Statement of Principles concerning peripheral artery disease (Balance of Probabilities) (No. 71 of 2020)

The SoP operates as a legalised nexus test framed as a medical assessment on the balance of probabilities. Its central conceptual pieces are:

• A legal definition of peripheral artery disease that focuses on atherosclerotic occlusion of limb arteries and enumerates clinical manifestations and the requirement that medical treatment is warranted (s 7(2)). The instrument clarifies that, although PAD attracts ICD‑10‑AM code I70.2, the statutory meaning is the textual definition in the instrument (s 7(3)).

• A prescribed, finite list of factors that, if present and related to relevant service, suffice to establish connection on the balance of probabilities (s 9). The instrument distinguishes factors that relate to clinical onset from those that relate to clinical worsening, with largely overlapping categories but replicated timing rules (s 9(1)-(25)).

• Quantified and technically specified exposure thresholds in the Schedule which convert common clinical or exposure histories into legalised evidentiary thresholds. Examples: dyslipidaemia thresholds are numerical (HDL < 1.0 mmol/L; LDL > 4.0 mmol/L; triglycerides ≥ 2.0 mmol/L; total cholesterol > 5.5 mmol/L) or ongoing lipid‑normalising therapy (Schedule 1). One pack‑year is defined as 20 cigarettes per day for 1 year or equivalent, with an equivalence of 7,300 grams of smoking tobacco per pack‑year and a calculation method exemplified in the Schedule. Second‑hand smoke exposure is defined by hours in enclosed spaces and has separate thresholds and time windows for ceased versus continuing exposure (s 9(6)-(7), (18)-(19)).

• Timing and relational constraints. Section 10(1) requires that any listed factor be related to the person’s relevant service. Section 10(2) establishes that the factors in subsections 9(13)-9(25) apply only to material contribution or aggravation where PAD was present before or during but did not arise out of service. Therefore the SoP treats onset and aggravation as distinct legal concepts with different factual matrices.

• Cross‑reference mechanism to other SoPs. If a listed factor in s 9 refers to an injury or disease that is the subject of another SoP, the other SoP’s factors apply according to their terms (s 11). This embeds a system of interlocking medical standards rather than a single, self‑contained test.

• A technical radiation standard. The definition of cumulative equivalent dose points the decision‑maker towards the ARPANSA Guide to calculation of 'cumulative equivalent dose' as the methodology for dose reconstruction (Schedule 1). That anchors radiation claims to a specified technical method rather than ad hoc assessment.

These core concepts translate clinical, behavioural and exposure histories into a legalised checklist: if at least one qualifying factor in s 9 existed before the relevant clinical event and is shown to be related to relevant service, then the SoP supports the finding of service connection on the balance of probabilities (s 9; s 10). The Repatriation Medical Authority expressly frames that conclusion as based on the sound medical‑scientific evidence available (s 8).

The instrument is targeted at claimants and decision processes governed by the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. It applies to a claim to which section 120B of the VEA or section 339 of the MRCA applies (s 5). Those statutory cross‑references identify the universe of claims where this SoP is relevant, namely claims involving veterans or members whose service falls within the defined categories of relevant service in the Schedule (see the Schedule definition of relevant service).

Who bears the evidentiary burden under this instrument is not restated in the instrument itself, but application of the SoP operates within the claims systems regulated by the VEA and MRCA. Practically, affected parties include:

• Claimants: veterans or members who lodge claims for PAD or death from PAD where the claim is under s 120B VEA or s 339 MRCA. Claimants will need to show the presence of at least one of the factors in s 9 and that the factor is related to their relevant service (s 9; s 10(1)). For factors that are temporal or exposure‑based, claimants must supply evidence mapped to the Schedule definitions (for example, pack‑year calculations, second‑hand smoke hours, radiation dose reconstruction per ARPANSA guide).

• Medical professionals and treating practitioners: clinicians who provide documentary evidence on diagnoses (for example dyslipidaemia thresholds or chronic kidney disease duration), treatment histories (use of nilotinib or ponatinib), and documentation of inability to obtain appropriate clinical management (s 9(25); Schedule 1). The SoP converts clinical measurements into legal thresholds the decision-maker will expect to see.

• Administrative decision‑makers under the VEA and MRCA: while the instrument does not name a specific decision maker, the SoP is made under s 196B(3) VEA by the Repatriation Medical Authority and applies to claims governed by particular sections of the VEA and MRCA (s 3; s 5). These decision‑makers will apply the SoP’s factors and definitions when determining whether PAD or death from PAD is connected with relevant service.

• Technical specialists: where radiation exposure or cumulative dose is asserted, the instrument explicitly requires the use of a specified ARPANSA methodology for calculating cumulative equivalent dose (Schedule 1), creating a role for dosimetrists or technical assessors.

• The Department administering VEA/MRCA entitlements: while not specified in the instrument, any favourable findings under the SoP have downstream fiscal and administrative consequences for the entitlements system, because the SoP forms part of the medico‑legal basis on which connection is assessed (s 8 provides the RMA’s medical‑scientific view).

The SoP also affects legal representatives, advocates and reviewers who must navigate the technical thresholds (pack‑year equivalence, 1.0 sievert dose threshold, 3‑month chronic kidney disease requirement) when assembling or contesting evidentiary material. Where a listed factor cross‑refers to another SoP, parties must consult and apply the other instrument according to s 11.

The instrument itself establishes no criminal duties or private rights in the colloquial sense. Instead it establishes legal standards that inform duties and entitlements under the VEA and MRCA claims processes. The key operative duties and rights arising from the instrument are as follows.

Duties imposed on decision processes via evidentiary standards:

• Decision‑makers applying s 120B VEA or s 339 MRCA must treat the list of factors in s 9 as the indicators that can, on the balance of probabilities, connect PAD or death from PAD with relevant service, provided the factor is related to the person’s relevant service (s 9; s 10(1)). The instrument therefore constrains the factual inquiry by enumerating qualifying factors rather than leaving causation to unbounded medical opinion.

• Where a factor in s 9 refers to a disease that has its own SoP, the duty is to apply that other SoP in accordance with its terms (s 11). This creates an inter‑instrument obligation to consult the separate SoP.

Duties on claimants (practical, evidentiary duties):

• Claimants will need to produce evidence mapping to the Schedule’s definitions (for example, dyslipidaemia numerical thresholds in Schedule 1, chronic kidney disease duration of at least three months, pack‑year calculations and equivalence examples) to establish that a listed factor existed before clinical onset or clinical worsening as required (s 9; Schedule 1). For radiation claims, claimants or assessing agencies must calculate cumulative equivalent dose in accordance with the ARPANSA methodology referenced in the Schedule.

• For aggravation claims, claimants must show that the PAD was suffered or contracted before or during relevant service but did not arise out of service, because subsections 9(13)-9(25) apply only to material contribution or aggravation where that timing constraint is met (s 10(2)).

Rights impacted through the claims process:

• A favourable application of the SoP,meaning a finding that a listed factor existed and was related to relevant service,supports the legal finding of connection on the balance of probabilities, which will be an element in establishing entitlement under the VEA or MRCA claim provisions to which this SoP applies (s 5; s 8; s 9). The instrument itself does not specify the precise entitlements or benefits; those stem from the parent statutes.

Procedural and technical consequences:

• The Schedule’s references impose technical duties on decision-makers and assessors to adopt specified calculation methodologies, for example for cumulative equivalent dose (Schedule 1). The ARPANSA guide is prescribed as the method for dose reconstruction (Schedule 1), which shapes how radiation exposure must be demonstrated.

Limitations and conditionality:

• The instrument conditions the applicability of many factors on relation to relevant service (s 10(1)) and, for aggravation, on pre‑existing disease not having arisen out of service (s 10(2)). It does not, however, create independent enforcement powers or penalty mechanisms; it is a medico‑legal standard to be applied within the VEA/MRCA decision framework.

In short, the SoP creates legalised evidentiary thresholds and timing rules that function as duties on administrative decision‑makers and as practical evidentiary obligations on claimants, with the right consequence being the potential support for service connection findings under the parent statutes.

This instrument contains no penal sanctions, criminal offences, or specific enforcement mechanisms within its text. It is an administrative medical standard made under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA (s 3) and its primary operation is within the claims adjudication processes to which it applies (s 5). The SoP does not itself prescribe fines, imprisonment, or civil penalties. Its enforcement is indirect and procedural, operating through the statutory claims processes under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004.

How the SoP affects enforcement in practice:

• Administrative effect: The SoP sets out conditions that, if met, support a finding on the balance of probabilities that PAD or death from PAD is connected with relevant service (s 8; s 9). Decision‑makers considering claims under s 120B VEA or s 339 MRCA will apply the SoP to determine causation or contribution. Any administrative consequences, for example award of entitlements, arise from the parent statutes and administrative rules rather than from the SoP itself.

• Evidentiary consequences: Failure to meet the SoP’s specified factors or to demonstrate relation to relevant service to the decision‑maker’s satisfaction will likely result in an adverse finding on service connection. That outcome is an administrative decision within the VEA/MRCA framework and is subject to the review and appeals mechanisms those statutes prescribe. This instrument does not define review or appeal rights; those are found in the governance of the parent statutes.

• No investigatory or compulsion powers: The SoP does not create powers to compel medical examinations, nor does it prescribe investigatory procedures. The Schedule requires use of an external technical guide for certain calculations (ARPANSA methodology), which may entail technical enquiries, but the SoP itself does not create enforcement powers to obtain such evidence.

• Interaction with other enforcement regimes: Section 11 requires that if a factor refers to a disease covered by another SoP, the other SoP applies (s 11). Enforcement consequences that derive from such cross‑application remain administrative rather than penal.

For practitioners advising clients, the operative enforcement landscape to consider is the administrative decision and appeal framework of the VEA and MRCA, not penalties embedded in this instrument. The SoP functions as a binding medico‑legal standard to be applied within those processes; compliance failures manifest as adverse entitlement decisions rather than sanctions imposed by the SoP itself.

This instrument is expressly constructed to sit within the legal architecture of veterans’ entitlements and compensation. The primary cross‑statutory interactions are provided in the text:

• Parent statute and authority: The instrument is made under subsection 196B(3) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (s 3). That identifies the Repatriation Medical Authority’s statutory power to determine Statements of Principles. The SoP therefore derives its legal effect from the VEA’s Part XIA framework and the RMA’s delegated function under that Act.

• Application to specific claim provisions: Section 5 specifies that the instrument applies to claims to which section 120B of the VEA or section 339 of the MRCA applies. Those sections in the VEA and MRCA are the statutory hooks that bring claims into the SoP’s scope. The instrument does not restate or modify the substantive entitlement rules of those Acts; it supplies medico‑legal criteria to be applied within them.

• Interaction with other Statements of Principles: Section 11 creates a mechanism for cross‑application: if a factor in s 9 is itself an injury or disease covered by another SoP made under subsection 196B(3), then the factors in that other SoP apply in accordance with its terms (s 11). This produces hierarchical and networked interactions among SoPs; a decision maker must consult relevant other SoPs where factors cross‑refer.

• Technical law and guidance references: The Schedule defines cumulative equivalent dose and prescribes the methodology in the ARPANSA Guide to calculation of 'cumulative equivalent dose' for the purpose of applying ionising radiation factors contained in SoPs determined under Part XIA of the VEA (Schedule 1). That anchors radiation exposure assessment to a specialised technical guide outside the instrument, bringing specialist radiation protection law and technical standards into the claims process.

• Medical classification conventions: Section 7(3) acknowledges ICD‑10‑AM code I70.2 but clarifies that the statutory meaning is the definition in s 7(2). This interaction illustrates that international coding systems are informative but subordinate to the instrument’s defined legal meaning.

Absent express disapplication or savings provisions in the compilation, the SoP operates as part of the statutory decision framework: it does not amend, repeal or alter the substantive entitlement provisions of the VEA or MRCA, nor does it create independent rights enforceable outside those statutory regimes. Claims arising under other statutes or outside s 120B VEA and s 339 MRCA are not within the stated application of this instrument (s 5). The instrument’s cross‑references therefore produce an ecosystem of medico‑legal standards that sit behind administrative determinations under the VEA/MRCA, and that can call in specialised technical guides and other SoPs where relevant.

The compilation includes an amendment history in the endnotes. The original instrument, Statement of Principles concerning peripheral artery disease (Balance of Probabilities) (No. 71 of 2020), was registered on 30 October 2020 and commenced on 30 November 2020 (endnote 3). A subsequent amendment, Veterans' Entitlements (Statements of Principles,definition of "one pack‑year") Amendment Determination 2022 (No. 94 of 2022), was registered on 26 August 2022 and commenced on 19 September 2022 (endnote 3). The endnote table (Endnote 4) identifies specific amendments: the Schedule definition of one pack‑year and related notes were revised by the 2022 determination; notes to subsections 9(4), 9(5), 9(16), and 9(17) were updated by that same instrument (Endnote 4).

What the amendment history in the compilation shows to practitioners:

• The instrument is capable of being amended by further determinations made under the parent Act. The 2022 amendment changed the Schedule definition of one pack‑year and clarifying notes that appear in subsection 9 locations. That demonstrates the RMA’s capacity to modify exposure thresholds and evidentiary conventions in response to new policy, medical evidence, or technical considerations.

• The compilation includes explanatory endnotes and an amendment table that record the registration and commencement details for both the original SoP and the subsequent amendment (Endnote 3). Practitioners must consult the compiled text and the endnotes to understand which version is in force on a given date. The compilation notes that uncommenced amendments and modifications are not shown in the text and must be checked on the Legislation Register if relevant.

• The Schedule’s definition of cumulative equivalent dose references a guide "as in force on 2 August 2017" for methodological calculation (Schedule 1). This is a technical anchoring to a dated guide; future amendments to the ARPANSA guide or to the SoP may change how radiation dose is calculated for claims.

• Amendments to SoPs may alter legal thresholds that materially affect claims. The 2022 amendment to the one pack‑year definition changed the equivalence and calculation examples (Schedule 1), which directly affects whether an applicant meets the smoking‑related thresholds in s 9(4), s 9(16) and the cessation rules in s 9(5), s 9(17). Practitioners advising clients on historical smoking records must be alert to which definition applied at the time of claim assessment.

• The compilation cautions that modifications made by other laws may not be reflected in the text and underlines that for uncommenced amendments one must consult the Legislation Register (Compilation notes). That is an administrative risk practitioners should mitigate by confirming the current text and commencement dates before advising clients or lodging evidence.

In short, the SoP has been amended at least once since its registration, with adjustments to smoking measurement conventions. Changes to technical definitions and thresholds can change claim outcomes; therefore continuous reference to the current compiled instrument and its endnotes is necessary for accurate advice.

The compiled instrument does not include or reference any judicial decisions or litigation arising from its application. The text of the SoP, the Schedule, and the endnotes contain no case law citations. The instrument is an administrative standard produced by the Repatriation Medical Authority under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA (s 3), and its legal effect is as an element in the administrative decision‑making framework of the VEA and MRCA. Any litigation challenging application of this SoP to particular claims would occur in the statutory review or judicial review forums available under the parent Acts or general administrative law, but the instrument itself does not name cases nor indicate reported decisions.

Practical implications for practitioners:

• Absence of cited litigation in the compilation does not imply that administrative decisions applying the SoP cannot be subject to merits review or judicial review. The instrument is evidence of the RMA’s medical‑scientific view and will be used by decision‑makers; challenges to adverse decisions would typically litigate whether that decision correctly applied the SoP, whether the factual findings were supported, or whether procedural fairness and statutory requirements were observed. The compilation itself contains no record of such proceedings.

• Where a factor cross‑refers to another SoP (s 11), disputes may involve interpretive questions about how multiple SoPs interact or about the application of numerical thresholds in the Schedule. Such technical questions are plausible subjects for litigation, but none are recorded in this compilation.

• For radiation dose, the Schedule anchors dose calculation to a specific ARPANSA guide. Litigation in other contexts has historically engaged technical dose reconstruction methodologies. This SoP’s reference to a specified methodology may narrow the scientific dispute to the application of that guide. The compilation does not record litigation about its use.

• Practitioners should search the administrative decisions and judicial databases outside the compilation for any tribunal or court decisions that interpret or apply this SoP to specific claims, because the instrument’s compilation is silent on litigation history. The endnotes and compilation metadata indicate the instrument’s registration and amendment history but do not provide case law.

In short, the instrument as compiled contains no litigation history for counsel to cite, but the SoP will necessarily be implicated in future administrative and judicial review processes arising from claims under the VEA and MRCA.

The SoP contains a number of technical features and timing rules that commonly cause factual and evidentiary failures if overlooked. These are practical traps and interpretive control points to watch for when preparing or reviewing claims.

1. Definition overrides ICD code: Section 7(3) expressly states that, although PAD attracts ICD‑10‑AM code I70.2, the meaning of PAD for the SoP is the definition in subsection 7(2). Do not rely solely on a billing or ICD code; decision‑makers will expect the textual elements in s 7(2): atherosclerosis causing partial or complete occlusion and either medical treatment warranted or specified clinical manifestations (s 7(2)-(3)).

2. Onset versus worsening: The instrument has parallel lists of factors for clinical onset and for clinical worsening (s 9(1)-(12) and s 9(13)-(25)). For aggravation claims, subsection 10(2) restricts the applicability of the worsening factors to material contribution or aggravation where the disease was suffered or contracted before or during, but did not arise out of, relevant service. That timing nuance is decisive; failing to establish pre‑existing disease where aggravation factors are invoked will lead to unsuccessful reliance on s 9(13)-(25) (s 10(2)).

3. Smoking thresholds and cessation rules: The Schedule defines one pack‑year and provides an explicit conversion and calculation method (Schedule 1). Section 9 sets different thresholds depending on whether smoking permanently ceased prior to the clinical event. For onset and worsening, a continuing smoker needs only one pack‑year (s 9(4), s 9(16)). If smoking permanently ceased, the thresholds are higher (at least five pack‑years, or between one and five pack‑years with clinical onset/worsening within 20 years of cessation) (s 9(5), s 9(17)). Claims must document accurate cessation dates and pack‑year calculations to meet the timing windows.

4. Second‑hand smoke quantification: The instrument quantifies second‑hand smoke exposure by hours in enclosed spaces (s 9(6)-(7), s 9(18)-(19) and Schedule). The thresholds differ for ongoing versus ceased exposure (1,000 hours while ongoing; 5,000 hours or 1,000-5,000 hours with onset/worsening within five years of last exposure). Records of work or living environments and corroborating testimony may be necessary; vague assertions of exposure risk failing to meet the stated hour thresholds.

5. Technical radiation threshold and methodology: The SoP requires a cumulative equivalent dose of at least 1.0 sievert to the affected artery (s 9(11), s 9(23)). The Schedule prescribes the ARPANSA guide and methodology for dose calculation (Schedule 1). Dose reconstruction is a specialist exercise; poor or absent dose reconstruction evidence will impede claims alleging ionising radiation as a causal factor.

6. Drug‑specific factors: The SoP names nilotinib and ponatinib specifically (s 9(12), s 9(24)). Claims relying on tyrosine kinase inhibitors must show use of those agents. Use of other kinase inhibitors will not satisfy the named factor unless another SoP or evidence supports causation.

7. Chronic kidney disease timing and evidentiary standard: The Schedule defines chronic kidney disease as an abnormality of kidney structure or function present for at least three months (Schedule 1). Short‑term renal impairment does not meet the chronicity requirement. Documentation demonstrating the three‑month duration and objective measures is necessary.

8. Inability to obtain appropriate clinical management: Section 9(25) lists "inability to obtain appropriate clinical management for peripheral artery disease" as a factor. That wording is open to factual contest. Decision‑makers will expect contemporaneous evidence of attempts to access care and barriers encountered. The instrument does not define what counts as "appropriate" or how long the inability must have persisted, creating a potential evidentiary ambiguity.

9. Relation to relevant service: Section 10(1) requires that any factor found must be related to relevant service. The Schedule defines "relevant service" categories. Practitioners must draw a clear link between the timing or circumstances of exposure and the person’s recognised relevant service; generalized assertions without service‑linked evidence will be insufficient.

10. Cross‑SoP dependencies: Section 11 brings other SoPs into play where factors refer to other diseases. Practitioners must check for and apply any referenced SoPs; failing to consult them can produce incomplete or inconsistent submissions.

In practice these "gotchas" translate into documentary obligations: accurate dates, quantified exposure metrics, drug histories, objective test results, radiation dosimetry where relevant, and contemporaneous records of access to care. Overlooking the Schedule’s numeric thresholds or timing windows is a common reason claims fail.

To present a claim likely to satisfy the SoP’s standards under s 120B VEA or s 339 MRCA, practitioners should assemble focused, time‑stamped, and technically compliant evidence mapped squarely to the instrument’s text and the Schedule definitions. Key steps and evidence categories are:

1. Establish the diagnosis as defined in s 7(2)

• Obtain medical records that demonstrate atherosclerosis of one or more limb arteries and evidence of partial or complete occlusion. Show either that medical treatment was warranted or that clinical manifestations listed in s 7(2)(b)(i)-(iii) were present (chronic limb ischaemia, critical limb ischaemia, intermittent claudication or other exertional leg pain restricting walking). Do not rely solely on an ICD code; the statutory meaning is the text in s 7(2) (s 7(3)).

2. Map the relevant factor in s 9 and its timing

• Identify which subsection of s 9 the claimant seeks to rely on. Is it an onset factor (s 9(1)-(12)) or a worsening/aggravation factor (s 9(13)-(25))? For aggravation factors, confirm that PAD was suffered or contracted before or during relevant service and did not arise out of service (s 10(2)).

3. Produce objective clinical evidence for biomedical factors

• Hypertension, diabetes mellitus and dyslipidaemia: supply GP and specialist records, test results and, for dyslipidaemia, the numeric lipid values that meet Schedule thresholds (HDL < 1.0 mmol/L; LDL > 4.0 mmol/L; triglycerides ≥ 2.0 mmol/L; total cholesterol > 5.5 mmol/L) or documentation of ongoing lipid‑lowering therapy (Schedule 1).
• Chronic kidney disease: include laboratory reports, imaging, biopsy results, urinary markers or a record of kidney transplant demonstrating the abnormality for at least three months (Schedule 1).
• Hyperhomocysteinaemia: include lab results and clinical notes showing elevated homocysteine prior to onset or worsening.

4. Document smoking and second‑hand smoke exposure precisely

• Smoking: calculate pack‑years using the Schedule method. Show cessation dates if relevant. If smoking has not permanently ceased, one pack‑year suffices (s 9(4), s 9(16)). If smoking permanently ceased, demonstrate either at least five pack‑years or 1-5 pack‑years with onset/worsening within 20 years of cessation (s 9(5), s 9(17)). Use the Schedule’s conversion where necessary for non‑cigarette products.
• Second‑hand smoke: provide evidence of hours spent in enclosed spaces exposed to smoke and dates. For ongoing exposure, 1,000 hours is the threshold (s 9(6), s 9(18)). For ceased exposure, show either 5,000 hours or 1,000-5,000 hours with onset/worsening within five years of last exposure (s 9(7), s 9(19)).

5. Document radiation exposure with dose reconstruction where claimed

• If relying on therapeutic radiation or cumulative ionising radiation dose, obtain clinical radiotherapy records and, where required, a dose reconstruction calculated by the ARPANSA method referenced in Schedule 1 (cumulative equivalent dose ≥ 1.0 sievert to the affected artery) (s 9(10)-(11), s 9(22)-(23); Schedule 1). Engage a qualified dosimetrist or specialist reviewer to prepare a report that follows the ARPANSA guidance.

6. Demonstrate drug exposure

• For tyrosine kinase inhibitor factors, provide prescribing and dispensing records showing use of nilotinib or ponatinib prior to clinical onset or worsening (s 9(12), s 9(24)).

7. Evidence of inability to obtain appropriate clinical management

• Where invoking s 9(25), produce contemporaneous records of attempts to access care, referral letters, records of refusal or resource constraints, and any correspondence with health services. Show dates and the nature of the barrier to treatment.

8. Link factors to relevant service

• For each claimed factor, prepare a concise chronology linking the exposure or disease to the person’s period and nature of relevant service as defined in the Schedule. For aggravation factors, ensure the sequence demonstrates that disease existed before or during service but did not arise out of service (s 10(2)).

9. Cross‑check for other SoPs

• If a factor refers to an injury or disease covered by another SoP, obtain and comply with that SoP’s requirements (s 11). This may require additional documentation or technical evidence specified in the other SoP.

10. Prepare for technical evidentiary scrutiny

• Use objective, dated test results and specialist reports rather than lay statements where possible. For cumulative radiation dose and chronicity measures, use domain experts who can certify that their methodology aligns with the Schedule requirements.

11. Administrative process

• Lodge evidence in accordance with the application forms and procedural rules of the VEA or MRCA claims process specified in the relevant statutory framework. The SoP does not specify claim forms or procedural mechanics; follow the administrative practice directions and evidence rules of the deciding authority.

12. Recordkeeping for amendments

• Check the current compiled SoP and endnotes to ensure the applicable definitions (for example one pack‑year) are those in force at the time of assessment, as the 2022 amendment changed the pack‑year definition and associated notes (endnotes).

Following these steps aligns an evidentiary presentation with the terms of the SoP and reduces the risk of rejection for technical non‑compliance. The key task for advisers is to convert medical and exposure histories into the precise metrics and timeframes the instrument prescribes, and to map those to the claimant’s relevant service in a clear chronology.