But to determine whether Test 1 is currently satisfied, #USS needs to project assets that would be in the fund in 20 years' time, assuming 67% probable investment returns of prudent discount rate are realised. 2/
For confirmation of above, see this passage from p. 40 of Sept 2017 consultation document: 3/ 
See also these two screenshots from #USS's autumn 2017 response to Valuation Discussion Forum. First screenshot: 4/
Second screenshot (continuation of 1st screenshot): 5/5
👆.@Sam_Marsh101 would you agree with me that the above passages contradict #USS's statement to you that "the trustee's valuation methodology does not require the projection of assets based on current contribution rates"?
For @Sam_Marsh101's response to 👆, & further exchanges, click here for long but important subthread:
Below is another clear statement, from p. 5 of #USS's Sept 2017 consultation document, that the reliance on the covenant is the gap between the *assets* held by the scheme and the higher level of assets needed to purchase a self-sufficiency portfolio. 1/
Moreover, in order to determine whether "a 'self-sufficiency portfolio' is within affordable reach" (quoting last sentence from p. 5 above), what's relevant is whether the scheme has enough assets at yr 20 to get to self-sufficiency via +7% contributions from yr 20 to yr 40. 2/
The value of the liabilities at yr 20, when discounted at the technical provisions (TP) rate, is relevant to the affordability of a self-sufficiency portfolio at yr 40 only insofar as the TP liabilities correspond to the level of assets in the scheme. 3/
For the record, here's a screenshot from p. 18 of the Feb 2017 consultation document, which also makes explicit the relation between Test 1 technical provisions liabilities and scheme assets: 4/
And here's the diagram referred to above: 5/5
