Your LMS has somewhere between 40 and 400 modules in active circulation, plus an archive of legacy content nobody has touched since the last LMS migration. Some of those modules are central to how your organization trains. Some are mandatory but ignored. Some are excellent and need nothing. Some should have been retired three years ago.

Before you commit to rebuilding any module as an AI-augmented experience, you should know which modules in your catalog are worth rebuilding. This post is the audit we run with new clients to answer that question — usually as the first engagement before any module build is committed.

What the audit produces

A ranked list of every module in your catalog, with a recommended action per module:

• Rebuild. Strategic value to the org is high, current interactivity is low, source content is in good enough shape to drive a simulation. These are the highest-ROI candidates for an AI-augmented rebuild.
• Refresh. Core structure is sound, but content is stale or rubric is missing. A one-week refresh build, not a full rebuild.
• Leave alone. Module is doing what it needs to. Don't touch it. (You will be surprised how many of your modules land here.)
• Retire. Module is obsolete, redundant with another module, or covers content that is no longer organizationally relevant. Recommend pulling it from the catalog.

The deliverable is a 20-30 page report plus a spreadsheet your team can sort and filter. Every recommendation includes the reasoning, so when your CHRO or your CFO asks "why this one and not that one" you have the answer in writing.

The five dimensions we score each module on

1. Interactivity score (1-5). What does the learner actually do during the module? Watch only? Click through? Answer multiple choice? Practice in scored simulation? Most legacy modules score 1 or 2.
2. Data-capture potential (1-5). Would rebuilding this module produce strategic data that someone in your org would actually use? A leadership-skills module taken by all new managers produces high-value signal. A niche product-feature training taken by 12 people doesn't.
3. Adult-learning-principles fit (1-5). How well does the current module apply Knowles, Mayer, and the multimedia learning principles? We score against an explicit rubric you can see.
4. Source content quality (1-5). Is there enough SME documentation, slide depth, recorded example material, or written playbook to drive a simulation rebuild? Some modules look promising but the underlying content isn't documented well enough.
5. Strategic value to the org (1-5). How central is this module to a function the business depends on? Sales onboarding, customer escalation training, regulatory compliance — high. The 2018 brand-style refresher — low.

The recommendation per module is a function of these five scores. A module scoring 1 on interactivity but 5 on strategic value and 4 on data-capture potential is your highest-priority rebuild. A module scoring 4 on interactivity but 1 on strategic value is "leave alone."

What we look at to produce the scores

• The SCORM packages themselves (or whatever format the modules live in)
• Last 12 months of completion, time-on-module, and score data from your LMS
• Learner feedback if you collect it (Net Learner Score, post-module surveys, helpdesk tickets that reference training)
• A 30-minute conversation with each business-unit L&D lead about which modules they get complaints about and which they get praise about
• The competency frameworks each module is mapped to in your LMS

We don't need access to anything you can't already export. The audit runs against materials your L&D team already has.

How long it takes

One business week for a catalog of up to ~60 modules. Larger catalogs scale roughly linearly — a 300-module catalog runs three weeks. The audit can run in parallel with any other L&D work; we don't need your team's time beyond the 30-minute conversations and the initial export of LMS data.

What you do with the audit

Three common patterns:

• The "top three" play. Take the three highest-scoring rebuild candidates and commission them as a 2026 H2 program. Six weeks total elapsed (each module is two weeks; we can run two in parallel). Budget is known in advance.
• The "retire and consolidate" play. Use the retire and refresh recommendations to clean up the catalog. Often this alone produces a measurable jump in learner satisfaction because the dead-weight modules stop showing up in search results.
• The "data-capture priority" play. If your CHRO is asking for people-analytics signal from training, sort by the data-capture column and rebuild those first. This is the path that turns L&D from a cost center into a research function.

What this costs

The audit is fixed-fee in the low five figures for a typical mid-market catalog. It's included free when you commission a multi-module rebuild engagement in the same SOW.

If you're not ready to commit to any module build yet, the audit is a low-risk way to find out where the actual ROI lives in your catalog before you write a larger check. Most clients who run it discover that the modules they were planning to rebuild aren't actually the highest-ROI candidates — and discover one or two unexpected modules that are.

The first conversation

If you'd like to run an audit on your catalog, the next step is a 15-minute discovery call where we look at the catalog at a high level and confirm whether the audit makes sense for you: https://learningdevelopment.solutions

Learning Development Solutions is a service of Latchmere Consulting. We are AI training consultants and design and development partners. The catalog audit is our usual first engagement — we don't recommend a module rebuild until we've looked at what's worth rebuilding.