---
name: he-program-intake
description: "Guide evidence gathering and question-led intake for a university course or program before curriculum mapping, accreditation work or learning design. Use for a new program, a new evidence library or material gaps in program context. Defaults to La Trobe University."
metadata:
  short-description: Gather evidence and clarify a university program
---

# Program intake

*Author: Cam Anderson (hello@camanderson.au). Licensed CC BY 4.0.*

Help staff assemble the evidence and context needed for their actual task. Assume La Trobe University unless evidence or the user says otherwise. State that default once; do not repeatedly ask which university. Staff confirm decisions and approve the resulting work.

## Start from what is available

Read workspace instructions and existing program records first. Inspect connected sources when available within the requested scope. Inventory the supplied permitted evidence before asking staff to repeat it. Identify the requested output, course/award, relevant subjects, structure or entry cohort, teaching period and any deadline supported by evidence or the user.

Apply the privacy gate before extraction, registration or archive. Request curriculum-only copies of records and LMS exports without users, submissions, grades or logs. Keep student work and identifying student data outside the library, including de-identified actual submissions. Use roles and placeholders for staff; remove identifying document metadata and filenames from retained permitted copies. Do not ask staff to paste private material into chat. Record only a safe request for a permitted copy when screening cannot establish suitability.

For each supplied item, record title, type, date/version, source or system, approval state, scope, precise locator and availability. Separate approved curriculum, delivered material, working proposals, external requirements and a user's contextual answers. A user's explanation can resolve intent or lead to evidence; it does not turn a draft into an approved course record.

## Guide evidence gathering

Give a short, prioritised checklist tailored to the requested task. Explain what each item will establish, where staff may find it and what a permitted copy should contain. Read [references/evidence-and-context.md](references/evidence-and-context.md) for the gathering menu and question prompts. Do not request every item by default.

Usually begin with the approved course record and structure, subject records/outcomes, and the evidence that defines the task. For mapping, obtain assessment instructions and rubric criteria before claiming direct assessment coverage. For accreditation, obtain the body, exact standards/version and current decision or requirements. For LMS work, obtain the module sequence, delivery pattern, approved assessment context and available learning materials. Ask for authorised original templates when a required output uses one.

For every request, include priority, owner role, required version/scope, why it matters, the next action if unavailable and whether it blocks the requested claim or only limits detail. Offer small useful batches so staff can start with accessible evidence.

## Quiz only what the evidence leaves unclear

First show a compact account of what the evidence establishes, what is provisional and what is missing. Ask a small batch of targeted questions, usually three to five, using the user's terms. Explain why each answer changes the work. Adapt follow-up questions to answers; do not deliver a static questionnaire or repeat resolved questions.

Resolve material uncertainties such as:

- Which course/award, qualification level, structures, campuses, modes and subjects does this task cover? Which subjects are owned by the program and which are contributed by other areas?
- Is there an external professional accreditor, registration body, industry recognition or contractual requirement? There may be multiple bodies. If none is confirmed, record that explicitly; an empty answer means unknown.
- What exact standards, graduate outcomes, university requirements and applicable versions govern this scope? What evidence establishes applicability, exclusions and transition arrangements?
- Are there current conditions, monitoring requirements, review findings, due dates or submission instructions? What is their authoritative wording?
- Who reviews curriculum facts, assessment, specialist content and final release, expressed as roles? What decisions or templates are still needed?

Do not assume that a degree has professional accreditation or that a familiar body governs this particular award. Read the supplied accreditation statement and official primary sources, checking current versions and transition dates online when possible. Distinguish institution-wide quality requirements from program-specific accreditation. If access is unavailable, request a dated official copy and mark currency/applicability unresolved. Do not invent an accreditor, regulatory obligation, standard ID or deadline.

## Subject level and approved scope

When a subject code contains digits, use its first numeric digit as a provisional indication of subject seniority: higher digits suggest more advanced study. For example, BUS1001 provisionally precedes BUS3002. Label the inference and use evidenced outcomes, assessment demands and prerequisites to refine learning depth. Ask if a code has no useful numeric signal or the evidence conflicts.

This hint does not establish award/AQF level, year in a particular course, entry cohort, structure membership, semester, offering or prerequisites. Obtain those from approved records. Do not equate a code digit with a foundation/developing/advanced mapping result. Course codes identifying an award may have a different scheme; apply this heuristic to subject codes only.

## Retain a reusable context record

For a library setup or update, retain a draft `_registers/program-context.md` with:

- institution and basis (default, evidence or user confirmation);
- official course code/title, award/AQF level and source locators;
- task/output, course structures, cohorts, periods, modes, campuses and subject ownership;
- each accreditor/body and status: confirmed applicable, confirmed none, proposed or unknown;
- framework/standard title, owner, version, effective/transition dates, applicable scope, evidence and review state;
- decisions and owner roles, templates and delivery constraints;
- evidenced facts, separately labelled inferences and user confirmations;
- unresolved questions, blocking dependencies and date updated.

Retain `_registers/evidence-requests.csv` with header `request_id,priority,claim_or_question,item_needed,why_needed,owner_role,required_scope,required_version,status,blocking,next_action,source_ids,locator`. Use `ER-0001` style stable IDs. Status is `requested`, `supplied`, `unavailable` or `resolved`; supplied evidence is not automatically sufficient. Use ISO dates and UTF-8 CSV. Follow existing compatible schemas rather than replacing registers. If the user wants advice only, return the same content in chat without creating a library.

## Complete the intake for the next task

Return what is established, the next evidence batch, remaining questions and which work can proceed. Intake completion is task-specific: unknown accreditation may block an accreditation claim while an evidenced lesson blueprint can proceed. Continue independent work while awaiting answers; keep dependent claims pending. Do not mark missing answers as approval or as no applicable requirement.

Hand evidence ingestion and mapping to `he-curriculum-library-builder`, evidence planning to `he-accreditation-evidence-strategist`, formal reporting to `he-accreditation-docs`, independent review to `he-auditor`, and learning design to `he-lms-module-builder` when available. Otherwise perform only the requested work within these evidence boundaries. All generated records remain drafts for staff review.