Prove how child learning activities produce the course result

Draw the actual tracking tree

IMS/1EdTech’s Simple Sequencing v1.0 specification and implementation guide, published in 2003 and checked on 7 November 2026, describe child-to-parent rollup with distinct objective satisfaction and activity progress. They provide conceptual grounding, not evidence that a current LMS conforms to a particular SCORM edition.

For the acceptance case, ask the administrator to verify the exact SCORM edition supported by the package and receiving LMS before testing. Draw the imported activity tree with its tracked units and parent groups. Mark which children the course owner intends to be required, optional or alternative. Keep that intended policy separate from the actual rule configuration. A visible optional label does not prove that the unit has been excluded from the relevant aggregate requirement.

Make contrasting child-state rows

Build a small truth table rather than running only the ideal path. Include all required units satisfied, one required unit untouched, one required unit completed but unsuccessful, and an optional unit left untouched. For an alternative branch, specify what should happen when only the selected path is used. State the expected parent completion and satisfaction independently.

Use these as fictional acceptance cases, not as instructions to manufacture learner results. The technical owner can prepare safe fixtures or run the intended content paths in an approved test environment. Keep numeric score aggregation out of this table unless it is necessary to explain a particular rule; otherwise it can obscure the simpler question of which children contribute to which parent condition.

Find the first parent whose result diverges

Inspect the child records and immediate parent before looking at the top-level course. In a nested tree, an unexpected result may originate in one subgroup and then propagate upward. Record the smallest subtree that demonstrates the mismatch. This helps distinguish a unit that never reported its outcome from a parent rule that interpreted valid child evidence differently from the intended policy.

Ask the configuration owner to explain the relevant condition and action in plain language. Does the rule concern all contributing children, an alternative set or another documented selection? Do not change a required unit to optional simply to make the aggregate turn green. A repair should implement the approved course requirement, not redefine the requirement after an inconvenient test result.

Retain evidence that survives course restructuring

For each accepted row, keep the tree revision, tested child states, observed intermediate parent states and final course result. Include the point in the supported completion/exit flow when the record was inspected so a temporary display is not mistaken for the settled result. Have the administrator confirm what the course summary actually communicates to learners.

Revisit the table when a unit is added, removed, nested differently or made optional. A new appendix can accidentally become a required tracked child, while a moved assessment can stop contributing to the intended parent. Do not infer that a package remains equivalent merely because the visible lesson text is unchanged. Acceptance means the tested activity structure produces the approved aggregate outcome, including incomplete and unsuccessful cases, without claiming that a completed course tree proves professional capability.

Make the reasoning concrete.

A fictional training package contains two required units and an optional reference appendix. The learner finishes both required units, but the LMS keeps the course incomplete because the appendix still contributes to the relevant completion rule.

The team keeps the appendix optional only if that is the approved design, then retests an untouched required unit to ensure the repair did not weaken the course requirement.

Take the questions into your next brief.

Use these prompts in your own notes. Nothing is submitted from this page.

1. Tree

   Which tracked children and parent groups exist after import?

2. Contribution

   Which children should affect completion and satisfaction?

3. Contrast

   Which incomplete or optional-child case exposes the rule?

4. Divergence

   At which immediate parent does expected and observed status first differ?

5. Change

   Which structural edits require the table to be rerun?

Watch for the wrong conclusion.

• Approving only the final unit’s result.
• Assuming an optional label changes tracking contribution.
• Making requirements weaker to force a positive aggregate.

Sources & scope

Workflows, worksheets and fictional examples are original editorial analysis, not supplier implementation instructions or measured business results. Sources support only the specifically attributed platform facts. Supplier controls, contracts and local requirements can change; verify the actual placement and current provider guidance before implementation.

• IMS/1EdTech Simple Sequencing Information and Behavior Model v1.0 (2003) →Primary standards documentation · Supports: SM.5 and RB.1.2–RB.1.3 support conceptual child-condition rollup and distinct satisfaction/progress controls; no current SCORM conformance claim.
• IMS/1EdTech Simple Sequencing Best Practice and Implementation Guide v1.0 (2003) →Primary standards documentation · Supports: Section7.1.3 supports child-to-parent status propagation only; the lesson’s matrix and example are original editorial work.