Well the main question's been answered, so we're clearly into interesting thread drift now
Now there's an interesting question.
Of course, I'd expect microlight differences training to cover handling, basic emergencies, and the airmanship to be adequate. I'd also cover micro-meteorology, and low level flying, microlight check mnemonics, PtF rules - all the stuff that's specific to microlights.
But, for example, a skill test includes DR Nav on a diversion. Particularly given that most pilots nowadays use other means than old fashioned DR/PLOG to get around and seem to cope - it doesn't seem to me that in differences training I should be training somebody back to skill test pass standard in nav again, when I know damned well they're not going to do it that way?
Similarly, if I'm doing tailwheel differences for somebody - I clearly will be doing lots of take-offs, landings, taxiing. But their ability to fly a PFL: however important I think it is (and I might also include that, for example, in a syndicate checkout where the syndicate want a minimum overal standard of flying), doesn't really change with the tailwheel beyond the last 20 feet that I'm covering circuits anyhow. Ditto navigation. I'd need that at a minimum standard for the skill test, but don't see why I should be covering that - or even looking into it - in tailwheel differences training?
And EFIS differences training? Do their landings need to be up to skill test standard? Well it's a good thing, but it's not my job if I've just been asked to train somebody how to use a Garmin 1000.
I might point out that somebody has weaknesses and suggest they get training in that area, but if we allow too much mission creep, the poor folks will never get to fly on their own!
G