Despite what some of the other commentators have said, there is no meaningful distinction between year 11 and year 12 content, the teachers have to teach all the listed outcomes , in some order, regardless of their coding (ME-P1/ MA-M1.3/etc), the coding is largely done by pencil pushers at NESA who have presumably long since forgotten how to teach, consequently some of their coding and ordering makes absolutely no sense from a teaching perspective (this is also true of both the economics and physics curriculums which are a real dogs breakfast in terms of ordering), this is often why the good classroom teacher will move the modules around (in order to make the ordering more teachable).
Regarding the classification of the unit, induction has typically been considered to be part of sequences and series (Focus EX1 current and the last iteration of Camb did this), may be considered a standalone topic (as is the case in the current Camb and the current Howard), may be classed as proof (as is the case in the New Senior), and occasionally gets classed as harder EX1 topics (as was the case in Terry Lees 7th ed of the last course release for EX2).
I agree with most of what
@ZakaryJayNicholls is saying about the ordering of topics being questionable in some subjects.
In chemistry, for example, the way content in Module 1 (Year 11) is typically examined requires content from Module 7 (of the 8 Modules), not encountered until mid-Year 12 at the earliest.
In Maths, leaving the introduction of integration to so late is madness, IMO. I know of one school that did all of integration from Advanced, MX1, and MX2 together as a single block, and the MX2 content was baffling as the basic concepts had only appeared about two weeks before. Good teachers certainly do modify the teaching sequence, and it is sensible to do so.
Unfortunately, there are also teachers who re-order content in a questionable (or even asinine) way. I have seen teachers begin Year 12 Chemistry content with Module 5 (equilibrium) - which is what should be first - and others starting with Module 7 (organic chemistry) - which does large stand on its own, though parts of it do rely on Module 5. Both choices are defensible. However, I have also seen teachers choose to start with Module 6 (acids and bases), at least half of which relies on Module 5. I have never seen this result in anything but confusion, and a need to go over the entirety of Module 6 a second time, after Module 5 is completed. I have no idea how this seems a reasonable approach to anyone, but it does happen.
I do need to disagree with ZJN, however, on the year 11 vs year 12 distinction in terms of assessment. In the sciences, all HSC questions are supposed to be based in year 12 content (and thus in Modules 5 to 8). This does not mean that year 11 content is not examinable or examined, but it does mean that examination of year 11 content must go through a year 12 module context. Stoichiometric calculations, for example, won't be about some randomly chosen reaction, but instead tied to an organic system, an acid/base process, or one of the tests from Module 8. Equally, structure and bonding from Module 1 will most likely arise in the context of organic compounds, leaching or solubility equilibria, or the like. If there is some piece of year 11 content that an examiner wants to target, they can likely find a context in which to embed it to justify asking the question, but they are not supposed to choose freely from purely year 11 content.
