Locally Edited Core-Course Quiz and 23 Completions
Lakeside University assigns the centrally owned Core Course Requirements module, version 2024.1, to 74 incoming student-athletes and 12 athletics advisors. Last month a local advisor with content-editor rights edited two quiz items to match a conference presentation. Twenty-three learners completed the module after that edit. The central content owner has now published version 2025.1 with corrected items; the platform has locked 2024.1 for new enrollments but preserved the local draft and its completion records. The compliance director must decide whether the 23 completions count for the current certification cycle and whether to reassign everyone. The local edit log shows the advisor changed one answer key and reworded a second question. No central approval is attached. The certification deadline is in 12 days, and advisors are asking whether they must retake the module.
1. Do the 23 completions count? Lay out the decision process and the evidence you would use.
Read the worked answer
Start with the edit log, not the completion count. If the local advisor changed an answer key, the assessment no longer measures the central module's intended standard; that is a validity problem, not just a wording problem. The 23 completions are not automatically void, but they are not presumptively valid either. Compare the local draft with 2024.1 and 2025.1 item by item. If the changed answer key made a wrong answer correct, or the reworded item changed what was tested, require a targeted retake of the official 2025.1 assessment. If the edits were cosmetic and the content and key were unchanged, document that finding and accept the completions with a note. Because the module is centrally owned, local editing without approval is a control failure. Notify the content owner, freeze the local draft, and have the compliance director sign the disposition. Twelve days is enough for a short retake if you assign only the affected assessment, not the whole module.
2. What should change about local editing rights and version control after this incident?
Read the worked answer
Remove or narrow the advisor's content-editor permission. Centrally owned NCAA rules-education content should not be locally rewritten; if local context is needed, use a separate supplemental resource or announcement that does not alter the official assessment. Establish an approval workflow: proposed change, rationale, content owner review, version number, effective date, and communication. Restrict editing to a small named group and require a second approver. Turn on audit notifications for edits to live modules. For the current cycle, assign 2025.1 to all 86 learners, archive the local draft, and keep the edit log with the exception file. Test the 2025.1 assessment on a small group before broad assignment. The goal is not to punish the advisor but to prevent a local shortcut from becoming the de facto standard.
3. What should be in the compliance file, and what should the memo avoid saying?
Read the worked answer
The compliance file should include the roster snapshot, the version history, the edit diff, the disposition memo, and the remediation records. For each of the 23, record whether the completion was accepted, required a retake, or was replaced, with date and approver. For the 63 others, record the new assignment date and completion status. Include a short methodology note: which version was official, why local edits were unauthorized, and how the retake was validated. Do not write a legal interpretation of the core-course rule in the memo; stick to content-control facts and defer rule questions to the content owner. Retain the file under the institution's records schedule and make it readable by someone who was not in the meeting. If the central office issues a corrected module after the deadline, log it as a version change, not as a mass invalidation.