The vocabulary of a standard is not readable prose

It was written for precision, not for comprehension.

Units of competency are drafted to be unambiguous to assessors and regulators. That produces nominalised, passive and highly specified language which is appropriate for a standard and unreadable as instruction.

Copying that language into learner material transfers the precision and loses the meaning. A learner reading about the implementation of documented organisational procedures in accordance with legislative requirements has been told nothing they can act on.

The rewrite is straightforward and consists mostly of restoring verbs and actors. Say who does what. Break the sentence. Use the ordinary word for the thing rather than the standard's term, and introduce the standard's term once, explicitly, where the learner will need to recognise it.

The terminology still has to be taught, because assessment will use it, and the way to do that is to name it as vocabulary rather than to write the whole resource in it.

A useful check is average sentence length. Materials in this sector routinely run well above what is comfortable for the intended audience, and simply splitting the longest sentences improves comprehension measurably.

It is worth adding that the same language problem affects assessment instructions more seriously than content. A learner who misreads a page of content can recover; one who misreads what a task is asking produces work that fails for reasons unrelated to their competence, which is an assessment validity problem rather than a literacy one.