No problem mate, I understand you clearly. I have highlighted the issues raised in my evaluation result as I understand it with my institution and provided a copy of the evaluation report to the school. It is quite likely they will send the same documents as they can not be amended, lest it will be misrepresentation. I think they will have to provide clarification and appendixes about some course contents and some areas that might have been highlighted on course curriculum but not represented on transcript due to the fact that they were not examined as stand alone modules but were covered extensively as part of a broader course. An example that comes to mind here is "Human growth and development (child psychomotor development)". While we didn't cover this as a stand alone module, this was covered extensively under pediatrics neurorehabilitation. This has never been an issue with the Alliance prior to recently. To the best of my knowledge, the Alliance credentialing officers are quite familiar with this type of variation in presentations and overlap of course content across different countries. As I said before, it is looking increasingly likely that the external assessors who now do the initial evaluation are not yet familiar with this variability or the Alliance has become a bit more prescriptive as to how course information should be presented. Either way, it is causing a huge problem for most applicants.
Do you know of anyone from your institution who have completed or are well advanced into the credentialing process? It may give you some ideas of what to expect in your case. You may be one of the lucky ones, who knows