__Hi Everybody__

Hope you all had a nice Easter Break

nice to see such an active and lively discussion

There are a number points mentioned that I would like to cover

There seems to be some confusion about what were actually discussing here, I must admit to not being entirely clear as to the purpose of this thread.

It also would appear to me that some extra distinctions are required in order to make clear what were actually discussing, and the overall purpose

__It would appear to me that there are two key topics being discussed here__

1: Should the data capture requirement for the Tiki include multiple fields for different Organs?
2: Should MHP students be expected to be able to do non linear health analysis?

After 9 years of teaching the Practitioner Level, Jo and I have developed much material that assists the students to develop their sophistication over time in a way that is natural

the majority of students coming to courses don't have extensive training in systems approach to enquiry or systems biology and any previous education, even so called "scientific" education is on the whole reductionistic, which doesn't prepare them for the necessary complexities and understandings required to conduct a thorough methodologically sound META-Health analysis 

It is on this basis that I would say that at the MHP level we tend to focus on students working backwards from a __single physical symptom and organ tissue__ through triggers and towards the underlying psycho-emotional conflict (tracks) to ease them into the world of META-Health. So I agree with Lars, Penny and Sidse and Lisbeth in this respect

In terms of a database for case studies, that is a different matter as we IMMA members require a single database for all case studies no matter what level someone is working from.
Therefore I would suggest there needs to be separate project to define a functional then later technical specification with the help of Thorsten to define a case study data model, that will stand the test of time.

So if the above is the case we would need to discuss the MHP case study data capture form and evaluation criteria alongside MHMP data capture forms and evaluation criteria. 

if we are to approach this discussion/exercise from a systems (META) perspective the following MHP, MHMP, MHS, MHT, MHMT, MHPE,   Syllabus, qualification standards, assessment and evaluation criteria would all be required to be discussed generally and as a whole before we can see how the MHP case study, examination and Viva evaluation all fit together to form a certification standard and how the MHP standard relate to the MHMP and MHMT standards etc..

as the case study forms only a part of the assessment criteria for MHP then to begin with and for the sake of being (META) systemic, it might prove advantageous to discuss this in relation to the test, and the live evaluation (VIVA) also

I feel this would allow a more comprehensive discussion about certification standards before we move on to making decisions about formalising any parts of the assessment system for any levels of education and certification being offered by IMMA certified MHMT's

In regards of the above I don't believe this to be the appropriate medium.  Zoom, or some other conferencing system might be preferable

Love, light and the energies of evolution to one and all