Limulus
You raise an interesting point. You quote 'easy one to miss' - and I'd like to make clear that nothing here is at all derogatory to you or aimed at you - but rather AW's in general. The only direct 'disagreement' ( and its with a very small and polite 'D'
) is regards the responsibility upon the AW.
The PC relating to 4.2 to 4.6 each carry a triple '*' next to them and in bold lettering across the bottom is the injunction that these areas must be questioned if not using own larder etc. Most candidates should pick it up - but I would say that the trained AW is totally under obligation to be au fait with this requirement and simply has no excuse not to steer the candidate right in this regard.
Whilst ultimately DMQ have to return the portfolio to the Candidate for correction - it is their evidence etc - such omissions are recognised by the system as an error by the AW and remedial action is taken - from a gentle reminder on upwards. The candidate does need to make sure the portfolio is complete as L says - but that doesn't release the AW from his duty to do the job right.
Similar circumstances pertain to PCs such as 1.2 - must be questioned. 2.6 - must be one or more of observed, simulated or questioned and 3.5 - again marked with triple '*'. These elements are noted on the Portfoio, in AW briefing notes and belaboured at AW briefings. If even Captain Narcoleptic* here ( Andy ) can stay conscious long enough to get this, no other AW has any excuse.
Again - absolutely no issue with Limulus; he brought up a valid point. In my view DMQ have made things as clear as possible for AW's in terms of what is required. My gripe is with the few AW's still not on message.
* I kid you not!