Branching scenario examples for workplace training, with a template to copy

We make Reigniter, one of the tools mentioned below, so we are not neutral. Everything here about another company's product comes from that company's own page, listed at the end and read on 10 November 2026. The three examples were written for this article. They are not customer projects.

Three depths of branching

Elucidat, now sold by Confirm under the name Create, publishes a clear set of definitions in its design guides.

• Shallow branching. "for each choice made, the learner sees the consequence of this decision before getting put back on the right path."
• Best, imperfect and poor outcomes. A step deeper: "there is the opportunity for an 'imperfect', as well as correct and incorrect decision to be selected and played out."
• Deep branching. "each choice takes the learner down a different path, allowing them to truly drive the narrative".

The same guide says branching scenarios can also assess, not only teach: "Questions can be scored, and course completion can be based on reaching a certain passmark." That is what makes a scenario useful as evidence that training happened.

Example 1: site safety (shallow)

Situation. Near the end of a shift, a learner notices a pallet stacked above the safe height in a busy aisle. Nobody has been hurt.

Choice.

• A. Leave it. It is not their area. Consequence: the next scene shows a colleague walking into the aisle with a trolley. Recap: hazards are everyone's business. Back to the choice.
• B. Restack it and say nothing. Consequence: the hazard is gone, but the cause is never found and it happens again next week. Recap: fixing it is good, reporting it is how it stops. Back to the choice.
• C. Make it safe if they can, then report it the same day. Consequence: the supervisor thanks them and the stacking rule is reissued. Carry on.

One decision, three outcomes, one way forward. This pattern fits most compliance topics.

Example 2: data protection (imperfect outcomes)

Situation. A learner has just emailed a spreadsheet of customer details to the wrong person outside the company.

Choice.

• A. Delete it from Sent and hope. Poor: the data is still with the recipient, and nobody who can act knows.
• B. Email the recipient and ask them to delete it. Imperfect: a sensible first step, but the organisation still does not know.
• C. Tell the data protection lead straight away, following the breach procedure. Best: the people who need to act can do so in time.

The imperfect option is the one that teaches, because it looks reasonable. The module has to show why it is not enough. Keep the exact reporting rules in your own policy wording, checked by whoever owns it.

Example 3: customer service (deep)

Situation. A customer calls, angry that a delivery is three days late.

First decision.

• A. Explain the delivery policy. The customer gets angrier. Second decision: apologise now, or transfer the call.
• B. Apologise, then ask what happened. The customer calms down and explains the order matters for an event. Second decision: promise a date you cannot check, or check the tracking and call back with a real answer.
• C. Transfer straight to a manager. The customer has to repeat everything. The path ends with a recap on owning the problem.

Each first choice leads to a different second decision, so there are several endings. Map every path on paper before you build it. Elucidat's guide gives the same advice: "make sure you map out each path ahead of time".

A template you can copy

MODULE: [one behaviour, e.g. report a near miss the same day]PASS MARK: [set before anyone takes it]ATTEMPTS AND TIMER: [one attempt? a time limit?]
SCENE 1. SITUATIONWho, where, what has just happened (two or three sentences)
DECISION 1. [the question the learner answers]  A. [best choice]      -> consequence -> next scene  B. [imperfect choice] -> consequence -> recap -> back to Decision 1  C. [poor choice]      -> consequence -> recap -> back to Decision 1
FEEDBACK LINES  Right:  [one sentence on why it works]  Wrong:  [one sentence on what was missed]
SCENE 2 onwards. Repeat for each decision.
SUMMARYThe one rule to remember, and where to find the policy

Keep each consequence to one scene. If a consequence needs three scenes to explain, the decision is probably two decisions.

Building it

Several authoring tools describe branching on their own pages. Articulate Storyline describes building "realistic, branching scenarios". iSpring Suite describes branching logic where a "wrong answer → extra explanation; correct answer → harder question". ActivePresenter Pro includes a Scenario Editor for "Branching learning paths". Adobe Captivate lists branching scenarios and simulations. Elucidat's guides show both shallow and deep examples built in its tool.

Reigniter handles the shallow pattern in a presenter-led module. "A question scene branches: the right answer carries on, a wrong one goes to a correction and loops back." The presenter can say well done or not quite before the course carries on, and you can add a timer to a page or a whole section, then set a pass mark. Learners take it from a share link, on your website, or in your LMS as SCORM 1.2. A pass can issue your own certificate.

Branching uses steps. Our product page puts it plainly: "A course with three checkpoints spends twelve scenes on branching alone before any content exists". Plan for that when you count scenes. If your design needs deep branching like example 3, check that a tool's own pages describe it before you buy.

To see a checkpoint question in a finished module, watch our short customer service and phishing awareness examples. Each is under half a minute.

Who Reigniter does not suit

• Teams who want the scenarios written for them. "Reigniter is the platform: your team builds, edits and publishes its own modules, and owns them."
• An LMS that requires SCORM 2004. "We do not offer a 2004 export."
• Large scenarios in one module. "Up to 150 steps in a single module." Longer documents are split into parts.
• Trying a full scenario for free. The free plan includes one module of up to 5 steps, with questions and branching, shared by link.
• Teams on our Pro plan. Interactive training "is not part of Pro". It starts at $149 a month.

Before you build the real thing

Write the scenario in the template first. Read it aloud to someone who does the job. If they say nobody would ever choose that, replace the option with what people really do. Then build one decision, test it on three people, and only then build the rest.

For the wider build process, see how to create interactive training videos.

Sources

Read on 10 November 2026.

Other companies

• Confirm (Elucidat), designing branching scenarios
• Confirm (Elucidat), branching examples
• Confirm (Elucidat), simple branching scenarios
• Articulate Storyline
• iSpring Suite features
• ActivePresenter pricing
• Adobe Captivate

Start free and try it on one real document.