What counts, and what merely documents

Attendance is not the same as practice.

Currency evidence divides into activity that puts the person near the work and activity that puts them near people talking about the work. Both have value and only the first establishes what the requirement is about.

The strongest evidence is straightforward: time working in the field, structured observation on a worksite, or performing the tasks under current conditions. A record of that, with dates and what was done, is difficult to argue with and is what an assessor is actually looking for.

The weaker forms are conference attendance, webinars, membership and reading. They belong in a file and they should be described accurately as professional development rather than as currency, since conflating them is what produces a file that satisfies a checklist and misrepresents the position.

The test worth applying internally is whether the trainer could perform the work to the standard they assess against, today, without preparation. That question has an honest answer and it is not the one the file gives.

Where a trainer genuinely cannot maintain currency in a specialised area, the honest responses are to pair them with somebody who can, to bring a practitioner in for the relevant components, or to stop delivering that area. Continuing while documenting attendance is the option that carries the risk.