People — Obligations Checklist¶
The acceptance surface for the People tile. 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.
This is move 2 of the Legislation-to-Tile Method, and People's first worked example of it.
Authority and a numbering discrepancy (read first)¶
Two documents number these obligations differently. Per the method, the instrument is the authority; the practice guide is Layer 3 commentary.
- Instrument F2025L00354 (the law): 3.2 covers the trainer/assessor's own credentials (3.2(a)), the under-direction fallback (3.2(b)), and T&A continuing professional development (3.2(c)) — three PIs. 3.3 covers current industry skills and knowledge: 3.3(a) requires it of all persons delivering — 3.3(a)(i) vocational/industry competency at-level, 3.3(a)(ii) current industry practice — and 3.3(b)–(c) govern experts (engagement, systems, under-direction, assess-alongside, oversight).
- Practice guide QA3 (Layer 3): its "3.2" box = credentials + under-direction + T&A currency; its "3.3" box = industry competency/currency + experts. On industry currency the guide agrees with the instrument — both place it outside 3.2.
Ruling: anchors follow the instrument. Vocational/industry competency and industry currency anchor to 3.3(a) / F2025L00354 — 3.3(a)(i) and 3.3(a)(ii) respectively — for all persons delivering; credentials, under-direction and T&A CPD anchor to 3.2(a)/(b)/(c). The practice guide is used only for example activities, known risks, and self-assurance questions.
Supersession (2026-07-07, STANDARDS-ANCHOR-BLAST-RADIUS-01). The prior ruling here anchored industry currency to 3.2 and read 3.3 as "experts only" — inverted. It was authored against a defective held law-corpus (
standards-outcome.md, pre-STANDARDS-CORPUS-REBUILD-01) whose Part 3 carried policy-draft wording under the instrument's identity. The authorised instrument (rebuilt from the Federal Register's authorised downloads, gate-verified standard-by-standard) puts industry competency/currency at 3.3(a) for all deliverers; 3.2 is credentials/under-direction/T&A-CPD only. The practice guide's "3.3 box" was correct all along. The row anchors below are corrected accordingly. Row ids (3.2-N,3.3-N) are stable internal handles kept for cross-reference continuity — read the Anchor column, not the id prefix, for the clause.
Anchors below are written clause / instrument. CP = Credential Policy.
Standard 3.1 — Workforce management (anchor: 3.1 / F2025L00354)¶
Outcome (authorised text): "The workforce is effectively managed to ensure appropriate staffing to deliver services." The authorised 3.1 carries exactly two PIs — (2)(a) staffing appropriateness, (2)(b) CPD access. People holds the records that make the workforce standards demonstrable; the planning/PD provision itself is partly an RTO-operational obligation, noted where People can only hold evidence rather than perform the act.
Supersession (2026-07-09, PEOPLE-ANCHOR-CORRECTION-02 via BURNDOWN-DOCS-FILING-01). The four rows below were originally anchored to "3.1 PIs (a)–(d)" — a four-PI Standard 3.1 that exists in neither F2025L00354 nor F2025L00355. Like the 3.2/3.3 inversion superseded above, the phantom entered from the defective pre-rebuild corpus. The authorised 3.1(2) has two PIs only. Row ids are stable internal handles; read the Anchor column for the clause. The records row (3.1-1) carries no bare-clause records PI in either 2025 instrument — it anchors to the demonstrability of 3.2/3.3 plus the practice guide, flagged honestly rather than laundered onto a phantom.
| # | Obligation — the RTO must be able to demonstrate | Anchor | People's role |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.1-1 | It maintains records of the credentials, vocational competencies, and currency of each trainer and assessor | 3.2(2)(a) + 3.3(2)(a) / F2025L00354 (demonstrability) + PG QA3 known risk — no records PI exists in either 2025 instrument | Core — the register is this record |
| 3.1-2 | It has workforce planning arrangements ensuring sufficient trainers, assessors and staff to deliver consistent with the instrument | 3.1(2)(a) / F2025L00354 | Evidence-hold — People surfaces the workforce picture; planning is an RTO act |
| 3.1-3 | Its workforce is supported through induction, PD and performance management arrangements | PD access: 3.1(2)(b) / F2025L00354; T&A CPD: 3.2(2)(c); induction evidence: 4.2(2)(a); performance management: PG QA3 only (no PI) | Evidence-hold — PD/induction records; the arrangements themselves are RTO-operational |
| 3.1-4 | It supports trainers and assessors to maintain currency in vocational competencies, industry skills/knowledge, and T&A practice | 3.1(2)(b) / F2025L00354 + 3.2(2)(c) (T&A) + 3.3(2)(a)(ii) (industry currency) | Evidence-hold — currency records; support is an RTO act |
Standard 3.2 — Credentials, under-direction, and T&A currency (anchor: 3.2 / F2025L00354)¶
Outcome (3.2): training and assessment is delivered by credentialled people with current T&A skills, with an under-direction fallback where a full credential isn't held. Industry (vocational) competency and industry currency are a distinct outcome the instrument places at 3.3(a) — those two dimensions remain grouped here with People's other workforce dimensions (their rows keep their 3.2-N ids for cross-reference continuity), anchored to 3.3(a). People operates all six workforce dimensions as one surface; each anchors to its own clause.
Credential (the Credential Policy applied)¶
| # | Obligation | Anchor | People's role |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.2-1 | Each trainer/assessor holds the credentials for the activity they undertake as specified in the Credential Policy | 3.2 / F2025L00354 (PI a) + CP §1A–§3B | Core — the held-vs-required evaluation |
| 3.2-2 | The credential held is evaluated against the specific activity (deliver+assess / assess-only / under-direction / direct / validate) and training product (incl. TAE special case, incl. TAE level rules) | 3.2 / F2025L00354 (PI a) + CP §1A, §1B, §1E, §2A–§2C, §3A–§3B | Core — activity × product → acceptable-credential set |
| 3.2-3 | Where a person does not hold the full credential, they deliver under the direction of someone who does | 3.2(b) / F2025L00354 + CP §1C, §1D, §1E | Core — under-direction relationship + director eligibility |
| 3.2-4 | "Actively working towards" status is evidenced: enrolled + commenced in TAE40122/TAE50122, making satisfactory progress to complete within 2 years; cannot make assessment judgements | CP §1C | Core — working-towards status, 2-year horizon, judgement-block |
| 3.2-5 | Credentials held are authenticated (document-level evidence, not just a code entered) | 3.2 / F2025L00354 (PI a); PG known risk "no system to authenticate credentials" | Core — evidence artefact required, not bare credential string |
| 3.2-6 | People do not perform tasks beyond the scope of their credentials | 3.2 / F2025L00354 (PI a/b); PG example activity | Core — scope enforcement is the evaluation's negative case |
| 3.2-7 | A person working towards / under direction does not make assessment judgements | 3.2 / F2025L00354 (PI b); CP §1B, §1C | Core — judgement capability gated by credential |
Vocational competency¶
| # | Obligation | Anchor | People's role |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.2-8 | Each trainer/assessor has vocational competencies at least to the level being delivered/assessed, evidenced by qualification, skill set, or demonstrated equivalent | 3.3(a)(i) / F2025L00354 | Core — vocational competency dimension |
| 3.2-9 | Vocational competency is held at unit-of-competency level, aligned to all UoC requirements delivered/assessed — not assumed from a qualification | PG known risk (3.3 box): "aligned to all the unit of competency requirements... where specific units not held" | Core — unit-level, not qual-level; this is the granular case the guide flags |
Industry currency (authorised anchor 3.3(a)(ii) / F2025L00354 — the instrument places industry currency in 3.3(a), for all persons delivering; grouped here with People's other workforce dimensions. Corrected 2026-07-07.)¶
| # | Obligation | Anchor | People's role |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.2-10 | Each trainer/assessor maintains current knowledge and skills in the vocational area they deliver/assess | 3.3(a)(ii) / F2025L00354 | Core — industry currency dimension |
| 3.2-11 | Industry currency is an explicit, dated event confirmed through industry engagement — not a self-certification | PG known risk: "no mechanisms for regular meaningful industry engagement that confirms current relevance" | Core — dated currency event, evidenced |
| 3.2-12 | Industry currency is reviewed regularly after onboarding, not captured once | PG known risk: "not continuing to regularly review... after onboarding" | Core — recurring review, staleness surfaced |
T&A currency (CPD)¶
| # | Obligation | Anchor | People's role |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.2-13 | Each trainer/assessor maintains current T&A knowledge and skills through ongoing PD | 3.2(c) / F2025L00354 | Core — T&A currency / CPD dimension |
| 3.2-14 | PD is systematic, not ad-hoc (not clustered only in audit-prep) | PG known risk: "only providing PD on an ad-hoc basis" | Core — CPD log surfaces ad-hoc vs systematic patterns |
Under-direction monitoring (the supervision relationship as a living thing)¶
| # | Obligation | Anchor | People's role |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.2-15 | Supervision/guidance arrangements are reflective of the person's skills and knowledge | 3.2(b) / F2025L00354; PG example activity | Core — direction relationship carries supervision detail |
| 3.2-16 | The quality of the under-direction person's practice is assured and their work systematically reviewed | PG example activity + known risks | Core — review events on the relationship |
| 3.2-17 | The supervisor is themselves adequately skilled/qualified and has sufficient support to supervise | 3.2(b) / F2025L00354; CP §1E; PG known risk | Core — director eligibility check (CP §1E) + capacity |
| 3.2-18 | The under-direction relationship is reviewed to determine if supervision level needs adjustment — overdue reviews surfaced | PG known risk: "not regularly reviewing... to determine if supervisory arrangements require adjustment" | Core — scheduled relationship review, overdue nudge |
Standard 3.3 — Industry skills & knowledge; expert engagement (anchor: 3.3 / F2025L00354)¶
Outcome (3.3): training and assessment is delivered by persons with current industry skills and knowledge relevant to the training product. 3.3(a) requires this of all persons delivering — vocational competency 3.3(a)(i), industry currency 3.3(a)(ii) (grouped with People's workforce dimensions above). 3.3(b)–(c) govern experts as a subset: an expert brings subject-matter expertise but works under direction, appropriately scoped and supervised. The rows below cover the expert subset.
| # | Obligation | Anchor | People's role |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.3-1 | Experts have industry competencies/skills/knowledge/SME directly relevant to the training product they support | 3.3(c)(i) / F2025L00354; PG known risk "failing to assess expert competencies" | Core — expert record with assessed relevance |
| 3.3-2 | Experts are engaged by reference to a requirement of the training product / cohort and in response to a specific need | 3.3(b)(i)–(ii) / F2025L00354 | Core — engagement carries its justification |
| 3.3-3 | Experts are only authorised to work under the direction of a person with the appropriate credentials to direct (per CP) | 3.3(c)(ii) / F2025L00354 + CP §1E | Core — expert→director link, director eligibility |
| 3.3-4 | Where an expert is involved in assessment judgement, they conduct the assessment alongside the trainer/assessor | 3.3(c)(iii) / F2025L00354 | Core — assess-alongside constraint recorded |
| 3.3-5 | Where an expert assisted in an assessment judgement, it is documented | PG known risk: "failing to document where experts assisted in assessment judgement" | Core — discharging event on the judgement |
| 3.3-6 | The training/assessment an expert delivers is subject to organisational oversight | 3.3(c)(iv) / F2025L00354 | Core — oversight evidence on expert engagement |
Validation eligibility (consumed by Record/Observatory, sourced from People)¶
| # | Obligation | Anchor | People's role |
|---|---|---|---|
| V-1 | Validators collectively meet the validation credential requirements (non-TAE: at least one holds CP §3A credential) | CP §3A; Standard 1.5 / F2025L00354 | Source — validator eligibility read by Record |
| V-2 | For TAE-product validation, at least one validator holds the product being validated or higher | CP §3B | Source — validator eligibility (TAE case) |
Self-assurance questions — the reflective acceptance surface¶
From practice-guide-qa3.md verbatim. These are what the RTO's governing persons must be able to answer. Classified per the method: A = answerable by People data, P = partially (needs user confirmation), E = external. The A and P questions are the live self-assurance surface People feeds to Observatory.
Workforce management (3.1 guide)¶
| SA | Question (paraphrased to its operative ask) | Class | People answers with |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.1-SA1 | Top workforce risks over 5 years + mitigation | E/P | Workforce composition picture; risk strategy is external |
| 3.1-SA2 | Right number/mix of staff for quality delivery | P | Staffing vs scope picture |
| 3.1-SA3 | Third parties maintaining adequate qualified staffing | P | Third-party staff records where held |
| 3.1-SA4 | Monitoring/reviewing staff performance for PD opportunities | A | PD review cadence + overdue |
| 3.1-SA5 | Facilitating access to CPD | A | CPD log coverage |
Trainer and assessor competencies (3.2/3.3 guide)¶
| SA | Question | Class | People answers with |
|---|---|---|---|
| C-SA1 | How do you verify each person is appropriately credentialled? | A | % active with authenticated credential evidence; pending count |
| C-SA2 | How do you engage industry regularly to assure current industry skills? | A | Dated industry-currency events; staleness |
| C-SA3 | How do you know your under-direction monitoring is effective? | A | Direction relationships, last review age, overdue |
| C-SA4 | How do you monitor/review trainer performance to identify PD? | A | PD review cadence |
| C-SA5 | How do you identify industry competencies relevant to each product on scope? | P | Product→competency mapping (needs scope data, shared with Studio) |
| C-SA6 | How do you identify/address gaps in industry competencies? | A | Unit-level competency gaps + PD plan coverage |
| C-SA7 | How do you ensure expert use adds value? | P | Expert engagement records + oversight; value judgement partly external |
What this checklist tells the next moves¶
- The discharging events (for NO ORPHAN GRAINS / the audit ledger) fall out of the "Core" rows: credential authored + authenticated, currency event recorded, direction relationship reviewed, expert engaged, expert-assisted judgement documented, validator eligibility asserted. These — not UI actions — are People's discharging events. A dozen, as predicted.
- The model (move 3) must hold: person, credential (with held vs the CP-required evaluation), vocational competency (unit-level), industry currency (dated, recurring), T&A currency / CPD, direction relationship (with reviews), expert engagement (with oversight + assess-alongside). The Credential Policy is platform-level reference data (the decision table); held credentials and the evaluation are per-RTO.
- The Studio contract surfaces at 3.2-2 and 3.2-9 and C-SA5: the evaluation is keyed to training product and unit of competency, which Studio/TGA own. The join is on training product. People evaluates; the product identity comes from upstream of both.
Move 2 artefact (settled — the model, people-01-model, answers it). Built from F2025L00354, the Credential Policy (10 Dec 2025), and practice-guide-qa3.md, read as primary/Layer-3 sources 2026-06-17.