Sequence by how the work is learned, not by the standard

The unit's structure is an index, not a teaching order.

A unit of competency lists elements and criteria in an order chosen for completeness rather than for instruction. Following that order as a teaching sequence produces material that introduces concepts before their prerequisites and separates things that belong together.

The learnable order usually starts from something concrete the learner can already recognise, builds the vocabulary as it becomes needed, and reaches the abstract requirement late. That is frequently close to the reverse of the document order.

Reorganising costs nothing in compliance terms provided the mapping is maintained separately, and it is the single change that most improves how a resource is received by trainers.

The test is to ask somebody who does the work to read the contents page and say whether that is how they would explain the job to a new starter. The answer is usually no, and their alternative ordering is usually better.

Where a genuine dependency exists between criteria, that should drive the sequence, and it is worth marking those dependencies explicitly so that a later editor does not reorder them back.

There is one sequencing decision that repays more than any other, which is where to put the assessment requirements in the learner's view of the course. Learners told at the start what they will have to demonstrate read everything afterwards with a purpose, and materials that withhold the assessment until the end produce learners who have read passively for six weeks.