Compare a fixed ten-hour study budget through authored formulas. The displayed scores are examples, not measured language ability or proficiency forecasts.
Display a fixture sentence and a category chosen from the model score. No audio is played and no learner response is collected:
Display an authored text sample and a category chosen from the model score. No reading task is timed or graded:
Which outputs come from assumptions, and which would require a real language task?
This browser worksheet splits a fixed ten-hour week between reading and conversation, then calculates invented score, latency, confusion and reading-rate proxies. It has no microphone, audio playback, learner answers or task timer. Neither example button tests comprehension, and no output establishes a CEFR level or predicts learning progress.
The default French 60/40 split gives six book hours and four conversation hours. The literacy formula is 6/10 × 85 + 4/10 × 15 = 57. The acoustic formula is (4/10 × 90 + 6/10 × 12) / 1.45, rounded to 30. Those scores give a modeled latency of 1,365 ms, a confusion proxy of 53% and a reading rate of 173 WPM. None was observed in a learner.
Turning on the hometown option multiplies conversation hours by 0.55. It does not ask about your actual partners, recordings, teaching or environment. The displayed allocation still totals ten hours; the efficiency-adjusted hours are a separate assumption.
Literacy is clamped between 12 and 99; acoustic score between 8 and 98. A low score floor does not establish competence. Japanese applies a literacy multiplier of 0.65 + 0.35 × book ratio, and reduces the derived reading rate below a 50% book ratio. Korean applies a 1.15 literacy bonus. Vowel-slot counts choose acoustic divisors of 1.45, 1.15 or 0.85; Spanish also caps its confusion proxy at 8%. These are authored rules, not empirical comparisons of language difficulty.
The retained vowel examples, tolerance labels, journal-style sentences and 2,000-character Japanese coefficient are simplified fixtures. They are not authenticated newspaper quotations, a complete dialect-specific inventory or verified official character requirements. The highlighted character cells are derived from the score, not learned-character records.
The Council of Europe defines CEFR levels through structured illustrative “can-do” descriptors, updated and extended in the 2020 Companion volume. A percentage calculated from allocated hours cannot replace evidence about what you can do. Choose a relevant descriptor and a concrete task, record the conditions and review the actual outcome. Council of Europe: CEFR Descriptors
For example, listen to an appropriate recording and summarize its message, or read a short text and explain its main point. Note assistance, unfamiliar vocabulary and what needs clarification. Repeat comparable tasks and seek useful feedback. These are planning examples, not an assessment protocol or a promise that a particular study mix works for everyone.
The acoustic example chooses branches at 35 and 65; the reading example at 40 and 68. They display a fixture and a score-dependent message, with no learner input. Changing the language, ratio or environment hides the prior message so it cannot appear to assess a new scenario. Press the example button again to see the new branch.
Presets change the allocation and environment but retain your selected language. Reset returns to French, 60/40 and the non-hometown assumption. Browser storage retains only language, allocation and environment; the example feedback is not saved. JSON contains the model inputs, calculated proxies and a rule-selected suggestion, not an assessment report. There is no import control or measured learning history.
Council of Europe: CEFR Descriptors — official language-level context and links to the 2020 Companion volume. This source does not validate the worksheet’s numeric coefficients.