RTOpacks People — Product Specification¶

Document ID: PC-SPEC-01
Version: 0.2
Status: Living document — full research base captured; briefs are scoped separately
Location: docs/docs/workspace/apps/people.md
Last updated: 14 April 2026

Changelog¶

Version	Date	Changes
0.1	14 Apr 2026	Initial — full research base, legislative foundation, data model, surfaces, phasing
0.2	14 Apr 2026	Module renamed from "People & Culture" to "People"

How to Use This Document¶

This spec is the full-picture reference for the People & Culture module. It is deliberately comprehensive — built from a full reading of the SRTO 2025 legislative instruments, the Credential Policy, ASQA's Practice Guides for Standards 3.2 and 3.3, real-world compliance forms (VETiS, SIDE, Newbery Consulting), and cross-referenced against the Studio spec (STUDIO-SPEC-01).

This document does not constitute a brief. Briefs are scoped, sequenced, and issued separately. Each brief references this document as its source of truth. The reason for this is simple: the full system described here is too large to build in one pass, and the right sequence depends on what's already live. What should never happen is a brief that contradicts this document, or a build that forecloses something this document requires later.

Alex: read this document before picking up any P&C brief. The briefs will tell you what to build. This document tells you why, and what it needs to eventually become.

What People Is¶

People is the workforce compliance engine for RTOs. It is where an RTO manager maintains the authoritative record of every person involved in training and assessment delivery — their credentials, their competencies, their professional development, and their compliance status against the Standards for RTOs 2025.

But its name is deliberately broader than "trainer register." An RTO's workforce includes staff, contractors, experts, supervised trainees, and third-party arrangements. The module must accommodate all of them, at different compliance depths, without treating them all the same.

The product's core job, stated plainly: give an RTO manager the ability to answer ASQA's seven self-assurance questions at any moment, with evidence, without scrambling.

Those seven questions (from the ASQA Practice Guide for Standards 3.2 and 3.3) are the functional requirements of this module, stated in the regulator's own words:

How do you verify that each person delivering training and assessment is appropriately credentialled?
How do you ensure regular industry engagement to confirm trainers and assessors have current industry skills?
How do you know your supervision monitoring system is effective?
How do you monitor and regularly review trainer and assessor performance to identify PD opportunities?
How do you identify the types of industry competencies required for each training product on your scope?
How do you identify and address gaps in trainer and assessor industry competencies?
How do you ensure your use of industry experts adds value to training and assessment outcomes?

Every surface, every field, every status indicator in this module exists to help the RTO answer one or more of these questions.

What People Is Not¶

It is not an HR system. It does not manage payroll, leave, performance reviews, or employee relations. Employment contracts are referenced (the 2025 Compliance Standards require them), but People & Culture is not a contract management system — it records the contract type and dates, nothing more.

It is not a student management system. Students have their own data domain.

It is not a document storage system. Documents are referenced and linked, not stored. Document Manager is the storage layer.

It is not a standalone product. People is deeply coupled to Studio. When Studio assigns a trainer to a unit, it queries People. When a trainer profile is incomplete, Studio surfaces that as a nudge. The integration should be felt, not seen — consistent with the principle established in STUDIO-SPEC-01.

The Legislative Foundation¶

The 2025 Standards are three distinct legal instruments that must be read together. This matters for the data model: a person's compliance status is assessed against all three simultaneously.

Outcome Standards (National VET Regulator Instrument 2025) — the quality requirements. For People & Culture, the relevant standards are:

Standard 3.1 — Workforce management: sufficient staffing, access to CPD. The RTO must demonstrate it has enough people and that those people are supported to develop.
Standard 3.2 — Trainer and assessor credentials: only credentialled people deliver; supervised people cannot make assessment judgements; all trainers/assessors undertake CPD to maintain T&A skills.
Standard 3.3 — Industry currency: all persons delivering training have industry competencies at least to the level of the training product; current understanding of industry practice; specific rules for experts.
Standard 4.1 — Fit and Proper Persons: governing persons meet the requirements of the Fit and Proper Person Requirements.
Standard 4.2 — Roles and responsibilities clearly defined and understood.
Standard 4.4 — Continuous improvement: systematic monitoring, outcomes used to inform improvement, data collected and analysed.

Compliance Standards (National VET Regulator Instrument 2025) — the administrative requirements. Relevant to People & Culture: employment/engagement contracts, working with children checks (where applicable), AVETMISS obligations.

Credential Policy (TGA) — the enforceable policy specifying exactly what credentials trainers and assessors must hold. This is the most operationally complex document for this module. Its key operative states are:

Status	What they can do	What they cannot do
Fully credentialled (Section 1A)	Deliver training, conduct assessment, make assessment judgements	—
Actively working towards TAE — Section 1C (must complete within 2 years)	Deliver training, contribute to assessment, collect evidence	Make assessment judgements
Skill set holder — Section 1D	Deliver training under direction, contribute to assessment	Make assessment judgements
Expert (industry only)	Deliver training under direction, contribute to assessment alongside assessor	Make assessment judgements independently
Assessment-only (Section 1B)	Conduct assessment, make assessment judgements	Deliver training

The distinction between "assessment" and "assessment judgement" is legally significant and must be reflected in the UI. A person under direction can collect assessment evidence. They cannot determine whether competency has been achieved.

Critical principle from the legislation: It is the RTO — not the individual trainer — that must demonstrate compliance. The module is built for the RTO manager's view, not the trainer's self-service view. The RTO is accountable. The module is their evidence system.

The Full Data Model¶

This section describes the complete data model the module must eventually implement. Phase 1 briefs will implement a subset. Nothing built in Phase 1 should make Phase 2 harder.

Person Record¶

Every person in the register has a single record. One record, regardless of whether they are staff, contractor, or expert.

Identity fields: - Full legal name, preferred name - Employment type: Staff / Contractor / Expert / Outsourced - Role: Trainer / Assessor / Trainer-Assessor / Support Staff / Expert / Management - Start date, end date (if applicable) - Contract type reference (permanent, fixed-term, sessional, contractor agreement) — reference only, not the document itself - State/territory of primary operation (drives WWCC requirements) - USI (for credential verification — Phase 2 integration with OSIR)

Suitability and compliance fields: - Working With Children Check: number, issuing state, expiry date, verified Y/N - Police check: date, verified Y/N - Fit and Proper Person declaration: date signed - WWCC requirement flag: derived from state of operation and whether under-18 students are in the cohort

Credential record (the TAE/qualification layer — Standard 3.2): - Credential type: maps to Credential Policy sections (1A full / 1B assessment-only / 1C working towards / 1D skill set / 1E direction provider) - Specific credential held: qualification code, title, version - Issuing RTO: name and code - Date awarded - Verification method: USI transcript / issuing RTO confirmation / physical certificate sighted / reference check - Verification date and verified by (staff member name) - If working towards (1C): enrolment date, expected completion date, satisfactory progress Y/N, last progress review date - Direction relationship: who they work under (if 1C or 1D), who they supervise (if 1E) - Can make assessment judgements: Y/N (derived from credential type, not manually set)

Vocational competency records (the industry knowledge layer — Standard 3.3): One record per training product (unit of competency or qualification) the person is allocated to deliver or assess.

TGA unit code and title (foreign key to sacred corpus in rto-nrt-db)
Competency basis: Holds unit directly / Holds equivalent qualification (specify) / Industry experience equivalence / Expert engagement
Qualification or unit held (if direct or equivalent): code, title, issuing RTO, date
Professional experience: employer/organisation, role/position, dates from/to — repeatable
Licences and registrations: licence type, number, issuing body, expiry date — repeatable (some units require specific licences per TGA assessment conditions)
Evidence type on file: transcript / resume / JDF / referee statement / registration certificate
Last verified: date and by whom
Status: Verified / Pending verification / Gap identified / Expired

This is the unit-level competency record. The Compliance Matrix (see Surfaces below) rolls this up to a qual-level view. But the underlying data is at unit level — because Studio assigns trainers at unit level and queries this table to check compliance.

CPD records (the currency maintenance layer — Standards 3.2 and 3.3): Three CPD types, tracked separately, each with its own log:

TA (Trainer/Assessor competence): CPD relating to training and assessment methodology — how to teach, how to assess, understanding of VET sector requirements, Standard 3.2.
VC (Vocational Competence): CPD maintaining currency in the industry area being delivered — return to industry, industry networking, accredited industry training, Standard 3.3.
VET (VET sector knowledge): CPD maintaining knowledge of VET policy, packaging rules, ASQA guidance, regulatory changes — also Standard 3.2 but distinct from T&A methodology.

Each CPD entry records: - CPD type: TA / VC / VET - Activity description - Activity type: Employment in industry / Industry placement / Accredited training / Conference / Workshop / Webinar / Network/CoP / Industry association membership / Journal/publication / Regulatory/policy update / Other - Provider/organiser - Date completed - New skills/knowledge acquired (free text) - How applied to training/assessment practice (free text — this field is mandatory for VC type, strongly encouraged for TA and VET. This is the reflexive practice field that ASQA's self-assurance questions require. It is the difference between a log and evidence.) - Relevant to which units (multi-select from the person's allocated units)

No CPD entry is "complete" for audit purposes without the application field populated for VC entries. The system should surface this as an incomplete indicator, not a hard block.

Supervision record (only for persons in a direction relationship): - Agreement start date - Review date - Scope of supervision: which specific units, which delivery contexts - Supervisor name and credential (auto-populated from supervisor's credential record) - Action plan to achieve full credential (if working towards TAE) - Agreed conditions and restrictions on delivery and assessment - Agreed monitoring arrangements and frequency - Monitoring log: date / activity / persons involved / comments — repeatable - Last quality review of supervised output: date, reviewer, outcome - Supervision level adjustment history (ASQA requires demonstrating that supervision is reviewed and adjusted as the person develops)

The Four Compliance Dimensions¶

Every person record resolves to a status across four distinct compliance dimensions. These are not the same thing. A person can be green on credentials and red on industry currency. The system must surface all four independently.

Dimension 1 — Credential Status (Standard 3.2, Credential Policy) Green: credential verified and current, role matches credential type Amber: credential held but verification pending, or approaching review Red: no credential, credential type does not permit their current role, or working-towards period has expired Grey: not applicable (support staff, management)

Dimension 2 — Vocational Competency (Standard 3.3) Green: all allocated units have verified competency basis Amber: competency claimed but not yet verified, or evidence is dated Red: allocated to a unit with no documented competency basis (gap) Grey: not a trainer/assessor

Dimension 3 — Industry Currency (Standard 3.3) Green: VC CPD recorded within the last 12 months for all allocated units Amber: VC CPD recorded but approaching 12-month threshold (warning at 9 months) Red: no VC CPD in 12+ months for one or more allocated units Grey: not a trainer/assessor

Dimension 4 — T&A Currency (Standard 3.2) Green: TA and/or VET CPD recorded within the last 12 months Amber: approaching 12-month threshold Red: no TA/VET CPD in 12+ months Grey: not a trainer/assessor

The 12-month threshold is the sector convention. RTOs may configure different thresholds — some industry areas have more rapid change and require more frequent currency updates. The system should support configurable thresholds per training product in Phase 2.

The Surfaces¶

Surface 1: The Trainer Register (People tab)¶

The primary data entry and management surface. One row per person. Columns: Name, Role, Type (Staff/Contractor/Expert), Credential Status indicator, Vocational Competency indicator, Industry Currency indicator, T&A Currency indicator, WWCC status.

Clicking a person opens their full record — all four compliance dimensions, all sub-records, all CPD entries, all allocated units.

The register is the RTO's answer to ASQA Q1: "How do you verify that each person is appropriately credentialled?" The verification method field, the verified-by field, and the verification date make this answerable with specifics, not generalities.

Stub records: When Studio creates a person record (because a trainer was named in a session before they were added to P&C), the record appears in the register with a "Profile incomplete" indicator. It is never hidden, never lost. The manager sees it as a task requiring completion. This is the stub-receiver pattern required by STUDIO-SPEC-01.

Filter and search: By compliance status (show me everyone with red Industry Currency), by role, by allocated unit, by expiry date range. The RTO manager should be able to find "everyone delivering SIT30122 whose industry currency expires in the next 60 days" in two clicks.

Surface 2: The Compliance Matrix (Trainer Matrix tab)¶

The audit output surface. Rows are trainers/assessors. Columns are qualifications on scope. Each cell shows the compliance status for that trainer × qualification combination, derived from their unit-level competency records.

Cell states: Compliant / Currency Warning / Currency Expired / Competency Basis Pending / Supervised Delivery Only (cannot assess) / Gap / Blocked (cannot deliver).

The distinction between "Supervised Delivery Only" and other states is critical — it is the system's implementation of the Credential Policy's assessment judgement rule. If a cell shows this state, Studio must know not to assign that person as an assessor for those units.

Export for Audit button generates a formatted report suitable for ASQA evidence. The export includes the cell status, the competency basis, the last currency activity, and the verification record. Not just a screenshot — structured evidence.

This is the RTO's answer to ASQA Q5 and Q6: identifying the competency requirements for each training product, and identifying and addressing gaps.

Surface 3: Supervision Monitor (Phase 2)¶

A dedicated surface for managing direction relationships. Only visible when at least one person in the register is in a direction relationship.

Shows the supervision chain: who is under direction of whom, with credential status of both parties. The monitoring log lives here. Quality review records live here. Supervision level adjustment history lives here.

Critically: this surface must demonstrate that the supervision is working — not just that the agreement exists. ASQA Q3 asks "how do you know your monitoring system is effective?" The answer must include evidence of quality review of supervised output, documented adjustment of supervision level, and proof the supervisor meets the direction requirements of Section 1E of the Credential Policy.

React Flow is an appropriate visualisation tool for the supervision chain view — a small canvas showing direction relationships with status indicators. This is contained and purposeful, not the whole module.

Surface 4: Self-Assurance Dashboard (Phase 2)¶

The manager view. Aggregates everything into actionable intelligence.

What is red right now (blocked from delivery)
What expires in 30 / 60 / 90 days
Outstanding reviews (supervision quality reviews overdue, competency verifications pending, WWCC expiries approaching)
PD gaps (trainers with no VC CPD in 9+ months)
Expert engagement records (are experts being used purposefully, are they documented)
Continuous improvement log — issues identified, actions taken, outcomes recorded

The continuous improvement log is the RTO's answer to Standard 4.4. Every time the system surfaces a risk and the manager acts on it, that action is logged. The log becomes the audit trail proving the self-assurance system is operating, not just existing.

Integration with Studio¶

This is the most important external dependency. Studio (STUDIO-SPEC-01) reaches into People & Culture in three specific ways, and the data model must support all three.

Trainer assignment — When a trainer is assigned to a unit in Studio, Studio checks whether a person record exists. Three states: record exists and is complete (dropdown populates), record exists but is incomplete (amber nudge), no record (stub created in background, gentle prompt). In all cases Studio never blocks. This is the never-block principle from STUDIO-SPEC-01 applied to the P&C integration.

Credentials check — When a trainer is assigned to a unit, Studio can run a credentials check: "Do [Name]'s credentials and industry currency cover this unit's delivery requirements under the 2025 Standards?" People & Culture must return a structured verdict: credential status for this person, vocational competency status for this specific unit, currency status for this unit. The verdict is per-unit, because Studio works at unit level. The Compliance Matrix operates at qual level for audit purposes, but the underlying query from Studio is always unit-level.

Trainer Mapper — The fourth tool in Studio's pipeline. It runs a full compliance check across all units in a qual tree against the RTO's trainer base. It is entirely dependent on People & Culture having complete, unit-level competency data. A Trainer Mapper that produces useful verdicts requires a fully populated P&C register. This is the long-term integration goal that justifies getting the data model right in Phase 1.

The TGA link: each unit competency record in P&C references a TGA unit code — a foreign key to the sacred corpus in rto-nrt-db. This is the shared vocabulary between P&C and Studio. When Studio asks "does this trainer cover SITHCCC023?", it is querying the same unit code that exists in both systems. This linkage must be in place from Phase 1.

What the Real-World Forms Tell Us¶

Six reference forms were reviewed in the research for this spec. Their key lessons:

Newbery Training Matrix (2015): The production-form predecessor to our Compliance Matrix. Confirms the core columns: training product, trainer/assessor name, T/A/TA role, employee/contractor status, T&A qualifications held (with issuing RTO and date), vocational qualifications and experience (with dates and employer). The Newbery form collapses T&A quals and vocational competency into one column. Our data model separates them — because they answer different Standards. The separation is not pedantry; it is regulatory precision.

VETiS Trainer Skills Matrix (university template): The most sophisticated reference form found. Its three-part structure directly maps to our data model: Part A = credential record, Part B = unit-level vocational competency record (per trainer, per unit, with equivalence mapping), Part C = CPD record with the TA/VC/VET distinction. The "how have you applied this to your training/assessing?" column in Part C is the reflexive practice field that became mandatory in our CPD record design.

SIDE Trainer Currency Matrix (WA accredited pathway): Demonstrates element-level competency evidence — mapping trainer experience to the individual elements within a unit, not just the unit as a whole. This is not required in Phase 1 but is a Phase 2 capability that will be important for audit-intensive RTOs and high-risk training products.

Newbery PD Plan: Personal professional goals, 12-month objectives with KPIs, identified development activities with costs and dates. Three signatories: employee, supervisor, CEO. This is the structured PD planning workflow — not just logging what happened, but planning what should happen and why. Phase 2.

Newbery PD Register: The simplest form in the set. Staff name, activity description, date. This is the CPD log baseline. Our CPD record is significantly richer — activity type, application to practice, unit relevance — but the register is what RTOs currently have. The upgrade path from "register" to "structured CPD evidence" is a key value proposition for the module.

Newbery Supervision Agreement and Monitoring Record: Two documents in one. The agreement captures scope, supervisor credentials, current competency status, action plan, agreed conditions and restrictions, and monitoring arrangements. The monitoring record is a simple log: date, activity, persons involved, comments. Together they are the paper version of our Supervision Monitor surface. The critical addition in our version: quality review of supervised output, and supervision level adjustment history — both required by ASQA's known risks for Standard 3.2.

Newbery Staff Induction Checklist: Confirms that induction is a gated process — documents verified and stored (WWCC, TAE, certificates, resume) is a pre-induction task. System access (SMS, LMS) is granted only after induction milestones are met. This is the induction gate that feeds into the stub-receiver pattern. A person can exist in the register as a stub before induction is complete; full system access and compliance status are only granted when induction is verified.

The Multi-Tenancy Question¶

This is unresolved and must be resolved before Phase 2 design begins.

The current architecture has one RTO per workspace instance (the L4 model). People & Culture under this model is straightforward — one register per RTO.

If RTOpacks introduces licensed seats where an L4 RTO's staff can access their own view of P&C data, two architectures are possible:

Option A — View into a shared register: Staff see a filtered view of the single register. The RTO manager retains full control. Staff can update their own CPD records and submit for manager review. Simpler to build, matches current data model.

Option B — Staff-owned records that roll up to the manager view: Each staff member owns their profile, the manager has read access plus approval rights. More complex, requires a different permission model.

Option A is almost certainly right for Phase 1 licensed seats. Option B may be appropriate for larger RTOs in Phase 2. Do not design the Phase 1 data model in a way that prevents Option B later.

USI Integration¶

The USI (Unique Student Identifier) system provides authenticated transcript data. For People & Culture, the relevant capability is credential verification — confirming that a trainer's TAE qualification is authentic and was issued by the RTO they claim.

The OSIR (Office of the Student Identifiers Registrar) provides a developer kit including M2M authentication for SMS operators. The USI is for individuals regardless of their role — trainers have USIs, not just students.

Pre-conditions: DPO Authentication Kit must be obtained and terms accepted before OSIR will issue the USI Developer Kit. This is a government API with a lead time. Start the process early.

Integration design (Phase 2): When a trainer is added to the register, the system generates a consent request to that trainer. Once the trainer authorises the lookup, the system calls the USI API to retrieve their authenticated transcript. The credential record is auto-populated from the transcript and marked "Verified via USI transcript" — the strongest possible verification method for ASQA purposes.

Phase 1: Manual verification only. Staff member uploads a copy of the certificate, manager marks verified, records by whom and when. USI integration upgrades this in Phase 2.

Build Sequence and Phasing¶

Phase 1 — Foundation (current brief scope)¶

The Trainer Register with the correct data model. This means:

Person record with all identity, suitability, and credential fields
Unit-level vocational competency records with TGA unit code linkage
CPD records with three-type distinction (TA/VC/VET) and application-to-practice field
Licence and registration tracking per unit competency record
Four compliance dimensions calculated and surfaced per person
Compliance Matrix as the audit output surface (qual-level roll-up, cell-level status)
Stub-receiver pattern for Studio integration (graceful handling of incomplete records)
Filter and search on compliance status, unit, expiry dates
Export for Audit from the Compliance Matrix

Phase 2 — Compliance Depth¶

Supervision Monitor surface with direction relationship tracking, monitoring log, quality review records, supervision level history
Self-Assurance Dashboard with expiry calendars, outstanding actions, continuous improvement log
PD Plan workflow (planned development, not just logged activity)
Configurable CPD thresholds per training product
Element-level competency evidence (for high-scrutiny RTOs)
USI integration for automated credential verification
Studio Trainer Mapper integration (requires Phase 1 data to be populated)

Phase 3 — Intelligence¶

Proactive risk surfacing: "This trainer's industry currency for SITHCCC023 expires in 47 days. Three recent PD events relevant to this unit are available — would you like to log one?"
Industry currency benchmarking: what does good look like for this training package area?
Validation scheduling integration (Standard 1.5 requires five-yearly validation — the workforce data feeds the risk-based scheduling)
Workforce gap analysis: given your scope and trainer base, where are you exposed?

Open Questions¶

The module name is People — resolved 14 April 2026. Launcher card subtitle: Trainer register & workforce compliance.
Should the first-run video (per STUDIO-SPEC-01 §4) frame this module as workforce compliance or as a tool that makes ASQA audits survivable? The tone of that video matters significantly.
How does P&C handle third-party arrangements? Standard 4.2 requires RTOs to ensure third parties meet the Standards. Third-party trainers/assessors need to be in the register, but with a different relationship type. The data model supports this (Employment type includes Outsourced) but the UI flow for adding and managing third-party persons needs design.
Validation records: Standard 1.5 requires validation of assessment systems. Validators must hold specific credentials. Does the P&C module track validator assignments, or does that live in a future Validation module? The person's credential record already tracks whether they meet validation credential requirements — the assignment of validators to validation cycles is probably a separate surface.
When a training product is removed from an RTO's scope, what happens to the competency records linked to it? Archive, not delete. Audit trail must be preserved.

Relationship to Other Modules¶

Module	Relationship
Studio	P&C is queried by Studio for trainer assignment, credentials check, and Trainer Mapper. Studio creates stub records in P&C.
Document Manager	PD evidence, credential documents, supervision agreements are stored in Document Manager and linked from P&C records. Not stored in P&C directly.
Radar	Trainer competency coverage informs which units/quals the RTO can credibly deliver — this feeds the RTO's profile completeness in Radar. Phase 3.
Observatory	Workforce compliance status is a data point for the self-assurance dashboard in Observatory. Phase 3.
InstaLearn	Trainer credentials feed into the InstaLearn verification worker — confirming the trainer behind a credential issued via InstaLearn is appropriately qualified. Phase 3.

PC-SPEC-01 v0.2 — RTOpacks — 14 April 2026
Living document. Add to it, don't replace it.
Briefs reference this document. This document does not replace briefs.