We’ve wandered a fair bit from the OP’s question, but it still seems somewhat relevant to the overall discussion (at least to me). Mods, feel free to peel off my tangent and stick it elsewhere if you think it’s not germane. I also want to preface my remarks my noting that I’m not criticizing the folks from SUAC or any of the posters. This particular issue is one of my pet peeves with some aspects of how the BSA has been managing the software since before the bankruptcy process really got rolling, and the position taken by the BSA on what the software is actually doing comes across to me as fundamentally dishonest, and I don’t make statements like that lightly.
I would argue not, since there is not actually any systemic requirement that anything have been done (i.e. submitted) before the Completed checkbox is marked. At best “Ready for Review” or something synonymous would be a clearer choice, if it is the BSA’s intent that this tickbox be used as simply an indicator that a scout believes that they are ready to have their advancement/award requirement reviewed by the designated leader. However, as currently implemented, the tickbox does not function like it means anything other than actually having completed the relevant advancement/award item. Please see my comments toward the bottom for specific discussion on that.
I would say yes, regardless of whether the box is interpreted as labeled and implemented in the software (i.e. that the work is actually completed, not just ready for review) or that the scout is ready for review (which is the official BSA position on the meaning and which the scout was not as presented in your hypothetical). Like @WilliamsburgScouter, I would be inclined to have a conversation with the parent about a couple of things. For me, the first would be that this is the scout’s journey, not theirs, and part of that journey is taking responsibility for their own advancement. The other major topic would be that neither their scout nor the troop as are well served by having a list of stuff that the scout is supposedly ready to demonstrate, youth leaders and/or scouters reserving time to work with the scout to review those items for sign-off, and then discovering that the scout is systematically unprepared to do so. It’s one thing when a scout is simply mistaken (e.g. has learned to tie a knot incorrectly, but thinks that they are doing it correctly). However, having one or more scouts or their parents who consistently indicate something is ready for review (or completed) for which the scout is not actually ready at all consumes limited resources within the unit without generating a proportional benefit.
For example, time allocated to teaching a skill using the EDGE method likely will be planned and implemented differently than time intended to test a scout on the same requirement. If you’re teaching scouts (whether you’re a scout or a scouter), you might try to gather a couple of them together who all need to learn the skill, or perhaps even refer them to the relevant instructor to teach it as part of their scope of responsibility within the troop. You might even try to recruit a scout whom you know needs to do their “teaching” requirements for Life rank to teach those requirements. If you’re just testing someone who already knows how to perform the relevant skill or reviewing other tasks they’ve already completed (e.g. 10 troop/patrol events for First Class 1a), that’s a one-on-one activity.
I personally dispute the position that the BSA has taken asserting that the Completed checkbox means “Ready for Review” and is analogous to the empty box on the left side of the handbook pages. It is tied directly into the visibility of “completion” for both scouts and their parents: once marked Completed, an award, merit badge or rank appears on the scout’s “dashboard” in Scoutbook implying that the work is actually completed and has been reviewed. In fact, the tooltip which pops up when hovering over the award or advancement item on the dashboard specifically says “ScoutName completed the BadgeName on Date”, whether the item has been marked Completed or Leader Approved. It is also tied into the Leader Approval (digital signature on review) process in a way that can easily result in erroneous sign-offs. This can not easily happen in a physical handbook, and no one would mistakenly give a scout an award or advancement badge based on a checkmark on the left side of a handbook page.
If the “Completed” tickbox is intended to be simply a placeholder indicating that a scout is ready to be tested, then things which are marked “Completed” should not automatically appear on a list of things to be Leader Approved, any more than a checkmark on the left side of a handbook page automatically generates a list of things which a SM or their designee believes need signing-off. Similarly, if something is marked Completed, it should not appear on the scout’s dashboard as though it has been reviewed and Leader Approved by a designated scout or scouter. Furthermore, the date entered for Completion is the date on which the award/requirement/rank item is officially recognized as having been completed/satisfied. That is inconsistent with the BSA’s position that Completed simply means Ready for Review. Yes, the designated leader can change that date to reflect the date on which the scout was actually reviewed for that item. However, all of these facts of implementation taken together undermine the BSA’s effort to redefine the word Completed to mean “Ready for Review”.
I agree that this would at least be a step in the right direction. However, actually fixing this issue is a far broader effort than simply changing the display name of the data field, as I hope was clear from my rambling above. :^) I recognize an actual fix this involves significant programming effort to unwind Completion from the actual code so that the implementation actually reflects Ready for Review rather than Completion. That’s significant programming and debugging effort which could (potentially better) be spent improving other areas or moving IA2 into a more complete and user-friendly form than currently exists. However, none of those goals are accomplished by asserting that an implementation means anything other than what it actually does, any more than calling an apple a banana changes the nature of the fruit. It seems like clearly acknowledging the facts of what the Completed field actually means in the software implementation and letting units set relevant local policies to deal with that software reality is more useful (and honest IMHO) than simply asserting that an apple is a banana.
I’ll note that I have surmised based on things which have been posted in the past that Scoutbook was originally implemented (long before the BSA purchased it) to permit parents and scouts to mark something as being actually Completed, because Scoutbook originated as software supporting packs and evolved to support troops, again prior to the BSA’s purchase of the software. That history is embedded in the code in pretty intrinsic ways, which means that we as users end up confronting conflicts between how the software was implemented and how the BSA wants the software to have been implemented. Could it be changed? Sure. Is it worth the programming effort to make that change? It’s arguable in both directions, depending on a combination of limits on resources and how priorities are set. However, in many cases, fixing fundamental decisions about software architecture can often be as complicated as fixing fundamental decisions about building architecture. It’s all good and well that a resident wants to turn their one-story house into a two-story. However, the structural walls and foundation may not support that. Even if they can structurally support the change, the costs (both money and non-monetary impacts like loss of use) may not justify the effort.
To work within the actual implementation of the software, I personally request that parents and scouts only mark something Complete in Scoutbook once the scout has actually been reviewed and signed-off by a scout or scouter designated by our SM. I also ask that they include enough information so that whomever is marking the Leader Approved tickbox can verify that the information was entered correctly. A photo of the signature page or a note in the comments indicating who signed it off, what date, and for what relevant actions is more than enough information to verify that the entry was not erroneous (or that it was, and should have been credited to a different requirement).
