What we measured, and how
Everything here comes from the national training register, the national register, which is public. There is no private data in this study and no provider was contacted for it.
- Population. 391 registered training organisations with a current registration. Not a sample and not weighted — a count of the providers we read.
- Live scope only. We looked at what a provider lists on its scope today. Historical scope — products it used to deliver and no longer lists — is excluded, which is why our numbers are lower than a naive read of the register would give. Why that distinction matters.
- Status. "Superseded" means the register's own status field says superseded. We do not infer it and we do not date it ourselves.
- Equivalence. "Not equivalent" is the register's own flag on the replacement, published alongside it. It is not our reading of the two products.
- Date. The register was read on 6 August 2026. It changes daily, so this is one day's photograph, not a trend.
- Aggregate. No provider is named, ranked or identifiable here. The one extreme case we describe is already published anonymised.
Two definitions of "training product"
The register uses one phrase for two very different things, and the answer changes depending on which one you count. We publish both, because a study that quotes one number without naming its definition is not a study.
Strict: qualifications, accredited courses and skill sets — the things a provider advertises, enrols into and issues. Broad: every training product on scope, individual units of competency included. Units are superseded often, and usually in batches when a training package is updated, which is why the broad number is so much larger.
The gap is the whole point. Under the strict definition 1.8% of providers (7 of 391) have fifteen or more superseded items on scope; under the broad one, 42.7% do. Both figures are true of the same 391 providers on the same day. When someone quotes a number about this sector, the first question worth asking is which of the two they counted.
The numbers
Everything we measured, in one table. Each row can be re-derived from the register.
| Measure | Value |
|---|---|
| RTOs with a current registration, measured | 391 |
| With at least one superseded qualification, course or skill set on live scope | 126 · 32.2% |
| With at least one whose replacement the register flags not equivalent | 23 · 5.9% |
| With fifteen or morestrict definition | 7 · 1.8% |
| Superseded qualifications, courses and skill sets counted in total | 323 |
| Median per affected provider | 2 |
| Most in a single provider | 34 |
| Median time since supersession | 11 months |
| Superseded more than five years | 15 products |
| Longest single product | 128 months |
| With at least one superseded product of any kindbroad definition — units included | 78% |
| With fifteen or more of any kindbroad definition — units included | 42.7% |
The shape of the distribution matters as much as the headline. Most affected providers have a small number — the median is 2 — and a few carry a lot: the largest single figure we found was 34 superseded qualifications, courses and skill sets on one live scope. Half of the 323 products we counted have been superseded for 11 months or less, so most of this is recent. 15 of them have been superseded for more than five years.
The oldest one in the count
One product in this census has been superseded for 128 months — more than ten years — and is still listed on a live scope. Not hidden: published, in a public register, every day of it. That provider is not named here or anywhere else on this site; the case is already published anonymised, with the register's own figures, if you want to see what one of these looks like up close.
What these numbers do not say
Three things this study is not
Not a judgement about any provider. A superseded product on scope is a fact of the register. Transition arrangements differ by product and by circumstance, and assessing them belongs to the regulator, not to us.
Not enrolments. Scope is what a provider is registered to deliver, not who is sitting in it. A superseded product on scope may have no learners in it at all. How many learners are actually in one is visible only inside a provider's own student management system — which is exactly why our enrolment cross runs in your browser and never sends that file to us.
Not our opinion on equivalence. Every "not equivalent" here is the register's published flag on the replacement. We copy it; we do not assign it.
What we could not see
The register publishes each product's status and what supersedes it. It does not publish the unit composition of a qualification: the component and packaging routes return nothing, and the release links come back empty. So the unit-by-unit comparison between a superseded product and its replacement — which units carried over, which changed, which are new — cannot be derived from the register at all. Someone has to open both training packages and read them side by side.
That is a limit of this study, and of every automated tool built on this register, ours included. We can tell you, from public data, that a product on your scope has been superseded and whether the register flags the replacement as equivalent. What the change actually consists of is human work, and we say so rather than implying our software knows.
Limits
This study describes what the national register publishes. It is not a judgement about any centre: transitions have their own arrangements and circumstances, and weighing them is the regulator's role.
It counts providers we could read with a current registration on one day; the register changes daily, so a re-run gives slightly different numbers. It counts live scope only, so it undercounts anything a provider has already removed. It says nothing about learners, delivery or quality, none of which the register publishes. And it names nobody: every figure here is an aggregate.
Read from the national training register on 6 August 2026. 391 RTOs with a current registration; live scope only, historical scope excluded. Qualifications, accredited courses and skill sets: 126 providers with at least one superseded (32.2%), 23 with at least one replacement flagged not equivalent (5.9%), 7 with fifteen or more (1.8%); 323 superseded products counted in total, median 2 per affected provider, most in a single provider 34; median 11 months since supersession, 15 superseded more than five years, longest 128 months. Counting every training product on scope with units of competency included: 78% with at least one, 42.7% with fifteen or more. No provider is named, and no provider was contacted for this study.
Check your own scope
The same read this study is built on, run on one RTO code: your live scope, what the register says about each product, and where it points next. It is free and every line is checkable against the register.
Straight link, if you already know your code: registerradar.com/?rto=YOUR-RTO-CODE
Journalists and sector analysts: the underlying counts, the definitions and the day's read are yours on request — write to contact@registerradar.com and we will send them as they came out.