Scope does not expand with learner pressure

A person holds an instrument ground instructor rating and is preparing a ground lesson on approach interpretation. A learner asks the instructor to sign a practical-flight proficiency statement solely because the learner has completed the classroom exercises. The instructor has not conducted an authorized practical evaluation and the case supplies no separate flight-instructor authorization. The learner argues that the flight and ground lessons cover the same words and therefore must create identical privileges. The instructor needs to explain the distinction without devaluing the genuine learning achieved. The exercise is about professional scope, evidence and referral to an appropriately authorized instructor, not about inventing a current fee, eligibility age or administrative renewal deadline. Ground lesson records should accurately describe what was taught and assessed.