Published standard · Version 1.0
One decision must remain reconstructable from evidence to outcome.
Standard 1.0 organizes role-specific evidence without pretending that a total score can replace human judgment. The complete record shows what was assessed, which evidence mattered, who reviewed it, what remained uncertain, and why the final status followed.
ForClients reviewing managed delivery and assessment evidence
FocusWork-first curation, named specialists, and managed delivery
Shared dimensions
Role execution
Problem framing
Evidence and quality
Communication
Ownership and reliability
Risk and escalation
Domain fluency where the role requires it
Shared 0–4 anchor
Table — scroll horizontally to review every column.
| Score | Anchor | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Absent | Required evidence is missing, unusable, or materially outside the task. |
| 1 | Limited | Relevant evidence exists, but major gaps or unsupported assumptions prevent reliance. |
| 2 | Developing | The core approach is recognizable; material ambiguity, inconsistency, or unhandled risk remains. |
| 3 | Effective | Complete, coherent, role-appropriate evidence supports the decision with limitations visible. |
| 4 | Advanced | Evidence is effective and anticipates tradeoffs, failure modes, handoff, and decision needs without exceeding authority. |
Decision bands
Table — scroll horizontally to review every column.
| Band | Decision use |
|---|---|
| Ready | Evidence supports proposal for suitable work, subject to current status and direct client review. |
| Ready with bounded development | Core evidence is sound; a named limitation must be supported before or during a suitable engagement. |
| Development path | Material gaps prevent ready status; the record identifies what stronger evidence would require. |
| Process review | Integrity, conflict, accessibility, or procedure requires independent resolution before a quality decision. |
| Closed | The record cannot support further review under the current application or standard version. |
Critical conditions
A serious integrity failure, unsafe handling of confidential information, concealed assistance, material misrepresentation, inability to respect authority boundaries, or unaddressed high-consequence risk cannot be averaged away by strong scores elsewhere.
Evidence rules
Evidence must be relevant, safely shareable, attributable to the applicant's actual contribution, specific enough to challenge, and accompanied by material limitations. Redacted or recreated context is accepted when confidentiality requires it. Patient information, client secrets, credentials, private source code, and restricted employer materials are prohibited.
Decision authority
Scores organize the record. Assigned assessors decide the assessment status, record rationale, disclose conflicts, and escalate critical conditions. Commercial, Academy, and delivery owners cannot silently alter the assessment record.