Follow-up sessions
- First priority: Spill kit location and use.
- Sensitive to: Share of learners getting it wrong (counted one and a half times).
Training and practical verification
Averages hide the specific step where people keep going wrong.
Demonstration: Brightwater Logistics (fictional) · Logistics. Fictional data and a scripted answer.
Which knowledge gaps should the two follow-up sessions address first?
Change how much each criterion matters. The ranking is recomputed, and the page tells you whether the leader would survive a different judgement.
The leader would change if Share of learners getting it wrong (counted one and a half times). Treat the order as sensitive to that judgement.
Leader's margin over the next option: 0.05. The leader can change under another weighting.
Simulated answer. Written for this fictional case, not produced by a live model. Only the figures in it are computed, from what you decided above.
Each topic is scored on how many got it wrong, how serious a wrong answer would be, how many people it affects and how easily a session can fix it [S1][S2]. The leader is could change under the weightings tested; it would change if Share of learners getting it wrong (counted one and a half times).
The paperwork topic has the highest failure rate but the lowest seriousness, and a ranking by failure rate alone would put it first. Weighting seriousness is what moves it down.
Relies on: S1 · Assessment results by topic, 214 learnersS2 · Topic risk ratings
The L&D lead with the dangerous-goods adviser decides. Approving sets the content of the two follow-up sessions. It does not enrol anyone or change the assessment.
Ready for the reviewer.
In the product this is a different person with the right permission. Here you play that role to see the rule.
The Training and practical verification story · This capability in the full register