Faults that come from never having taught it

Recognisable within a page to anybody who has.

Materials written by somebody who has not delivered them share a set of tells. Activity durations that are optimistic by a factor of three. Instructions that assume equipment is available and set up. Discussion questions with no plausible wrong answer. Case studies with no ambiguity in them.

The most damaging is the assumed answer. A question written by somebody who knows the material will seem obvious to them and impossible to a learner encountering it for the first time, and the gap is invisible without a trial.

The remedy is unremarkable: have somebody deliver a section before the resource is finished, and change what breaks. A single trial delivery finds more than any amount of review.

Where that is impossible, the substitute is review by a trainer who currently delivers in that field, briefed to mark the places they would have to work around. That is a different and more useful brief than asking whether the resource is accurate.

It is also worth asking a learner. Handing three pages to somebody at the entry level of the course and asking what they understood produces immediate, specific and usually uncomfortable information.

It is worth adding that the trial should be delivered by somebody other than the author. An author teaching their own material fills the gaps unconsciously from what they meant to write, and the whole point of the exercise is to find where the document does not carry the meaning on its own.