which test students failed which subjects at placement, per the fixed outcomes
2. Teacher creates and uploads a success plan for each failed-at-placement subject
3. Student is notified
4. Student opens the plan
5. Confirm the system records that the plan was opened — not merely sent

Lapse points

• Known lapse: the platform's own copy currently states a plan is written "when a quiz score comes in under 60%." This contradicts school policy and must be corrected, or teachers and students will both operate on the wrong rule.
• Notification failing to fire, or reaching the wrong student
• No record of whether the student ever opened the plan

Logged

Plan creation, delivery, and the opened event — the opened record is what turns a sent document into evidence of support given.

Context — what policy expects

On completing a course, the student sits a final assessment. The teacher issues it once and it reaches every student identically. Students submit individually; the teacher downloads each submission, grades it, records remarks, and re-uploads. The scoring engine computes the course grade at 80% quizzes, 20% assessment. The student sees the result immediately as a provisional grade, clearly captioned as such. The messaging board cannot carry documents, so a dedicated upload location for the assessment must exist — its presence is the first thing this scenario establishes.

Flow under test

1. Student completes every lesson and quiz in a course; teacher is notified of completion
2. Teacher uploads the final assessment; confirm it reaches all enrolled students identically
3. Student downloads it in the correct format, completes it, and uploads it back — confirm the upload location exists and works
4. Teacher downloads the submission, grades it, records remarks, re-uploads the graded copy
5. Scoring engine computes the 80/20 course grade
6. Student sees the provisional grade at once, captioned as provisional — not final
7. Programme Director's master view (Scenario 10) reflects the new provisional grade

Lapse points

• No upload location existing for the student's submission
• Submission uploading but unreachable or unopenable for the teacher
• Teacher remarks dropped somewhere along the chain
• 80/20 computation not matching a manual calculation
• Provisional grade displayed with no caption distinguishing it from a final grade

Logged

Each handoff — issue, submission, grading, re-upload — attributable, so the chain of custody of the assessment is never in doubt.

Context — what policy expects

Grades flow to students on a rolling, provisional basis through the term. The final grade is released only at term close, after the Academic Director's verification pass confirms that everything computed or submitted is correct. The transcript is generated only then. The cooling-off between provisional and final is deliberate: the system's output is validated by a person before it becomes the official record.

Flow under test

1. With a test student's courses complete and provisionally graded, initiate the term-close sequence
2. Academic Director performs the verification pass; Programme Director reviews grades and teacher remarks
3. Provisional grades convert to final
4. Transcript generates and credits release toward the 18-credit total

Lapse points

• Does a transcript format exist yet? Confirm. None has been designed; a simple digital format approved by the Academic Director or Programme Director is required.
• Final grades releasing without the verification pass — the gate not actually gating
• Credits failing to convert on term close, so a completed course still shows zero credit into the next term

Logged

The verification sign-off itself — who closed the term, and when. This is the act the whole gate exists for.

Context — what policy expects

Every course holds two live classes per week. When the teacher publishes a session, every enrolled student receives it — same information, same time, every account.

Flow under test

1. Teacher schedules and publishes a live session
2. All five test accounts are checked: does each dashboard show the identical session, and did each account receive the notification?
3. Students join at session time, each seeing the time rendered in their own timezone

Lapse points

• Are two live sessions per week actually being scheduled per course? Confirm.
• Some accounts receiving the dispatch and others not, with no visible pattern
• Different students in the same class seeing different times or links

Context — what policy expects

A live session's occurrence must be independently verifiable — through its recording and its status — not dependent on anyone's memory or word.

Flow under test

1. The scheduled session is held with the test students
2. Recording is captured and attached to the session
3. The session shows as held across the teacher, Coordinator and Programme Director views

Lapse points

• How do we know a session has been held? Confirm what the system records. (And confirm how the recording itself will be captured — the mechanism is not yet settled.)
• Recording failing to attach, or attaching to the wrong session

Context — what policy expects

Every student is entitled to at least one one-to-one live session per month. Priority in scheduling goes to students who did not pass their placement test. (How entitlement beyond the monthly session is handled for struggling students is left open for now — noted for a later enhancement.) Sessions are booked through the platform, not by exchanging links in private: the booking surfaces on both calendars and the session's occurrence is recorded. What is exchanged outside the system cannot be evidenced later.

Flow under test

1. A success-plan test student requests a one-to-one for the course they failed at placement
2. The student books against the teacher's calendar, or the teacher issues the session through the platform such that it appears on the student's calendar
3. The session is held and its completion recorded, linked to the success plan it serves

Lapse points

• Teacher and student able to complete the whole arrangement by direct link, leaving no trace
• Booking absent from the student's calendar
• No linkage between the session and the success plan it was meant to support

Context — what policy expects

The Programme Director must be able to answer, from one screen, who is progressing, who is struggling, in which course, and under which teacher. The data already exists on individual dashboards; what is required is one consolidated table. This is a requirement we are specifying — without it, oversight at term start is manual, error-prone and unprofessional.

Specification

One table, two tabs — English stream and Arabic stream. One row per student-course pairing. A dash wherever no data exists yet. Sortable and filterable on every column. Row click opens the student's detail and Gradebook.

Lapse points

• The data existing on individual pages but nowhere as one table
• No sort or filter, leaving the data present but unusable at scale
• No stream separation, forcing manual cross-referencing between English and Arabic

Context — what policy expects

Teachers carry the follow-up. They need the identical table from Scenario 10, restricted to their own students and courses — nothing beyond their scope, nothing missing within it.

Flow under test

1. Teacher opens their view and sees the Scenario 10 columns for their own students only
2. Confirm no visibility into another teacher's students
3. Teacher records a private note against a specific student
4. Confirm the note is visible to admin roles and never to the student

Lapse points

• The view not existing, leaving teachers to track their students from memory
• Scope leaking — a teacher seeing students who are not theirs
• Notes absent, or worse, visible to the student they concern

Context — what policy expects

Every teacher responds to any student query within 24 hours. This is a formal commitment. A rule of this kind is only enforceable if the clock is visible: the teacher must be able to see what is unanswered and for how long, before the deadline passes rather than after.

Flow under test

1. Student posts a question through the lesson discussion or messaging
2. Confirm the question registers as sent and reaches the teacher
3. Confirm the discussion board itself functions — students can post, the teacher sees it
4. Leave a question unanswered and observe what the teacher's view shows as time passes
5. Teacher responds; student sees the response

Lapse points

• Is there any view showing a teacher their unanswered questions and the time elapsed on each? Confirm — without it the rule cannot be met or measured.
• A question posted and simply disappearing, with no sent or answered state
• No visibility for the Programme Director into response-time performance