The trainers had made something of an effort this time, stringing together a narrative in which three characters interacted with one another during their day, dealing with the events that cropped up and occasionally cross-referencing each other. It wasn't exactly coherent, though, because it had to weave in many items in which I had to be essentially trained. I took the the characters out of order and it wasn't until the fourth lesson (out of nine) that I realised I'd done so.
As usual, the questions were a mixture of: things I knew anyway; things I'll never have any reason to know; things that I probably should know but will have to come back to the lesson again if I need them; and oppressive, humorless regulations trying to impose a stifling world view.
To be fair, at times the testers seemed painfully aware of the nature of what they were being asked to test. Many of the (multi-choice) questions described a situation in which what you would do and what you were supposed to do were held in stark relief. For example, if I want to invite an external speaker to the university do I familiarise myself with the university's policy on academic freedom and freedom of speech and the university's equality and diversity framework, then complete an online speaker notification form and risk assessment form, then wait 15 working days for the result of the review of the notification and risk assessment to determine if I can invite the speaker or not, whereupon (if approved) I'll take full responsibility for the organisation, management and running of the activity in accordance with the University's values, policies and legal obligations, taking into account any conditions attached to the approval decision, supported by relevant training and guidance and drawing upon other sources of support from within the University as necessary, after which I invite the speaker? Or do I not bother to invite the speaker?
This fine attention to process made many of the questions a breeze to answer. For example, even if you haven't taken the lesson and I don't tell you what the question is, you'll be able to choose the correct response from these two possible answers:
On the whole, though, it was a better experience than usual and the testers are to be commended for having tried to make it engaging. If nothing else, not using a gavel to illustrate legal issues counts as a major advance on previous essential training exercises.