What changes when the user is a child who cannot judge risk

Children do not read warnings, wait for instructions, or stop when a toy behaves unexpectedly. A toddler will pull a duck by its cord, wrap that cord around a wrist, chew a wheel, and drag the duck down steps, all in one play session. An assessment that assumes a calm child, a watchful adult, and a tidy floor is assessing a different product from the one that will be sold.

The maker should therefore start by watching children handle a prototype, with permission and supervision, and by noting every use that was not intended. Those notes, not the designer's hopes, become the use description. If watching is not possible, the assessment should say so and should lean toward cautious assumptions about unsupervised play.

Cord risks deserve a sequence of their own. A cord can loop around a neck, a limb, or a piece of furniture, and a child may not recognise the loop or know how to free it. The assessment should trace how a loop forms during floor play, how long a child might remain in it before an adult notices, and what cord length or breakaway feature would interrupt that sequence.

Small parts add a second sequence. Wheels, eyes, and beaks can loosen after chewing, dropping, and washing. The assessment should consider not only the duck as sold, but the duck after weeks of play, when a fixing that once held firm may have weakened. A part that is safe on day one is not automatically safe on day fifty.

Illustration: a maker watches 30 play sessions and imagines that in 20 of them, in round illustration terms, the cord ends up wrapped around something, a wrist, a chair leg, or the duck itself. Those numbers are invented and say nothing about real children. They help only by making the point concrete: if wrapping is common in play, the assessment must treat it as a central sequence, not as an edge case.

The maker should then test whether a shorter cord, a different cord material, or a cord that detaches under pull would change the sequence. Each option gets its own note, with the reasoning for accepting or rejecting it, so the final design choice is traceable.

Supervision is often used as a shield in children's assessments, and it should be handled with care. A note that says an adult will supervise at all times is not evidence, because adults cook, answer doors, and look away. The assessment should state what supervision is realistic in a home, and should still protect the child during the gaps.

• List every part that could detach after chewing, dropping, or washing.
• Trace the cord sequence from floor play to a loop, step by step.
• State the supervision assumption plainly and test the assessment without it.
• Record which age group was observed and which group the duck is intended for.

A common mistake is to grade a toy by the age on its marketing, rather than by the age of the children who will actually play with it. Older siblings hand toys to younger ones, gifts are bought for the wrong age, and a duck intended for a preschooler may end up with a toddler. The assessment should consider that sharing, even if the packaging targets an older group.

Another mistake is to test the duck only when new. Paint, glue, and fixings age under chewing and washing, and a cord frays where it meets the body. An assessment that never examines a worn duck will miss the version of the product that children actually play with after a month.

Close by writing the child use description in words a non specialist can picture: a toddler on a floor, a cord, a duck, a loop, and a moment without an adult in reach. If that picture is missing, the assessment is probably still written for adults.

Keep the observation notes with the assessment, dated and labelled, so a future change to the cord or wheels can be checked against what children actually did, rather than against what adults assumed they would do.