Review plan 1.1 · 24 October 2026 · assistant 0.7
Help decide what should change.
People with disability should shape this service and have the power to stop an unsuitable test.
The guide is free to use. Professional review, participant payment, chosen support, access and maintenance still need resources. Paying for independent work must not buy a favourable finding.
Fixed-version decision pack · 24 October 2026
A bounded decision pack lists the exact source cards, draft modules, reviewer responsibilities, development checks and reviewer-controlled test slots. It scopes the smallest useful first review, with separate WA/Victorian legal expertise and participant pay, chosen support and access costs protected. Meet Future You financial education is an optional, separately quoted scope.
Open the review decision pack · New research releases and QI review status · Meet Future You project
Six earlier scoping enquiries have verified sending records. No accepted engagement, funding or participant session is confirmed here. Existing follow-up authorisations remain in place. This page does not imply that a fresh mailbox check found no replies.
Start with a small, agreed review.
- Agree scope and independence. Identify a responsible lead, qualified reviewers, conflicts, a costed plan and three proposed paid self-advocate steering roles. No appointments or expenditure are committed.
- Review content before participant tasks. Check the nine source cards, eight draft modules and legal/clinical boundaries. Use synthetic scenarios with independently written expected answers. Fix serious problems before people are asked to try the tasks.
- Test and change it with people. The initial proposal is eight adults in two rounds of four, with a correction cycle between rounds. People choose their support, pace and plain/print or optional AI route. Use fictional situations only.
- Make a recorded decision. The independent lead and self-advocate group decide stop, revise or proceed to a specified next test. This small exercise cannot certify accessibility for everyone or prove improved care outcomes.
Payment, choice and safety.
Agree participant, preparation, steering and support payments and access costs before an invitation. The proposed rule is full agreed session payment after attendance, even if someone skips tasks, stops early, disagrees or withdraws their data. Rates and the payer still need agreement.
Provide information in each person's preferred form. Participation, notes, any recording and follow-up are separate choices; recording is off by default. People do not need to supply diagnoses or private care/legal histories. A chosen supporter helps as the person wishes.
Stop for unsafe legal/clinical directions, an invented operating response, privacy exposure or failed consent. Pause for discomfort or an unresolved access concern. Restart needs a recorded independent and steering decision. Data handling and the proposed deletion schedule require the host's approval before collection.
Take the review kit.
Read the current preparation status · Assistant release record · Published paper review v3
Organisations to approach.
These are researched candidates, not partners. Their current capacity, proposed personnel, costs, project-specific conflicts and independence remain to be assessed.
- Council for Intellectual Disability is led by people with intellectual disability and offers product/service and document-comprehension testing. First proposed discussion: paid self-advocate leadership and usable, understandable tasks.
- Australian Centre for Disability Law undertakes specialist legal assistance, education and policy work. Its published advice scope is NSW disability discrimination; WA/Victorian police-law coverage needs separately qualified review. First proposed discussion: define a legal-review scope and missing expertise.
- Centre for Disability Studies offers clinical consultancy including healthcare-policy/procedure audits. First proposed discussion: the hospital cards and selected worker lessons.
- People with Disability Australia offers disability-led consultancy, focus groups and research participation. An additional proposed route for broader participation and governance.
Published organisational descriptions and contact routes were checked on 23 October 2026. Government funding or a past partnership alone does not establish a conflict. Ask about the particular review, relevant relationships, who controls the findings and whether adverse findings may be published.
What the public should be able to see.
Record scope, funding conditions, review qualifications, conflicts, versions, findings, corrections, dissent and the next decision. Agree publication terms with reviewers and participants; do not publish identifying notes, raw personal accounts or an organisation's endorsement without agreement. A corrected build is not independent validation.