TAS — Obligations Map¶
The acceptance surface for the TAS 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. The reasoning behind the postures taken here is not re-argued: it lives in tas-doctrine-01 (ratified) and the filed research record (tas-research-01, Checkpoints 1–3). This artefact states the law and assigns each obligation its home.
The one-sentence orientation (doctrine §4): no standard in F2025L00354 names a training and assessment strategy. The document is testimony, not compliance; the obligations attach to outcomes; and the strategy tile exists because a residue of strategy-original obligations — the cohort premise, the mode reasoning, the pacing baseline, the load model, the access model, the authored interpretive lines — has no other home (ruling R1). Everything else the strategy asserts is a live reference to another tile's state, never a copy.
§0 — Authority and the layer map (read first)¶
Citation convention: instrument pinpoints are written clause / instrument (e.g. 1.1(2)(c) / F2025L00354); Act pinpoints s 17(2) / NVETR Act. Layer-3 sources are marked PG (ASQA practice guide), DEWR-PG (departmental policy guidance), Guide v1.6 (initial-registration guide). Layer-3 material informs; it never anchors an obligation.
The layers (doctrine §2, upgraded by the 2026-07-09 verification pulls):
- Layer 1 — NVETR Act 2011. The registration gate (ss 16–17), the "is complying, or will comply" test (
s 17(2) / NVETR Act— verified on Compilation No. 25), the conditions hinge (s 21) and civil-penalty teeth (s 111), the standard-making powers (ss 185, 186, 231A). - Layer 2 — the instruments. F2025L00354 (under s 185(1) — it is the "Standards for NVR Registered Training Organisations", VQF limb (a)); F2025L00355 (under ss 185(1)+186(1)); the Credential Policy (incorporated by reference). Obligations bind here.
- Layer 2 has two makers — one seat currently vacant. General directions under s 28 are legislative instruments (s 28(3)), disallowable (s 28(4)), sunsetting (s 28(5)) — but ASQA retired the entire GD suite into guidance in October 2022 (tombstone captured 2026-07-09, asqa-errand-batch A1). The Regulator's Layer-2 channel exists in the architecture and is presently unexercised. Citation rule: never cite a General Direction as a live obligation source; the readiness expectation operates through Layer 3 plus the gate (s 17(2)).
- Layer 2.5 — explanatory statements. The authorised key to the deliberate adverbs; interpretation, not obligation.
- Layer 3 — administration. DEWR-PG (Minister's-department side), ASQA practice guides and Guide v1.6 (regulator side). Zero legal force; enforcement posture only.
Standing citation cautions:
- s 231A is never our instruments' hook. The "Quality Standards" power (VQF limb (aa), added 2015) is separate from ss 185/186; what has been made under it is an open horizon item. (nvetr-act-extracts §4.)
- The gate test cites twice. The Act-side test is
s 17(2) / NVETR Act; the instrument's owns 5(2) / F2025L00354mirrors it verbatim ("must consider whether an applicant is complying, or will comply, with Schedule 1 … under subsection 17(2) of the Act"). Cite the Act for the gate's existence, the instrument's s 5(2) for the Standards' reach into the gate. (Corrections register, §9: C1 genealogy.) - Instrument naming. The instrument's s 1 names it the "…(Outcome Standards for Registered Training Organisations) Instrument 2025"; departmental guidance and the register listing insert "NVR". Cite the s 1 name in anything canon-grade. F2025L00355's name says "Compliance Standards"; its operative Part 2 heading says "Compliance Requirements" — cite the instrument name, note the Part heading where relevant. (asqa-errand-batch A3.)
- The demotion is corroborated at both Layer-3 poles. DEWR-PG: "many RTOs may choose to develop detailed training and assessment strategies…" — optional evidence form, from the instrument-maker's own department. The regulator's gate design agrees: the current initial-registration application form asks for reasons ("Describe the rationale behind your delivery structure and pacing…") with evidence listed, not attached (asqa-errand-batch A6).
§1 — The registration gate (context obligations the strategy answers)¶
The gate is not a strategy obligation, but the strategy is the artefact family the gate interrogates. Enforcement is front-loaded (doctrine §5.1, Exhibit C); a pre-delivery RTO's designed reality is nearly its only inspectable reality.
| # | Obligation / mechanism | Anchor | Strategy's role |
|---|---|---|---|
| G-1 | Application in approved form with required information and documents | s 16(3) / NVETR Act | The strategy substrate is where the Part-2 "describe" answers come from (rationale of pacing, mode, industry-expert use) |
| G-2 | Regulator must consider whether the applicant "is complying, or will comply" with the VQF and Subdivision B conditions | s 17(2) / NVETR Act; mirrored s 5(2) / F2025L00354 | Every strategy-original obligation below is tested prospectively here; scope change re-runs the gate (s 33(2)(c) sibling test) |
| G-3 | Discretionary audit of any matter relating to the application | s 17(3) / NVETR Act | The evidence-listed-not-attached pattern lands here: verification at interview/site visit |
| G-4 | Sworn readiness — CEO statutory declaration ("fully resourced and ready to commence delivery at the time of lodging") | Statutory Declarations Act 1959 s 11 (offence); administered exercise of the Act's discretion — not a Layer-2 provision | Enforcement by attestation (doctrine §5.2). The strategy is what makes the signature true at near-zero cost |
| G-5 | Day-one-ready resourcing expectation | Guide v1.6 pp 14–15 (Layer 3) + the gate | Layer collapse warning: never present readiness as a Layer-2 requirement (the Grok disposition, Checkpoint 2 §13) |
§2 — Standard 1.1: Training (anchor: 1.1 / F2025L00354)¶
Outcome (1): training is engaging, well-structured, enables attainment consistent with the training product. Bites on the organisation; no indicator attaches to an individual trainer. Mandates no document — but (a)–(c) are practically undemonstrable without a designed delivery structure existing before delivery. 1.1 is the clause-level location of the TAS demotion.
| # | Obligation — the RTO must be able to demonstrate | Anchor | Strategy tile's role |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1-1 | Training consistent with the training product as registered (packaging, prerequisites, unit requirements) | 1.1(2)(a) / F2025L00354 | Reference — machine-checkable against TGA/KN (Studio read); the strategy claims it by reference, never restates it |
| 1.1-2 | The chosen mode enables attainment — cohort-aware reasons for the mode, arguable against the ES factors (cohort; mode/resources/technology/facilities; industry expectations; breadth/complexity) | 1.1(2)(b) / F2025L00354 | Original — mode reasoning is authored content; the keystone strategy-original obligation. Entangled: only as strong as the 1.8 resource claim beneath it and the 1.4(2)(a)(iii) validity claim above it |
| 1.1-3 | Structure and pacing support progression with sufficient time for instruction, practice, feedback and assessment (all four named) | 1.1(2)(c) / F2025L00354 | Original — the designed pacing baseline carrying its sufficiency reasoning; individualiser rules stated here (placement per 1.1(2)(e); credit per Δ4), instances live on the intake spine (ruling R6) |
| 1.1-4 | Techniques, activities and resources engage students and support understanding | 1.1(2)(d) / F2025L00354 | Reference — the artefacts are Studio state; the strategy describes the technique mix per cohort |
| 1.1-5 | Conditional: where the product requires placement/community learning, skills are attainable in that environment | 1.1(2)(e) / F2025L00354 | Original claim, Record evidence — a quality claim about an environment the RTO doesn't own; one leg of the three-standard placement conditional (with 1.8(2)(c), 2.1(2)(c)(iv)) |
Silences (2015 habits not reimported): no volume of learning / nominal hours; no "amount of training" clause; no named TAS; no mode-approval process. The obligation everywhere is reasoned sufficiency — building nominal hours as a compliance requirement under 1.1 is inventing law.
§3 — Standard 1.2: Industry engagement (anchor: 1.2 / F2025L00354)¶
| # | Obligation | Anchor | Strategy tile's role |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.2-1 | How it identifies representatives and seeks meaningful advice/feedback — process-shaped; documented outreach into a silent industry genuinely discharges | 1.2(2)(a) / F2025L00354 | Reference — the consultation loop is Studio-home substrate (ruling R7); the strategy renders the loop's existence |
| 1.2-2 | Advice/feedback informs changes to training and assessment strategies and practices — the closed loop; reasoned no-change is valid closure | 1.2(2)(b) / F2025L00354 | Original (closure) — dispositions (adopted / adapted / rejected-with-reasons) close into the accreting review (ruling R2) |
| 1.2-3 | Training reflects current industry practice — a state-of-the-world claim | 1.2(2)(c) / F2025L00354 | Composed cross-module — trainer industry currency (People, 3.3(a)(ii)) × product currency (TGA/KN) × outreach record. No single tile owns it; the strategy composes the claim from references |
Registered interpretive position (localisation reading, doctrine §3): 1.2 at RTO level answers how this product is delivered here, now, for this cohort — not what the national product contains (the JSC layer's job). Novel, Layer-2-derived, encoded as first-class authored content with a lifecycle.
§4 — Standards 1.3–1.4: Assessment system (anchors: 1.3, 1.4 / F2025L00354)¶
The s 4 definitions do load-bearing work here: assessment system names RPL inside it; validation is defined as review of the assessment system on both tools and judgements. The 1.3 chain is conformance (a) → pre-use review (b) → change (c).
| # | Obligation | Anchor | Strategy tile's role |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.3-1 | Assessment consistent with the training product | 1.3(2)(a) / F2025L00354 | Reference — Studio tool state, version-true |
| 1.3-2 | Tools reviewed prior to use against the 1.4 principles and rules — non-delegable; the vendor's "internal validation" is marketing, not the review | 1.3(2)(b) / F2025L00354 | Reference — the review is a ledgered Studio lifecycle event (M3); the strategy asserts review state by reference |
| 1.3-3 | Review outcomes inform changes to tools | 1.3(2)(c) / F2025L00354 | Reference — loop closure visible in the accreting review |
| 1.4-1 | The system facilitates assessment per the principles (fairness, flexibility, validity — practical application components, reliability — comparable outcomes across assessors) | 1.4(2)(a)(i)–(iv) / F2025L00354 | Reference + Original posture — the system is Studio-designed; the strategy states the product's assessment posture (evidence-type mix, practical-setting claims) |
| 1.4-2 | Assessors make individual judgements justified on the rules of evidence (validity, sufficiency, authenticity, currency) | 1.4(2)(b)(i)–(iv) / F2025L00354 | Out of perimeter — judgements are personally the assessor's (doctrine §8.4); the strategy never carries them. It carries the system-level authenticity-weighting position below |
Registered interpretive position (authenticity, doctrine §3): post-2022, an assessment system weighted toward unproctored text responses cannot satisfy the authenticity rule; an honest 1.3(2)(b) review weighs evidence types by authenticability. The transposition rebuttal (doctrine §7) is the enforcement-side twin: the genre's blankness is itself the non-conformance, and it fails at (b) regardless of how completely it restates the unit at (a).
§5 — Standard 1.5: Validation (anchor: 1.5 / F2025L00354)¶
Correction C5 applied at source — see §9. The 2025 instrument carries a hard per-product validation ceiling.
| # | Obligation | Anchor | Strategy tile's role |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.5-1 | Validation ensures judgements consistent with the training product and this instrument | 1.5(2)(a) / F2025L00354 | Reference — validation outcomes are Record-shaped evidence |
| 1.5-2 | Every training product on scope validated at least once every five years, and more frequently on risk, product change, or relevant feedback | 1.5(2)(b) / F2025L00354 | Reference with a clock — the five-year ceiling is a schedulable, per-product obligation; the strategy's validation section states the product's cycle position by reference |
| 1.5-3 | Risk-based approach determines the components validated and the sample size | 1.5(2)(c)(i)–(ii) / F2025L00354 | Reference — the risk reasoning is validation-system state; accreted 1.2 feedback is an input |
| 1.5-4 | TAE products only: independent validation (external, no interest), after first cohort completes — in addition to (b) | 1.5(2)(d) / F2025L00354 | Reference, conditional — surfaces only for TAE scope |
| 1.5-5 | Validators collectively hold industry competence, current practice understanding, and a Credential Policy §3 validation credential | 1.5(2)(e) / F2025L00354; CP §3A | Reference — validator identity/credentials read from People |
| 1.5-6 | Outcome not solely determined by a designer/deliverer of the training or assessment | 1.5(2)(f) / F2025L00354 | Reference — internal validation is lawful for non-TAE products under this constraint (folklore corrected, Checkpoint 1 §6) |
| 1.5-7 | How validation outcomes inform changes to the assessment system | 1.5(2)(g) / F2025L00354 | Original (closure) — the loop closes in the accreting review (R2) |
Perimeter note (Δ2/Δ3): the s 4 definitions put RPL inside the assessment system, so the 1.3(2)(b) review and the 1.5 validation perimeter reach RPL tools by definition. The strategy's validation scope claim cannot be drawn around ordinary assessment only (rpl-00 1.6-14 holds the RPL side).
Engine boundary (settled at Layer 2, Checkpoint 1 §6): the Credential Policy's credentials are held only by humans — AI as validator-of-record is ruled out by construction. Nothing constrains the validator's instruments: engine-prepared analytical files with a credentialed human determining and signing is fully compliant.
§6 — Standards 1.6–1.7: Recognition (the strategy delta; anchors: 1.6, 1.7 / F2025L00354)¶
The RPL arc (rpl-00/01/02, ratified) owns the process — offer, evidence, judgement, record, mill posture. None of it is re-derived here. The strategy carries six claims the RPL tile does not discharge alone (Checkpoint 2 §1):
| Δ | Strategy claim | Anchor | Strategy tile's role |
|---|---|---|---|
| Δ1 | Recognition posture per product — RPL via X; CT available/restricted because Y (the 1.7(2)(b) licensing parenthetical is a design-level fact) | 1.6(2)(a), 1.7(2)(a)–(b) / F2025L00354 | Reference-render of RPL tile state (ruling R8) |
| Δ2 | One system, not an annex — a strategy describing RPL as a parallel scheme misdescribes the system the instrument defines | s 4 (assessment system) + 1.6(2)(b) / F2025L00354 | Original statement of the system's unity; perimeter consequence at §5 above |
| Δ3 | Validation scope reaches RPL tools | s 4 (validation) + 1.5 / F2025L00354 | See 1.5 perimeter note |
| Δ4 | Credit-adjusted pacing rule — a granted RPL/CT outcome individualises progression | 1.1(2)(c) × Div 3 / F2025L00354 | Original — the rule lives in the pacing baseline; instances on the intake spine (R6) |
| Δ5 | The intake sensor — 2.2(2)(a) review is the sensor, the 1.6 offer is the actuator; the strategy states how this product's intake connects them | 1.6(1) × 2.2(2)(a) / F2025L00354 | Original — the connection statement (seam into LLND's home standard) |
| Δ6 | Aggregate integrity — granting patterns reconcile with the stated posture at product level, or indict it | 1.6(2)(c), 1.7(2)(c) / F2025L00354 | Composed — pattern visibility over RPL tile state |
Delta silences: no obligation to grant; no uptake quantum; no mandated RPL kit; CT's evidence class is closed (AQF certification documentation or authenticated VET transcript — nothing lesser), and 1.7(2)(b) carries no "in accordance with the assessment system" language (CT-is-not-assessment, confirmed from the strategy side).
§7 — Standard 1.8: Facilities, resources and equipment (anchor: 1.8 / F2025L00354)¶
Outcome (1): per-product framing; four adjectives doing distinct work (fit-for-purpose / safe / accessible / sufficient — un-numbered, the 1.1(2)(c) drafting habit). Contains QA1's only document mandate, at (c). Mode-neutral: for an online product, the platform is the facility (doctrine §6); DEWR-PG confirms — "RTOs are still responsible for ensuring the safety, suitability and accessibility of the online learning environment and resources."
| # | Obligation | Anchor | Strategy tile's role |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.8-1 | How it identifies what the product requires, incl. which parts come from third parties | 1.8(2)(a) / F2025L00354 | Composed — requirement floor read from unit Assessment Conditions (KN/Studio, machine-readable seed); the RTO reasons up from the floor to cohort quantities and mode. Identification below the floor is non-conformance on the face of the documents |
| 1.8-2 | Facilities/resources/equipment provided by the org or third parties "are, and will continue to be, suitable and safe" — continuing-state, non-delegable | 1.8(2)(b)(i) / F2025L00354 | Original (provision design) + Record (assurance evidence) — the three-way split of ruling R9: floor derived, provision design strategy-original, clocked assurance artefacts (certificates of currency, agreements, walkthrough records) Record-custody. Layer divergence surfaced, not resolved: audited in practice as point-in-time; honoured as written |
| 1.8-3 | Students have access to what they need to participate | 1.8(2)(b)(ii) / F2025L00354 | Original — the access leg of provision design; bites hardest where the mode assumes resources the RTO doesn't control |
| 1.8-4 | Documented strategies and procedures for risks in WIL/placement/community learning | 1.8(2)(c) / F2025L00354 | Original + Record — QA1's only mandated document; conditional on placement; third leg of the placement conditional |
The three-legged provision split (Checkpoint 2 §2): RTO-provided and third-party-provided legs carry the full 1.8(2)(b) assurance; the student-provided leg is not governed by 1.8(2)(b) — it is a disclosure obligation under 2.1(2)(c)(iv).
Registered interpretive position (access gap, doctrine §3): a mode built on student-provided equipment needs a designed fallback or an intake-time test of the assumption — 2.2(2)(a) already names digital literacy, so equipment access is the natural adjacent question.
Silences: no ownership requirement; no physical-campus requirement; no ratios; no inspection cadence; no equipment register mandated.
§8 — Parts 2 and 3 threads (the strategy's other faces), and Part 4 anchors¶
Part 2 — information and support obligations the strategy sources¶
| # | Obligation | Anchor | Strategy tile's role |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2.1-1 | All information provided to students (incl. via third parties) is clear, accurate, current — marketing-vs-strategy divergence is a breach in its own right, before anyone enrols | 2.1(2)(a) / F2025L00354 | Source of truth for the public information surface |
| 2.1-2 | The accessible-information list — code, title, duration, modes, location, commencement, scheduling, requirements to commence/complete incl. assessment requirements, licensing implications, third-party arrangements | 2.1(2)(c)(i) / F2025L00354 | Composed render — the third face (M13): a near-rendered strategy summary generated from the same substrate as the auditor and trainer views |
| 2.1-3 | Student-obligations disclosure incl. requirements to acquire materials, equipment or IT and placement requirements | 2.1(2)(c)(iv) / F2025L00354 | Reference — the student-provided resource leg discloses here |
| 2.1-4 | Students informed as soon as practicable of changes, incl. transition of superseded products | 2.1(2)(e) / F2025L00354 | Reference (event) — a product version event has a comms leg |
| 2.2-1 | Pre-enrolment review of skills and competencies incl. LLN and digital literacy; advice based on the outcome | 2.2(2)(a)–(b) / F2025L00354 | Original (premise) — the strategy states its cohort premise concretely enough that the review has something to test against; the review/advice machinery is LLND-arc, consumed not re-derived |
| 2.3-1 | Access to trainers/assessors/staff; students told how and when; queries answered in a timely manner | 2.3(2)(b)–(d) / F2025L00354 | Original — the access model per mode; loops into the 3.1(a) load model (promising access nobody is rostered to give fails both) |
| 2.6-1 | Wellbeing needs identified by reference to the training product content | 2.6(2)(a) / F2025L00354 | Original (design-time flag) — the product itself drives the flag; support arrangements are operational, out of tile |
Excluded (Checkpoint 2 §9): 2.4, 2.5, 2.7, 2.8 — per-student or organisation-level; no strategy claim to carry.
Part 3 — workforce threads (People owns the substance)¶
| # | Obligation | Anchor | Strategy tile's role |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.1-1 | How it ensures the number of trainers, assessors and other staff is appropriate for the services offered | 3.1(2)(a) / F2025L00354 | Composed cross-module — People roster × strategy load model (cohort × mode × pacing × product mix); the 1.1(2)(c) activities are the demand function. Perimeter note: legal scope is services (defined term, wider than T&A); the strategy carries only the T&A staffing story |
| 3.2-1 | Delivery only by persons holding Credential Policy credentials | 3.2(2)(a) / F2025L00354 | Reference (claims) — Δ1: a strategy scheduling a named person asserts in writing that their People canDeliver state supports it; ratify-block with the instrument's own exception path (ruling R4) |
| 3.2-2 | Under-direction delivery: systems ensuring no assessment judgements + quality delivery | 3.2(2)(b) / F2025L00354 | Original (designed exception) — the keyhole (doctrine §8.2): the lock demands the arrangement exist, named and dated; it never judges it |
| 3.3-1 | All deliverers hold industry competencies at least to the product's level, and maintain currency | 3.3(2)(a)(i)–(ii) / F2025L00354 | Reference — People state; one leg of the 1.2(2)(c) composition |
| 3.3-2 | Experts engaged by reference to the product or cohort, in response to a specific need, under direction, assess-alongside, with oversight | 3.3(2)(b)–(c) / F2025L00354 | Original (justification) + Reference (record) — the justification the law demands is a strategy statement; the engagement record is People-held. The guest-speaker line (registered position): the strategy's description of a visiting SME is what places them inside or below the 3.3 threshold |
Part 4 — the two anchors the tile's own mechanics discharge¶
| # | Obligation | Anchor | Strategy tile's role |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4.2-1 | Staff supported to understand the instrument components relevant to their role | 4.2(2)(a) / F2025L00354 | Generated evidence — the ledgered first-read of the trainer delivery brief is close to a literal discharge at trainer level (M1 as re-anchored; the phantom 3.1 induction anchor is dead — §9) |
| 4.2-2 | Roles and responsibilities documented, ensuring accountable decision-making | 4.2(2)(d) / F2025L00354 | Generated evidence — the RTO naming its baseline signer (ruling R3) is itself 4.2(d) evidence |
§9 — Corrections applied at source (blast-radius register)¶
This artefact is the designated landing site for corrections C1 and C4 (nvetr-act-extracts §6) and registers two new items found at Layer-2 verification during drafting. The filed checkpoints are accreting and immutable; the corrections bind here.
| # | Defect | Correction as applied here | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | Checkpoint 2 cites "s 5(2)" for the gate test; extracts register called it a phantom (Act s 5 = Meaning of referring State) | Gate test cited as s 17(2) / NVETR Act throughout. Genealogy nuance (new, this draft): s 5(2) / F2025L00354 is real and mirrors the test verbatim — the checkpoint's "Layer-2 anchor" reading was defensible as an instrument cite. Both are cited per §0 rule 2; the register's "phantom" characterisation is corrected to "ambiguous pinpoint, resolved by citing both layers" |
Applied §§0–1; register amendment owed to nvetr-act-extracts §6 |
| C4 | "Designated 24-hour point of contact" (National Code Std 6.5) — unsupported | Struck. Confirmed absent from both as-made (2018) and current compilation (F2026C00148, Jan 2026) text. CRICOS remains parked (Landscape); nothing here cites it | Applied (claim absent from this artefact) |
| C5 | Checkpoint 1 §6: "the remembered fixed five-year ritual is 2015 folklore, not the 2025 obligation" — wrong as filed | 1.5(2)(b) / F2025L00354 (verbatim, verified): every product on scope validated at least once every five years, more frequently on risk/change/feedback. The five-year maximum cycle is live Layer-2 law; what is risk-based is components and sample size (1.5(2)(c)) and any frequency above the floor. Row 1.5-2 carries it |
New this draft — register amendment owed to nvetr-act-extracts §6 |
| C6 | Checkpoint 1 §6 conflates 1.5(2)(e)–(f): "(e)–(f) — persons who designed/delivered may participate but must not solely determine" | (e) is the validators' collective competence/credential requirement; (f) alone is the not-solely-determined rule. Rows 1.5-5/1.5-6 anchor precisely | New this draft; minor, no downstream consumer |
| — | people-00 §3.1 phantom PIs (redline owed to the People arc, rider 2) | Not TAS scope to fix; this artefact anchors 3.1 to the authorised two-PI text only, and anchors the delivery-brief induction event to 4.2(a)/(d), never 3.1 | Carried |
§10 — Registered interpretive positions (the moat, stated once)¶
Per doctrine §3, these are reasoned, clause-traced positions taken where the instrument is open. Each is novel, none is guidance-backed, all are Layer-2-derived; each lives in the tile as first-class authored content with a lifecycle (drafts, ratification, version history).
- Authenticity — post-2022, an assessment system weighted toward unproctored text cannot satisfy
1.4(2)(b)(iii); pre-use reviews weigh evidence types by authenticability. (§4) - Access gap — a mode assuming student-provided equipment needs a designed fallback or an intake-time test;
1.8(2)(b)(ii)×2.2(2)(a). (§7) - Localisation reading of 1.2 — RTO-level engagement answers how delivered here, not what the national product contains. (§3)
- Guest-speaker line — the strategy's per-product description of a visiting SME places them inside or below the
3.3threshold. (§8)
§11 — Cross-tile seams¶
- Studio (content loom). Product conformance (1.1(2)(a), 1.3(2)(a)), tool state and the pre-use review ledger (1.3(2)(b)–(c)), the consultation-loop substrate (1.2, R7), techniques/resources (1.1(2)(d)). The strategy references version-true Studio state.
- People (workforce truth). canDeliver state (3.2/3.3), validator credentials (1.5(2)(e)), expert engagement records (3.3(2)(c)). Assignments are claims (Δ1); the ratify-block consumes People state (R4).
- Record (evidence shelf). Validation outcomes (1.5), assurance artefacts with clocks (1.8(2)(b)(i), R9), placement risk documents (1.8(2)(c)). Phasing rider stands: if TAS builds before Record deploys, in-tile custody uses a Record-shaped schema so handoff is a migration, not a redesign.
- RPL tile. Recognition posture is reference-rendered (Δ1, R8); the strategy adds only the credit-adjustment rule (Δ4) and the sensor-actuator statement (Δ5).
- LLND / intake spine. The cohort premise (2.2-1) is what the suitability review tests; per-student pacing overlays (placement, credit) live on the shared candidate/intake spine (R6, M12).
- The engine (across the fence). Instrument-of-the-validator and generation substrate only; never assessor, never validator-of-record, never signer (Credential Policy construction, §5; doctrine §8.4). Authorship stays home.
§12 — What this map tells the next move (tas-01-model)¶
The model inherits nine argued rulings (Checkpoint 3) and must hold, at minimum: the strategy substrate (cohort premise, mode reasoning, pacing baseline + individualiser rules, load model, access model, interpretive positions — each versioned, ratifiable, signed by the RTO-named signer); the accreting review register (1.2/1.5 loop closures, variance record); the reference layer (assignments → People, tools → Studio, validation/assurance → Record, recognition → RPL); the three renders (auditor / trainer delivery brief / student-public) pinned to (baseline version, substrate read time); the resource register surface composing floor / provision design / clocked evidence (R9); and the ratify-block with the 3.2(2)(b) keyhole (R4).
Deferral candidates named now so they aren't silently assumed: CRICOS/Std 6 support staffing (parked, Landscape); third-party delivery oversight mechanics (4.2(c) touches the strategy only through the third-party information surface — argue at model time); the s 231A horizon watch.
The acceptance test for the tile, inherited from the doctrine: every line above is answered by a surface that asserts only structural truth — grounded, named, dated, digest-true — and leaves every judgement with the human who signs it.
Move 2 artefact — RATIFIED 2026-07-09 (Draft 1, redline returned no change). Built from F2025L00354 verbatim (project reproduction, verified against the authorised PDF), C2024C00461, F2025L00355 (as-made, register copy), the Credential Policy as read at Checkpoint 1, DEWR-PG (March 2025), PG (Jun 2025), Guide v1.6 (Dec 2025). Reasoning: tas-doctrine-01. Research record: tas-research-01 Checkpoints 1–3. Corrections C1/C4 applied per the standing register; C5/C6 registered new this draft.