Before cofounding Red Velvet AI I was a qualified lawyer, though my interests in technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship always pulled me elsewhere. A few years ago, while running a small Australian stationery brand, I went up against IP counsel from a much larger competitor in a trademark opposition. They had the lawyers, the years in market, the turnover, the distributors, the public profile. I had one declaration, five exhibits, and an argument built precisely around what each ground required us to prove. On paper, it was a case I should not have won. I won every ground, because evidence is judged on what it establishes, not on how impressive it looks.
I think about that a lot when I look at RPL.
A note before I go further. I am not a VET trainer, and I am not an RPL practitioner. I cofounded a company called Red Velvet AI that is building a platform for RPL workflows, which is what brought me to this question. So this is not a post telling experienced trainers how to do their job. It is one perspective from someone who has spent years building evidence-based arguments where the work either holds up under scrutiny or it doesn’t, cross-checked against what the Australian and international research actually says about RPL. If any of it is useful, take it. If it doesn’t ring true in places, push back. I would rather have that conversation than write something that sounds confident but lands wrong.
If you’re new to RPL, you’re not alone
Over the past year, a lot of trainers I talked to have been delivering training for years and are now being asked to do RPL, and they’re quietly worried about it. Nobody has ever really shown them what good RPL looks like. They get handed a folder, told to make a judgement, and asked to be confident about it. The standards documents are dense. The candidate is sitting in front of them, hoping. The auditor is somewhere in the future. It’s a lot.
This is not just your impression. A 2024 national report on RPL in Australian education surveyed assessors across the country and found that 63% had received no training in RPL, while 87.5% were actively assessing RPL applications anyway. When asked how their institutions ensured fair assessment of prior learning, only 41% could point to clear evaluation criteria1. So if you feel under-prepared and uncertain, you are not the exception. You are roughly two-thirds of the workforce. That’s a problem for the sector, but it’s also a sign that the people who care enough to think hard about doing it well, like you reading this, are exactly the people the sector needs.
If that’s you, this is for you. The good news is that doing RPL well is not a mysterious art. It comes down to a small number of ideas that, once you have them in your head, make the whole thing much clearer. We’ll walk through them together.
What RPL actually is
RPL is assessment. That’s the whole thing in one line. It’s not a paperwork exercise, not a tick-and-flick, not a softer pathway to a qualification. It’s an assessment, and it has to meet the same standards as any other assessment you’d run.
That means the evidence the candidate gives you has to satisfy four things, the rules of evidence. It has to be valid (it actually relates to the unit you’re assessing). Sufficient (there’s enough of it to make a real judgement). Authentic (it’s actually the candidate’s own work). And current (it reflects what they can do now, not what they could do ten years ago).
And the way you make the judgement has to satisfy four more things, the principles of assessment. Fair (the candidate has a real chance to show what they can do). Flexible (there’s more than one way for them to show it). Valid (your assessment actually measures what the unit asks for). And reliable (another assessor looking at the same evidence would reach the same conclusion).
If you’ve ever assessed a regular student, you already know all of this. RPL just asks you to apply it to a candidate who’s coming in with a working life behind them instead of a course in front of them.
Why folders can be misleading
When you start doing RPL, the first thing that arrives is usually a folder. Sometimes physical, more often digital. It’s full of stuff. Photos. Certificates. A resume. Supervisor letters. Maybe some training records. Maybe a long written reflection.
The folder feels like the assessment. It’s tempting to read it cover to cover and form an impression. Here’s the trap: a thick folder is not the same as strong evidence. A candidate can give you a hundred files that all show the same thing, and you still don’t have what you need.
Take a candidate applying for RPL in CPCCCA2002 Use carpentry tools and equipment, which sits inside CPC30220 Certificate III in Carpentry. They send through site photos, a White Card, a resume, and a letter from their boss saying they’ve been on the tools for years. Looks strong, right?
Then you read the unit. The performance evidence says they need to safely and effectively use and maintain all the listed tools and equipment, at least once, across three different carpentry tasks. Hand tools, power tools, pneumatic tools, equipment. Three different tasks2.
Now look at the folder again. Are those photos from three different tasks, or one job photographed ten ways? Do the photos show your candidate doing the work, or just the finished work? Can the boss confirm what tools were used, what tasks were done, when, and where? You’re not being suspicious. You’re being thorough. You’re matching what the candidate gave you against what the unit actually demands.
This is the mindset shift. Read the unit before you read the folder. Then ask, does what they’ve given me actually map onto what the unit is asking for? If not, you don’t have a problem with the candidate. You have a gap to fill.
The five kinds of evidence
It helps to sort what you’re looking at. Most evidence falls into one of five kinds, and each kind can prove different things.
Direct evidence is what the candidate did themselves. A work sample, a video of them doing the task, a live demonstration, something they built or wrote. This is the strongest. It shows their own hand at work.
Indirect evidence is somebody else talking about what the candidate did. Third-party reports, supervisor statements, references, performance reviews, customer feedback. Useful, but it’s only as strong as the person saying it and how specific they are.
Supplementary evidence sets the scene. Resumes, position descriptions, payslips, contracts, certificates, licences, training records. This stuff confirms the candidate was in the role at the right time, but it doesn’t usually confirm they could actually do the job well.
Historical evidence is anything from the past. Old photos, project reports, dated documents. Stronger when other things back it up. Weaker when it’s standing on its own.
Current evidence is produced now, in front of you or close to it. A practical demonstration today. A competency conversation today. A challenge task you set this week. This is how you check that the skill is still in their hands.
Here’s the practical bit. A folder made up of just supplementary evidence (resume, certificates, payslips) is the most common kind I see, and it’s also the weakest. It proves the candidate was there. It doesn’t prove they could do the job. A folder made up of just indirect evidence (three glowing supervisor letters) is the second most common, and it’s only as good as those three people.
The strongest folders mix at least two or three of these kinds together. Direct evidence backed by indirect evidence backed by something current. That’s when the picture gets believable.
Sorting evidence into kinds gets you halfway. You can now look at a folder and tell what’s strong, what’s weak, and what’s missing. But there’s a second move that turns “I have a strong impression” into “I have a defensible decision,” and that’s the part most RPL training never gets to.
That’s what part 2 is about.
Leave a Reply