I think we need a source for the statement on common core and pre-test placement in sub-100 level remedial courses before we debate on that too much. "It has been indicated" obscures the source, and often indicates an appeal to authority fallacy. This may be much ado about nothing.
However...
It's worth stating that the use of sub-100 remedial courses is highly correlated with failure to attain a degree, so anything that reduces the use of such courses is a good thing. Realistically, they should not be needed by recent high school graduates, who should be graduating fully prepared for college. The fact that they're largely not prepared has been left as a problem for the colleges to solve, and the expansion of sub-100 courses is one of their very few options (rejecting applicants being another).
So, IF curriculum standards are designed such that certain courses aligned to them adequately prepare students for college, AND the grades earned in those classes reflect the level of success for the individual students in attaining that preparation, THEN it follows that for such students who completed such courses with sufficient grades, no pre-screening or remedial course placement should be necessary.
