LLND — Obligations Checklist¶

The acceptance surface for the LLND tile — the combined language/literacy/numeracy (LLN) and digital-literacy gate. Every line is something an RTO must be able to demonstrate. The tile is not done until each line is answered by a modelled, clause-bound surface — or carries a principled out-of-scope / deferral decision.

Move 2 of the Legislation-to-Tile Method for the LLND tile, following the pattern People set (people-00-obligations). Second authoring: the first was built on a defective law corpus and is superseded wholesale (see frontmatter).

Authority — and the correction that forced this redraft (read first)¶

Per the method, the instrument is the authority; the practice guide is Layer 3 commentary. Anchors are written clause / instrument; PG = practice-guide-qa2.

What the authorised instrument actually says. F2025L00354's Standard 2.2 is the pre-enrolment suitability standard:

2.2(1) — VET students are advised, prior to enrolment, about the suitability of the training product for them, taking into account the student's skills and competencies.
2.2(2)(a) — taking into account the requirements of the training product, the RTO has procedures in place to review, prior to enrolment, the skills and competencies of prospective VET students, including their language, literacy and numeracy proficiency and digital literacy.
2.2(2)(b) — based upon the outcome of the review, the RTO provides advice to each prospective VET student about whether the training product is suitable for them.

Anchor form: the instrument's PIs sit under subsection (2) of each standard; per the ruled canon format ("3.2(a) within F2025L00354" — legislation-to-tile-method, standing-rules), this document's short-form anchors "2.2(a)" / "2.2(b)" denote the instrument's 2.2(2)(a) / 2.2(2)(b) as quoted above.

This is where the instrument puts LLN and digital literacy — in a mandatory pre-enrolment review PI, for every prospective student, keyed to the specific training product, with a per-student advice obligation riding on the outcome. It appears nowhere else in Part 2: the authorised 2.3 (Training support) PIs are determine-services / access-to-staff / informed-how-to-access / timely-queries, and do not mention LLN or digital literacy at all.

What the superseded version got wrong, and why. The prior llnd-00 ruled the opposite: it declared the instrument's 2.2 to be in-training information, anchored LLN/digital to a Standard "2.3(a)" whose quoted text ("prior to or on enrolment, it identifies the training support needs… including language, literacy, numeracy and digital literacy skills") does not exist in the authorised instrument, and demoted the practice guide's 2.2 suitability content to "Layer-3 repackaging." The practice guide was right all along — the held corpus was wrong. STANDARDS-CORPUS-REBUILD-01 rebuilt the corpus programmatically from the Federal Register's authorised downloads and gate-verified it standard-by-standard; this redraft is authored against those verified bytes.

Ruling (replacing the prior drift ruling): LLND anchors to Standard 2.2 / F2025L00354 — 2.2(a) for the review, 2.2(b) for the suitability advice. The pre-enrolment-information dimension seams to 2.1 / F2025L00354; the downstream support dimension seams to 2.3 and 2.4 / F2025L00354. Instrument-native quirk carried verbatim: 2.2's heading reads "Outcome Standards" (plural) — both authorised sources agree; it changes nothing about the anchor.

The framing that governs the whole tile¶

The correction strengthens the tile's basis. The prior framing was "the instrument asks the RTO to identify support needs; the tile helps." The authorised framing is stronger:

The law mandates the very review the tile conducts. Every prospective student, prior to enrolment, must have their skills and competencies — expressly including LLN proficiency and digital literacy — reviewed against the requirements of the product they intend to enrol in, and must receive advice on suitability based on that review's outcome. The tile is not a nice-to-have support tool discharging a fragment of a broader indicator; it is the operational form of a whole mandated procedure.

Three load-bearing consequences:

Review + advice, feeding support — not test → exclude. The obligation is to review and to advise; the instrument nowhere mandates exclusion. The PG makes the posture explicit: where a prospective student lacks the required skills, the RTO advises alternative products and/or learning pathways and programs to build the prerequisites. The tile's output is a capability profile, a suitability advice, and a pathway — never a bare pass/fail that gates a student out. The identify-to-support spirit of the superseded version survives intact; it now arrives via 2.2(b)'s advice obligation, PG activities, and the 2.3/2.4 seams.
Strictly pre-enrolment. The authorised text says "prior to enrolment" — twice, in (1) and (2)(a). The superseded version's "prior to or on enrolment" was fiction. The pipeline must run before enrolment completes, and the discharge evidence must be able to prove the ordering (review + advice timestamps precede the enrolment timestamp). That sequencing proof is an audit-defensibility asset the model must carry.
Per-student, every enrolment. 2.2(b)'s advice runs to each prospective student. The discharge is per-prospective-enrolment, not per-cohort and not once-per-candidate-lifetime. Commercially this makes the tile a per-enrolment volume surface (see §Reuse for how that squares with result reuse).

LLN and Digital — one tile, two products, two cadences¶

The instrument names them together — now in 2.2(a), inside the mandatory review — and the tile is one (LLND, frozen-scope). But they behave differently, and the model must carry the distinction:

LLN (language, literacy, numeracy) — a stable skill on a slow clock; a near-one-time assessment, ACSF-aligned. Live incumbents (LLN Robot, eSkilled LLN AI Assess, Precision) — the depth floor here is quality and integration, not novelty.
Digital literacy — explicitly named in the 2025 Standards at 2.2(a), inside a mandatory pre-enrolment PI: a stronger regulatory basis than the superseded version claimed (which had it in an example list of a PI that turned out not to exist). Greenfield in the market (no entrenched incumbent per frozen-scope); naturally recurring (what "digital" means drifts, so currency lapses); saleable standalone. Subscription-native — the cleanest standalone wedge in the portfolio.

Delivered together or separately, at different cadences. The tile is one; the two assessments and their cadences are distinct.

Scope note the model must answer: 2.2(a) mandates review of "skills and competencies… including" LLN and digital literacy — the mandated review is broader than LLN/digital (the PG's known risks and Information SA4 name physical skills, prior experience, prerequisites and entry requirements). Whether LLND discharges only the LLN/digital slice with the broader suitability record held elsewhere, or hosts the whole suitability review with LLN/digital as its assessed core, is a model decision — flagged here, not settled.

Standard 2.2 — Pre-enrolment suitability (anchor: 2.2 / F2025L00354) — the core¶

Outcome: VET students are advised, prior to enrolment, about the suitability of the training product for them, taking into account the student's skills and competencies. The RTO must be able to demonstrate each line.

The review (PI 2.2(a) — the assessment; this is LLND's heart)¶

#	Obligation — the RTO must be able to demonstrate	Anchor	LLND tile's role
2.2-1	It has procedures in place to review prospective students' skills and competencies — a standing, demonstrable procedure, not ad-hoc judgement	2.2(a) / F2025L00354	Core — the tile is the procedure; its existence and configuration are themselves evidence
2.2-2	The review runs prior to enrolment — provably so	2.2(1), 2.2(a) / F2025L00354	Core — pipeline sequencing; discharge timestamps must precede the enrolment timestamp
2.2-3	The review covers the prospective student's LLN proficiency and digital literacy	2.2(a) / F2025L00354	Core — the LLN and digital-literacy assessments are this coverage
2.2-4	The review takes into account the requirements of the training product — capability is judged in the product's context, not in the abstract	2.2(a) / F2025L00354; PG known risk "not considering… in the context of the training product"	Core — assessment keyed to the target product (`rto-nrt-db`), not a generic score
2.2-5	The review reaches each prospective student individually (the per-student advice in (b) requires a per-student review outcome)	2.2(a)–(b) / F2025L00354	Core — per-candidate result on the shared candidate record

The advice (PI 2.2(b) — the discharge the superseded version didn't have)¶

#	Obligation	Anchor	LLND tile's role
2.2-6	Advice is provided to each prospective student about whether the product is suitable for them, based upon the outcome of the review — advice traceable to the review result, per student, recorded	2.2(b) / F2025L00354	Core — the suitability-advice artefact: who was advised, of what, on which review outcome, when
2.2-7	The review approach leads to accurate advice — the method is defensible as a predictor of suitability	PG activity ("leads to accurate advice about their suitability")	Core — assessment quality/validity posture; ACSF alignment for LLN
2.2-8	Where the student lacks the required skills and competencies, they are advised of alternative products and/or pathways and programs to build the prerequisites — never simply excluded	PG activity	Core — the advice output carries an alternatives/pathway limb, not a bare fail
2.2-9	The suitability conversation informs the student about reasonable adjustments, training support and wellbeing support available, so the enrolment decision is fully informed	PG activity; seams 2.3, 2.4, 2.6 / F2025L00354	Source — the advice artefact links the support picture; provision is an RTO act

Standard 2.1 — Pre-enrolment information (anchor: 2.1 / F2025L00354) — seam¶

Students receive clear, accurate information pre-enrolment. The LLND-relevant slice: the capability demands of the product, and any required test, are made known before the student commits.

#	Obligation	Anchor	LLND tile's role
2.1-1	Prospective students receive clear, accurate information about the LLN and digital-literacy demands of a product, ahead of enrolment and fees	2.1(b)–(c) / F2025L00354; PG activity (accurate, accessible information about LLN proficiency and digital-literacy skills needed)	Source — the tile's per-product capability requirements feed the pre-enrolment information surface
2.1-2	Where the RTO requires a specific LLN or digital-literacy test for a product, that requirement is easily accessible pre-enrolment	2.1(c)(i) / F2025L00354 (requirements to commence or complete, including assessment requirements); PG activity naming the specific-test case	Core — the LLND assessment is the test; its requirement is surfaced pre-enrolment

Standards 2.3 / 2.4 — Training support and reasonable adjustments — downstream seams¶

The authorised 2.3 carries no LLN wording — it is the support machinery the review's output feeds. The superseded version anchored the whole tile here on quoted text that does not exist; these are seams now, correctly weighted.

#	Obligation	Anchor	LLND tile's role
2.3-1	How the RTO determines the training support services to be provided to each student — the review's capability profile is a principal input	2.3(a) / F2025L00354; PG known risk ("not conducting pre-enrolment checks to understand individual student needs…")	Source→Evidence-hold — needs profile drives the support determination; provision is an RTO act
2.3-2	LLN support is an available training support service where needed	2.3(a) / F2025L00354; PG activity (LLN support named as an example service)	Evidence-hold — the profile records the need; the support offering is RTO-operational
2.4-1	The review outcome informs the reasonable adjustments conversation for students with disability	2.4 / F2025L00354; PG 2.2 activity (informing about adjustments so the decision is fully informed)	Source — signals only; the adjustments process is 2.4's own surface

Reuse within currency — the embedding mechanic, corrected¶

The reuse story survives the redraft, with one sharpening the authorised text forces: the assessment result is reusable; the discharge is not.

An LLN or digital-literacy result persists against the candidate's shared identity record (the store shared with RPL, beside People).
On a later enrolment, the tile offers the prior result rather than blindly re-running the assessment — the closed-loop, embedding payoff (a point-solution incumbent can't do this because it doesn't hold the persistent identity).
Currency decides whether it still counts. LLN currency has a shelf life; digital literacy lapses faster; the new product's required level may exceed the prior assessment. The model carries a currency clock; the tile offers, currency logic rules re-assess-or-honour. "We have it on file" is never "it still counts."
But 2.2 discharges per enrolment regardless. The review must take account of this product's requirements (2.2(a)) and the advice must issue for this enrolment (2.2(b)). Honouring a current prior result is a legitimate form of the review — the prior capability evidence is re-evaluated against the new product's requirements — but a fresh review record and a fresh suitability advice must still be produced and sealed for each prospective enrolment. Reuse compresses the assessment, never the discharge.

Custody and capture (lighter than RPL — a conducted assessment, not a submitted bundle)¶

LLND is an assessment RTOpacks conducts, not a bundle of prior evidence the candidate submits. The custody posture carries over from the superseded version (it was anchor-independent and remains sound):

The assessment record (responses, scoring, the capability profile) → the candidate record
sealed store.
The suitability-advice artefact (new) — the 2.2(b) discharge record: the advice given, the review outcome it rested on, the recipient, the timestamp. Sealed with the assessment record; the pre-enrolment ordering proof lives here.
Session recording — the authenticity anchor (proof the right person sat it, unassisted). Biometric-adjacent sensitive data: consent-captured at intake, sealed R2 custody, its own retention posture. Same discipline as any capture.
Optional government photo ID — best-practice, RTO-configurable, defaulted on for funded/high-risk/CRICOS contexts, off elsewhere; consent-gated, sealed custody. Not claimed as universally mandatory (verified 2026-07-06: sight-and-retain is common practice, not a blanket legal requirement).
No third-party evidence bundle — the distinction from RPL. There is no submitted-evidence vault here; there is a conducted-assessment record plus an advice artefact.

Self-assurance questions (from qa2 — the reflective acceptance surface)¶

Classified per the method: A = answerable by LLND data, P = partial (needs RTO confirmation), E = external. Drawn from the Information PG (2.1/2.2) and Training Support PG (2.3/2.4).

SA	Question (paraphrased to its operative ask)	Class	LLND answers with
L-SA1	What methods check that prospective students have the necessary skills and competencies — including LLN proficiency and digital-literacy capabilities — to undertake their intended product? (Information PG SA5)	A	The assessment + the per-product capability profile + the advice artefact
L-SA2	How are the physical requirements, entry requirements, licensing eligibility and other prerequisites of a product identified? (Information PG SA4)	P	The per-product requirements record keys the review; the broader-suitability scope is the flagged model decision
L-SA3	How do staff identify student needs and monitor progress to determine the support services provided to each student? (Training Support PG SA1)	P	The capability profile is the pre-enrolment input; in-training monitoring is partly RTO-held
L-SA4	How is it ensured that the review's advice is accurate and defensible for each prospective student? (PG activity, operativised)	A	Assessment validity posture + advice-traceable-to-outcome linkage

What this checklist tells the next moves¶

Discharging events (for NO ORPHAN GRAINS / the audit ledger) fall out of the Core rows:

Suitability review invited against a candidate + target product (pre-enrolment).
Assessment conducted + sealed (with session recording; the authenticity anchor) — LLN and/or digital.
Capability profile produced (per-capability, keyed to the product's requirements).
Suitability advice issued to the prospective student and recorded (2.2(b)) — suitable, or not-suitable-with-alternatives/pathways; never a bare exclusion. The headline discharge the superseded version did not have.
Result written to the candidate record with a currency marker.
(Reuse) prior result offered on a later enrolment; currency logic rules re-assess-or-honour; a fresh review record + fresh advice still discharge for the new enrolment.

The model (move 3) must hold: the candidate identity (shared store); the LLND assessment (candidate × target product, LLN and/or digital); the conducted-assessment record + session capture; the per-capability profile keyed to the product's requirements; the suitability- advice artefact with its review-outcome linkage and pre-enrolment ordering proof; the persisted result with a currency clock; the per-enrolment discharge vs reusable-result distinction. LLN and digital are two assessments under one tile, two cadences.

Cross-tile seams:

Candidate-identity / intake pipeline (shared substrate). The invite → self-complete → capture → conduct → result pipeline is shared with RPL and built once; LLND is its second consumer. One candidate record; a single invitation can bundle LLND + RPL (the shared-identity dividend).
Enrolment sequencing (SMS, outside the fence). "Prior to enrolment" is now instrument text. Enrolment lives in the RTO's SMS; the tile cannot enforce the ordering, but it must evidence it — the advice artefact's timestamp against the enrolment date. Launch = export with the result and advice flag; round-trip day-two (mirrors the RPL SMS boundary ruling).
The engine — a model question, not assumed. LLN/digital assessment is RTOpacks-conducted. Whether it uses any engine — and if so, whether that is the UCCA qual-engine or a lighter/independent assessment capability — is a model decision, not settled here. Unlike RPL, LLND does not obviously depend on the UCCA evaluative mode; do not assume it does.
Record. LLND reviews and advice artefacts are evidence toward 2.2 (and feed the 2.3 support picture); they surface in the student-support view Record/Observatory carry.
People. None direct — the review is of students, not workforce. (The superseded version's 2.3 anchor never created a People seam either; noted only to close the question.)

Three things flagged, not decided here: (1) the engine dependency above; (2) whether LLN and digital ship simultaneously or digital leads as the standalone wedge (a launch-sequencing call, per frozen-scope — digital is the greenfield, recurring, standalone-saleable one); (3) the broader-suitability scope question (§LLN and Digital) — whether the tile hosts the whole 2.2(a) review or the LLN/digital slice with the broader record held elsewhere.

Move 2 artefact (draft — the model, llnd-01-model, will answer it). Second authoring, 2026-07-07, against the rebuilt verified corpus (STANDARDS-CORPUS-REBUILD-01: committed canonical sha256 9d7cd1ac… / 41,309 B at 7bdf8d98; read in-session via the digest-verified portable export ce79657a… / 40,808 B) and practice-guide-qa2.md (verbatim ASQA, 17 June 2025), read as primary / Layer-3 sources. Anchored to the instrument's Standard 2.2 — which the practice guide reflected correctly all along. The prior authoring (2026-07-06) is superseded wholesale; its drift ruling inverted because the held corpus was defective, and its quoted 2.3(a) text does not exist in the authorised instrument. The LLND tile name is ruled (frozen-launch-scope; "Foundation" and "Capability" retired). The photo-ID posture reflects the 2026-07-06 verification: best-practice, not a blanket mandate.