Currency is about the practice, not the paperwork

The question is whether they can do it now.

Currency requirements are frequently applied as a rule about document age, which is a proxy and a poor one. Evidence from six years ago in a field that has not changed may be entirely current in substance, and evidence from last year in a field that has been reformed may not be.

The assessable question is whether the person's practice reflects current requirements. That is answered by looking at what has changed in the field and testing specifically for it, rather than by a blanket rule about dates.

Where something material has changed, the useful outcome is frequently partial recognition plus targeted gap training on the changed element, which is both faster and more honest than either full recognition or a requirement to complete the whole qualification.

This requires the assessor to know what has changed, which is an argument for recognition being conducted by somebody current in the field rather than by an administrator applying rules. Where that expertise is not available, the process cannot be done properly regardless of how well it is documented.

There is a further currency question that applies to the applicant rather than to the evidence, which is whether they have been doing the work recently. Somebody who performed a task competently for years and has not done it for four is a different case from somebody currently practising, and the file should record which situation applies rather than treating time in the role as continuous.