Competence vs completion

Most training reporting answers one question: did they finish it? Completion rates prove attendance, not understanding. Vidext's measurement philosophy is different: the goal is competence — whether people can actually do what the training was meant to teach.

What Vidext captures today

Every published module emits first-party learning signals as people learn:

• Sessions — when a learner studied, for how long, and how much of that time was active versus idle.
• Scene-level progress — which scenes were entered, completed, or abandoned, so you can see where a module loses people, not just whether it was finished.
• Module completion — derived from actually moving through the content, not from clicking a button.
• Quiz performance — every answer, its correctness, and attempts, captured as structured data. Answer content is stored as structured facts (which option, right or wrong), never as raw free text.

These signals are tied to the specific published version a learner saw, so measurements stay accurate even as content evolves.

Where this is going

Activity and completion are the floor, not the ceiling. The roadmap direction is comprehension and applied competence: detecting knowledge gaps from quiz patterns and learner questions, surfacing what people misunderstand rather than what they skipped, and connecting learning to the work it was meant to enable. Practice formats beyond quizzes — such as roleplay — are part of that direction and are not available today.

What to do with this as an L&D team

• Treat scene abandonment as a content signal: a scene everyone drops is a scene to rewrite.
• Treat quiz misses as a knowledge signal: a question most people fail points to a gap in the material or in the org.
• Treat completion as table stakes — necessary, but never the headline you report alone.