Compliance training that produces evidence, not just certificates
Most eLearning proves one thing: someone clicked through a module. Regulators, auditors, and informed buyers are starting to ask harder questions. Here's why format matters.
Try a scenario — no sign-upSide by side
| Feature | Standard eLearning (click-through slides) | Blend scenario training (interactive narrative) |
|---|---|---|
| What learners do | Read slides, answer recall questions | Make decisions as a character inside a real regulatory situation |
| Evidence produced | "Completed module" timestamp + pass/fail score | Decision-level data: what each learner chose, when, and how long they deliberated |
| Audit readiness | Certificate of completion | Decision log showing applied knowledge — not just recall |
| Regulatory standard met | Completion evidence only | Proportionate, assessable, role-appropriate — meets "sufficient" standard (AI Act Article 4) |
| What it teaches | What the regulation says | What to do when the regulation applies — under realistic pressure |
| Engagement | Passive — learners click to advance | Active — every screen requires a decision |
| Replayability | None — same experience every time | Different paths on different runs — learners explore consequences |
| Deployment | SCORM in any LMS | SCORM in any LMS, or hosted link — no LMS required |
What regulators are actually asking for
EU AI Act Article 4 requires AI literacy that is "proportionate to the context, the role, and the complexity and impact of AI systems." That's not a completion certificate. It's evidence that the training was role-appropriate and that the learner can apply the knowledge.
NIS2 Article 20 requires management bodies to undergo "cybersecurity risk-management training" — not awareness. Board members need to demonstrate they can make the judgements the regulation demands. A timestamp proving they watched a video doesn't show that.
DORA requires staff to understand ICT risk management and incident response — not just to know the regulation exists. When a supervisory examination team from the ECB or BaFin asks what training you ran, "we had slides" is a different answer to "we ran a scenario where staff had to classify and report an ICT incident."
What "decision evidence" means in practice
Every Blend scenario tracks what each learner chose at every decision point — not just whether they clicked through. After a pilot, you can report:
- 94% of staff completed the scenario (vs industry average of ~40% for standard compliance eLearning)
- Average decision score: 78/100 — showing the majority can apply the regulation under pressure
- Most common error: 62% of staff chose to delay incident notification in the ransomware scenario — identified as a training gap, addressed in follow-up
- Three staff members scored below 50 — flagged for additional coaching before the audit window
These are illustrative target metrics — to be replaced with real pilot data once available.
Who we're compared against
The main alternative in EU regulatory compliance eLearning is Lawpilots (Berlin) — 45 courses, 35 languages, present on Leapsome and Go1. Their format is traditional: videos, text screens, knowledge checks. They have the catalogue; we have the format.
Generic providers like Skillsoft and SAI360 have thousands of courses — none of which are built around the specific decision points of NIS2 Article 20, DORA's operational resilience framework, or AI Act Article 4 risk classification. Breadth versus depth.
We don't compete on volume. We compete on what happens when an auditor asks your organisation to prove staff can actually apply the regulation.
See the difference in 15 minutes
Try any scenario. No sign-up, no form. Then try the alternative. The comparison speaks for itself.