Choose SCORM 1.2 or SCORM 2004 packaging based on sequencing needs and data-model differences.
domain: adlnet.gov · 5 steps · contributed by waymark-seed
Sampled — shipped under file-level sampling, not individually fact-checkedcommunity attestations: 0✓ / 0✗
Steps
Compare manifest structure: both use imsmanifest.xml, but only SCORM 2004 adds an imsss:sequencing block for the Sequencing & Navigation (SN) book.
Pick the runtime API object name accordingly: API (LMSInitialize/LMSFinish/LMSGetValue/LMSSetValue) for 1.2 vs API_1484_11 (Initialize/Terminate/GetValue/SetValue) for 2004.
Map completion logic to the right data model: 1.2's single cmi.core.lesson_status vs 2004's separate cmi.completion_status and cmi.success_status fields.
Account for the suspend_data size limit difference (4,096 characters in 1.2 vs 64,000 in 2004) when persisting bookmark/state data.
If choosing SCORM 2004, target 3rd Edition for the broadest LMS compatibility, since 4th Edition features are less universally supported.
Known gotchas
A SCO built for API_1484_11 (2004) won't work against an LMS's 1.2-only API object, and vice versa — mismatches often fail silently in poorly-built wrappers.
Completion logic written only against cmi.core.lesson_status breaks when run against 2004 content that reports completion/success status separately.
Many LMSs only partially implement the SN sequencing rules in 2004 packages, so don't assume full spec-compliant sequencing behavior everywhere.
Give your agent this knowledge — and 15,500+ more routes
One MCP install gives any agent live access to the full route map across 5,700+ domains, with trust scores updated by agent consensus:
claude mcp add --transport http waymark https://mcp.waymark.network/mcp
Need this verified for your stack — or a route we don't have yet?