These are the questions that come up in the first twenty minutes of a call, including the ones with an answer nobody likes. Where the honest answer is that the law does not require something, that is what it says.
Does this replace our LMS?
Usually not. An LMS manages courses somebody else authored and reports completion in a portal. Aristotl starts from your existing SOPs, manuals and standards and rebuilds them as short instruction for people who work on a floor. Nothing goes live without your review, which is also the honest limit: converting an out-of-date procedure faster only spreads the problem more efficiently.
Organisations that keep an LMS keep it for office staff, longer programmes and external catalogues. What moves across is the frontline layer: site rules, task instruction, procedure changes, induction.
Is a VCA diploma enough on its own?
No, and VCA itself says so. Chapter 3 has separate must questions for the diploma and for your own instruction. Question 3.2 covers a valid B-VCA and 3.3 a valid VOL-VCA, but 3.5 asks for the company's own VGM information and instruction programme including an onthaal, and 3.6 for instruction on the client's internal rules before work starts on site, demonstrable, with attendance lists.
An auditor who sees only a folder of diplomas writes a finding on 3.5 and 3.6. The diploma covers general safety awareness. It says nothing about your gate, your machine or this client's rules.
Who is responsible for instructing a temp worker?
In Belgium the floor instruction is the gebruiker's. Codex art. X.2-11 puts the risk information, the workpost safety instruction and the training under art. I.2-21 with the user or the designated member of the hierarchical line. The agency has duties around the werkpostfiche, but it cannot instruct on a workpost it has never seen.
In the Netherlands the Arbowet treats the inlener as employer for the worker made available, so the art. 8 duties apply there too. Art. 5 lid 5 adds a chain: the hirer gives the relevant RI&E description to the uitlener in good time before the work starts, so it reaches the worker.
What does an auditor actually ask for?
Fewer things than people expect, but specifically. For toolboxmeetings the VCA scheme asks literally for a list of dates and topics discussed plus attendance lists. In Belgium, the signed onthaal document under Codex art. I.2-11, second paragraph, 9°, per person. Under IFS Food version 8, clause 3.3.3, a participant list with signature, date, duration, content and trainer.
The pattern is who, what, when, and something showing it was received. Most organisations have the content and are missing the register.
Does the law require us to keep training records?
It depends which law. Belgium is explicit for the onthaal: a member of line management signs a document under his own name per beginning worker. ADR chapter 1.3.3 requires the employer to keep records of training received and produce them on request.
The Arbowet prescribes no form of proof. That is not the relief it sounds like: without a record you cannot demonstrate that art. 8 was satisfied, and art. 8 lid 4 separately requires you to supervise compliance.
Do workers need an app or a company device?
No. It runs in the mobile browser, with no installation and no company email address required, and works on a shared device. Much of this workforce has no company laptop, phone or login, and any requirement in that direction quietly excludes the people the instruction is for.
How are multilingual teams handled?
Each worker gets the content in their own language, translated per learner rather than as one deck for everyone. On most floors here a shift is Dutch, French, English, Polish and Romanian at once.
That is a compliance point, not a courtesy. Codex art. I.2-20 requires "passende instructies" before anyone enters a zone with serious and specific dangers, and VCA question 3.7 makes communication without language barriers a must question.
What happens when a procedure changes?
You update the source and publish a new version rather than rebuilding a course. Assignment goes to the roles and sites affected, and completion is recorded against the version live at the time.
That last part matters. Without versioning a record only says someone was trained. With it, the record says which procedure they were trained on, which is what gets asked after something goes wrong.
Are completion records exportable?
Yes. The dashboard shows completion per site, role and version, and the record exports so you can hand it over or attach it to an audit file, readable by someone who was not there and does not use the system.
Can each site or region have its own view?
Yes. Roles are scoped, so a site or area manager sees and manages their own locations while the central library stays intact. Nobody needs access to everything to chase their own numbers.
How do you handle privacy and data processing?
A DPA is available and the privacy policy sets out how data is processed. Your source documents remain yours. Anything specific to your legal or security review is best raised before a pilot.
If your question is not here, bring it to a demo, with one procedure you changed recently and the evidence you would have to produce if someone asked about it tomorrow.