# Preparing for Quality Review: the VRITE Self-Assessment The Maturity Check, evidence and improvement plan before applying for the Global Quality Seal. ## About this course **Course ID:** ICB-P18 **Framework alignment:** ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF), skill QUAL "Quality assurance and accreditation" (VRITE pillar: Rigor), level L3 "Enable", stage A "Ability". At level L3 the skill reads: runs self-assessment against a quality framework; prepares for external review; implements improvements. At the Ability stage you practise this on realistic tasks, in a controlled setting such as a case or project, using the knowledge you already have. **Who this course is for** - L&D and corporate academy leads - Programme and micro-credential leads - Quality, registry and admissions staff - Professional bodies and sector associations - ICoBC Accredited Partners **Prerequisite:** ICB-F09 Quality in Credentialing: How Trust Is Built. **Learning outcomes.** After this course you can: 1. Assess a credential programme against the VRITE criteria using the Maturity Check. 2. Collect and organise evidence for each pillar. 3. Prioritise improvements before an external review. 4. Prepare the application and the review interview for the Global Quality Seal. **Workload.** This is a blended cohort course with 10 hours of notional learning. This file covers the self-paced part. Live and workshop elements appear as facilitator notes. **How it is assessed.** You complete a Maturity Check with an evidence index and an improvement plan for a real programme or a realistic case. A tutor reviews the work with the rubric in "Assessment and badge". You also answer a short knowledge check in this file. The file does not grade your task. **Badge.** "Preparing for Quality Review: the VRITE Self-Assessment (Ability, L3)", alignment code ICSF-QUAL-L3-A. Badge evidence: Maturity Check; evidence index; improvement plan. | Outcome | Module | How it is assessed | |---|---|---| | 1. Assess a credential programme against the VRITE criteria using the Maturity Check | Gap analysis | Maturity Check in the final task; knowledge check; tutor rubric | | 2. Collect and organise evidence for each pillar | Evidence by pillar | Evidence index in the final task; knowledge check; tutor rubric | | 3. Prioritise improvements before an external review | Improvement plan | Improvement plan in the final task; knowledge check; tutor rubric | | 4. Prepare the application and the review interview for the Global Quality Seal | The review process; Preparing for the review interview | Interview preparation notes in the final task; knowledge check; tutor rubric | > **Status note.** The ICoBC VRITE criteria and the Global Quality Seal are at status Emerging. Indicators are not yet published, internal documents use different expansions of the acronym, and pilots are ongoing. This course therefore teaches a method you can reuse once the indicators are final. Where this course uses pillar names, they are working labels. Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. > **How to use the practice material.** Pick one programme to work on throughout the course. It can be a real credential programme you manage or the case supplied in each module. Keep a single working folder. By the end it holds your Maturity Check, evidence index and improvement plan.

Facilitator notes

Run a 60 minute kick-off session before the self-paced work. Ask each participant to name the programme they will use and to bring one document that describes it. Pair participants from different contexts, for example a college and a corporate academy, so each person explains their programme to someone outside it. Agree the date of the tutor review and the submission format (one folder or one combined document).

## The review process ### What the Global Quality Seal review is for The Global Quality Seal is the ICoBC mark for credential programmes that show quality across the VRITE pillars. An external review looks at your programme from outside. It checks that what you claim is true and that you can show it. Because the indicators are still emerging, treat the review as a conversation about evidence. Reviewers want to see that you know your programme, that your claims match your records, and that you act on weaknesses. A self-assessment is the step before that review. You run it on your own programme, using the same logic a reviewer will use. It has three aims: - to find gaps while you still have time to close them; - to build an evidence set that is easy to hand over; - to give the team a shared, honest picture of where the programme stands. ### The five stages of preparation This course follows five stages, and each stage is one module: 1. **Understand the review process.** Know the steps, the roles and the timeline. 2. **Gather evidence by pillar.** Find and organise what proves your claims. 3. **Run the gap analysis.** Score each pillar with the Maturity Check. 4. **Plan improvements.** Choose which gaps to close first and who does what. 5. **Prepare for the interview.** Rehearse how you present the programme and answer questions. ### Roles in the process A self-assessment works best with named roles. Typical roles are: - **Review lead:** owns the preparation, keeps the timeline and is the contact for the reviewers. - **Pillar owners:** one person per pillar, who collects evidence and scores the pillar. - **Challenger:** a person outside the programme team who tests scores and asks for proof. - **Sponsor:** a senior person who approves resources for improvements. In a small team one person may hold several roles. Keep the Challenger separate where you can. People who built the programme tend to score it generously. ### What to expect from the external review Exact steps may change as the pilots continue. Plan for these elements and check the current process with ICoBC before you apply: - an application with a description of your programme and supporting evidence; - a review of documents by trained reviewers; - an interview with the people who run the programme; - a decision, with feedback on strengths and areas to improve. **Worked example: a college plans its first review** A regional college, which we call Northfield College, runs a 60 hour "Digital Skills for Care Work" micro-credential. The programme lead, Amara, is the review lead. She builds a plan from the five stages: - Weeks 1 and 2: she reads the ICoBC guidance, names pillar owners and books the Challenger, a quality officer from another faculty. - Weeks 3 to 5: pillar owners collect evidence. - Week 6: the team runs the Maturity Check and meets to agree scores. - Weeks 7 to 10: the team closes the highest-priority gaps. - Week 11: Amara and two colleagues rehearse the interview. - Week 12: the application goes in. All dates and durations are illustrative. Amara leaves slack at the end. She knows that improvements often take longer than planned. **Practice activity: build your preparation plan** 1. Choose the programme you will work on for the whole course. 2. List the people who could fill the four roles. Mark any role that has no candidate. 3. Draw a simple timeline with the five stages. Put a date next to each stage. 4. Identify the single biggest risk to your timeline, for example a pillar owner with little time. Write one action to reduce it. 5. Save the plan in your working folder as "01 Preparation plan".

Facilitator notes

In the live workshop, give each pair 20 minutes to sketch the plan on a flipchart and 10 minutes to swap with another pair for challenge. Ask the challengers one question only: "What would make this plan fail?" Collect common risks on a shared board and revisit them in the improvement plan module.

### Check your understanding **Question 1.** What is the main purpose of a self-assessment before an external review? [( )] To replace the external review with an internal decision [(X)] To find gaps early, build an evidence set and give the team a shared picture of the programme [( )] To prove to the reviewers that the programme has no weaknesses [( )] To collect marketing material for the programme website **** A self-assessment prepares you for the review. It does not replace it. Its value lies in finding gaps while you can still close them, and in building evidence you can hand over. **** **Question 2.** Why is it useful to have a Challenger who sits outside the programme team? [( )] Because outsiders must approve every score before it counts [( )] Because the Challenger writes the application for the team [(X)] Because people close to a programme tend to score it generously, and an outsider tests scores and asks for proof [( )] Because the review rules require an outside person on every team **** The Challenger role improves the honesty of the scores. It is good practice, and it does not replace the external reviewers. **** **Question 3.** The VRITE indicators are not yet published. What is the best way to prepare? [( )] Wait until the indicators are published before doing any preparation [( )] Invent your own indicators and treat them as official [(X)] Build the method and the evidence habits now, and map your evidence to the indicators once they are final [( )] Copy the indicators from another quality scheme and submit them **** The method of scoring, collecting and organising evidence is reusable. You can start now and adjust when the final indicators arrive. **** **Question 4.** Which stage comes immediately after "Gather evidence" in this course? [( )] Prepare for the interview [( )] Plan improvements [(X)] Run the gap analysis [( )] Understand the process **** The order is: understand the process, gather evidence, run the gap analysis, plan improvements, prepare for the interview. **** ## Evidence by pillar ### Evidence is a claim plus proof Every statement you make about your programme is a claim. Evidence is the record that lets someone else check the claim. "Assessors are trained" is a claim. A training log with dates, names and content is evidence. Good evidence has five qualities: - **Relevant:** it relates directly to the claim. - **Current:** it reflects how the programme works now. - **Specific:** it names who, what and when. - **Verifiable:** a reviewer can check it, or see where it came from. - **Sufficient:** there is enough of it, across time and across cases, to show a pattern. One document rarely proves a claim. A policy shows intent. Records show practice. Results show effect. Aim for at least two kinds for each important claim. ### The five pillars and example evidence The working labels for the pillars in this course are Value, Rigor, Inclusion, Trust and Evidence. Internal ICoBC documents use different expansions of the acronym, so check the current names before you apply. The evidence ideas below stay useful whichever labels are used. | Pillar (working label) | The question it asks | Example evidence | |---|---|---| | Value | Does the credential matter to earners, employers and providers? | Employer consultation notes; skills mapping; earner follow-up results | | Rigor | Is it assessed fairly and consistently? | Assessment design, marking guides, moderation records, assessor training log | | Inclusion | Can people with different needs and backgrounds take part? | Accessibility review, adjustments policy, enrolment data by group (anonymised) | | Trust | Can others verify and rely on it? | Verification process, data protection notice, complaints and appeals record | | Evidence | Does the programme measure and use its own results? | Completion data, learner feedback, review minutes, improvement log | ### Evidence where AI is used in the programme If AI tools are part of your programme, reviewers can reasonably ask for extra evidence. This applies when AI is used in teaching, in assessment, in marking, in identity checks, in recommending content or in handling data about earners. Typical evidence includes: - **A register of AI use:** where AI is used, for what task and by whom. - **Human oversight:** who reviews AI outputs, how often, and what they can change. - **Assessment integrity:** how you tell earner work from AI-generated work, and what the rules for earners are. - **Fairness checks:** how you check that AI-supported decisions do not disadvantage groups of earners. - **Data handling:** what earner data goes into AI tools, on what legal basis, and where it is stored. - **Disclosure:** how you tell earners and employers that AI is used. If you do not use AI in the programme, write that down in one sentence in the evidence index. A clear "not applicable" saves a reviewer a question. ### Organise evidence in an index An evidence index is a table that lets anyone find a document in under a minute. For each item record: | Field | Purpose | |---|---| | ID | A short code such as R-03 for a Rigor item | | Pillar | Where it belongs | | Claim supported | The statement it backs | | Document | Title and file name | | Owner | Who keeps it up to date | | Date | When it was created or last reviewed | | Strength | Strong, partial or weak, with a note | **Worked example: a corporate academy builds an evidence index** A corporate academy in a logistics company offers a "Safe Warehouse Practice" credential to staff. Dev, the academy lead, owns the review. For the Rigor pillar he writes the claim: "All assessors are trained and their marking is checked." He finds four items: - R-01: assessor training log for the last two years (strong: names, dates, content). - R-02: marking guide for the practical assessment (strong). - R-03: a moderation record from one session (partial: only one session in two years). - R-04: an email saying "moderation happens regularly" (weak: a statement, not a record). He rates the claim as partly supported. He notes that R-04 should not be offered to reviewers as proof. The real gap is regular moderation records. He passes this to the gap analysis. All details are illustrative. **Practice activity: start your evidence index** 1. Open your working folder and create a table with the seven fields above. 2. For each pillar, write two claims you make about your programme. 3. Find at least one piece of evidence for each claim. Enter it in the index and rate its strength. 4. Mark each claim with no evidence as "gap". 5. Add one line on AI: either list the AI evidence you hold, or write that AI is not used. 6. Save as "02 Evidence index (draft)".

Facilitator notes

In the workshop, run a 45 minute "evidence swap". Each participant gives one claim and its evidence to a partner, who plays a reviewer and asks: "How would I check this?" Participants then upgrade the rating or note what is missing. Remind participants to remove personal data of earners from anything they share in the group.

### Check your understanding **Question 1.** Which of these is the strongest evidence for the claim "Assessors are trained"? [( )] An email from the programme lead saying that assessors are trained [( )] A job description that says assessors must be trained [(X)] A training log with names, dates and course content for the last two years [( )] A slide in the programme brochure that mentions trained assessors **** A log with names, dates and content is specific and verifiable. The other options state intent or make a claim without records. **** **Question 2.** Why should you aim for more than one kind of evidence for an important claim? [( )] Because reviewers count the number of documents and prefer large folders [(X)] Because a policy shows intent, records show practice and results show effect, so together they build a convincing case [( )] Because one document is never allowed by the review rules [( )] Because a second document replaces the need to check the first **** Different kinds of evidence answer different questions. Quantity alone does not matter, but a mix of policy, records and results is persuasive. **** **Question 3.** A programme uses AI to give first-pass marks on written tasks. Which evidence best supports its quality claim? [( )] A statement that the AI tool is accurate [( )] The AI tool's marketing material [( )] A list of earners who passed [(X)] A register of the AI use, records of human review of AI marks and a check for unfair patterns across groups **** Reviewers will want to see where AI is used, who oversees it and whether it treats earners fairly. Claims and promotional material are not evidence of this. **** **Question 4.** What is the main benefit of an evidence index? [( )] It replaces the need for the underlying documents [( )] It makes weak evidence look strong [(X)] It lets anyone find the right document quickly and shows which claims have gaps [( )] It is required to be exactly one page long **** The index is a finding aid and a gap detector. It does not change the strength of the documents it lists. **** ## Gap analysis ### The Maturity Check The Maturity Check is a structured way to score your programme against each pillar. It uses a simple scale so that different people can reach similar scores from the same evidence. This course uses a four-level working scale. Replace it with the official ICoBC scale and indicators when they are published. | Level | Name | What it looks like | |---|---|---| | 1 | Informal | Practice depends on individuals. Little is written down. | | 2 | Defined | Policies and procedures exist, but are not applied the same way everywhere. | | 3 | Managed | Procedures are applied consistently and records prove it. | | 4 | Improving | The programme reviews its own results and acts on them regularly. | Each pillar gets one level, plus a note that explains the score and points to evidence IDs from your index. ### How to score a pillar Follow the same steps for every pillar: 1. **List the claims** for the pillar and the evidence you hold for each. 2. **Ask the level questions.** Is there a written procedure? Is it applied the same way? Do records prove it? Is there a review cycle? 3. **Choose the lowest level that all the evidence supports.** If one required element is missing, score the pillar at the level below. 4. **Write the reason** in one or two sentences, with evidence IDs. 5. **Have the Challenger review** the score and ask for proof for any statement without an ID. Score what you can show today. A plan to do something is not a record that you did it. Score the planned improvement later, in the improvement plan. ### Show the gaps in a heatmap A heatmap puts all pillar scores in one view. It helps the team see where to focus and helps the sponsor understand the picture quickly. Mark each cell with the level number and the pillar name, so the chart works without colour. In this chart, lime marks a level of 3 or above and orange marks a level of 2 or below. The text label carries the same information. ### Turn scores into gaps A gap is the distance between the current level and the target level. Your target depends on your goal. A team might aim for level 3 in every pillar before applying. Ask the sponsor and the review lead to agree the target. For each gap, write: - the pillar and the current level; - the target level; - what is missing, in terms of procedure, records or review; - the evidence IDs that support the current score. **Worked example: a training provider scores its Inclusion pillar** A private training provider, which we call Harbour Learning, runs a "Project Coordination" micro-credential for adult learners. The team pillar owner, Priya, scores Inclusion. - Claim: "Learners with different needs can take part." - Evidence: an accessibility statement on the website (I-01) and a note from a tutor on one learner adjustment (I-02). - Missing: a written adjustments procedure, a record of requests and outcomes, and any review of whether the programme is accessible. Priya scores the pillar at level 1, because the practice depends on individual tutors and little is written down. The Challenger agrees, and points out that the accessibility statement is a promise, not proof of practice. The target level is 3. The gap needs a written procedure, a request log and a first accessibility review. All details are illustrative. **Practice activity: run your Maturity Check** 1. Use your draft evidence index from the last module. 2. Score each of the five pillars using the working scale. 3. Write a one or two sentence reason for each score, citing evidence IDs. 4. Ask your Challenger, or a course peer, to test two of your scores. Record what changed. 5. Draw your own heatmap, by hand or in a table, with level numbers in every cell. 6. For each pillar below your target, write the gap in one line. 7. Save as "03 Maturity Check".

Facilitator notes

Use the workshop to calibrate scoring. Give all participants the same short case (two paragraphs and four evidence items) and ask them to score one pillar alone. Reveal the scores on a board. Where scores differ by more than one level, discuss the evidence until the group agrees on a reason. This exercise builds the habit of scoring evidence and not impressions. Allow 40 minutes.

### Check your understanding **Question 1.** A pillar has a written procedure and records for most cases, but one required element has no records. How should you score it? [( )] At the level that matches the best evidence you hold [( )] At the highest level, because most elements are in place [(X)] At the lowest level that all the evidence supports, so one level lower, and note the missing records [( )] Leave it unscored until all records exist **** Score what you can show today. One missing required element means the pillar sits at the level below. Record the reason so the gap is clear. **** **Question 2.** Why does the heatmap in this module show level numbers inside each cell? [( )] Because reviewers require numbers in every chart [(X)] Because colour alone is not enough, and the numbers let every reader see the scores [( )] Because numbers make the chart look more precise than it is [( )] Because the colours are decorative **** Colour supports the message but never carries it alone. Labels keep the chart readable for everyone. **** **Question 3.** A team scores its programme using a plan that has not yet started. What is the problem? [( )] There is no problem, because plans show good intent [( )] The team should score the plan twice to be safe [(X)] The score reflects what the team intends to do and not what it can show, so it should be scored on current evidence and the plan should go into the improvement plan [( )] The team should delete the plan from the files **** A plan is not a record of practice. Score current evidence, then use the plan to guide improvement. **** **Question 4.** What is the role of the Challenger in scoring? [( )] To set the target level for each pillar [( )] To collect all the evidence [(X)] To test scores, ask for proof behind statements and reduce generous scoring [( )] To approve the application for the Global Quality Seal **** The Challenger improves the honesty and consistency of scores. Targets belong to the review lead and the sponsor. **** ## Improvement plan ### From gaps to priorities You will not close every gap before the review. A good plan chooses the gaps that matter most and shows who will do what by when. Prioritising is an honest decision, and you should be ready to explain it in the interview. Use four questions to rank each gap: 1. **Importance:** How central is this gap to the programme's quality? A missing assessment moderation record matters more than a missing icon on a web page. 2. **Risk:** What happens if it stays open? Consider harm to earners, loss of trust, legal or data risk. 3. **Effort:** How much time, money and people does it take to close? 4. **Time:** Can it be closed, and shown with records, before the review? Score each question from 1 (low) to 3 (high) for importance and risk, and 1 (high effort) to 3 (low effort) for effort. Add the scores. The total is a rough guide to discussion and no more. Add judgement on top. ### A simple priority matrix Plot gaps on two axes: impact on quality, and effort to close. This gives four groups: - **Do first:** high impact, low effort. - **Plan carefully:** high impact, high effort. Start early. - **Do when convenient:** low impact, low effort. - **Review later:** low impact, high effort. ### Write an action that someone can finish A good improvement action is specific and testable. Use this format: - **Action:** what will be done, starting with a verb. - **Gap closed:** pillar and evidence ID. - **Owner:** one named person. - **Due date:** a real date, before the application. - **Proof:** the record that will show it is done. - **Resources:** time or money needed. The "Proof" field matters most for review. If an action produces no record, the reviewer cannot see it. Plan the record at the same time as the action. ### Keep the plan honest and visible Review the plan at a short meeting every one or two weeks. Mark each action as not started, in progress, done with proof or blocked. Add new actions when you discover new gaps. When you apply, you can show the plan as part of your evidence for the Evidence pillar. A programme that finds its own weaknesses and acts on them shows exactly the quality habit that reviewers look for. Do not hide weaknesses. A known gap with a credible plan is a stronger position than an unknown gap that a reviewer finds. **Worked example: a corporate academy prioritises three gaps** The logistics academy from the evidence module has three gaps after its Maturity Check: - Gap A: no regular moderation records (Rigor). - Gap B: no register of AI use, although an AI tool gives practice feedback to learners (Trust, with an AI focus). - Gap C: the programme page does not show how to verify a credential (Trust). Dev ranks them. Gap A has high importance and moderate effort. Gap B has high risk and low effort, because a register is a table. Gap C has moderate importance and low effort. His plan: | Action | Gap | Owner | Due | Proof | |---|---|---|---|---| | Create an AI use register and name a human reviewer | B | Dev | Week 2 | Register with first entries | | Hold two moderation sessions and record them | A | Senior assessor | Week 6 | Two signed records | | Add verification steps to the programme page | C | Digital officer | Week 4 | Published page | He starts with B because it is quick and closes a risk. All dates, owners and details are illustrative. **Practice activity: build your improvement plan** 1. List the gaps from your Maturity Check. 2. Rank them with the four questions: importance, risk, effort and time. 3. Place each gap in the priority matrix. 4. Write actions for the top five gaps in the action format, with a named owner, a date and the proof that will exist. 5. Add one action related to AI evidence, or note that it does not apply. 6. List any gaps you will not close before the review, and write one sentence on why. This is your honest account for the interview. 7. Save as "04 Improvement plan".

Facilitator notes

Hold a 60 minute prioritisation clinic. In small groups, each participant presents their top three gaps in two minutes. The group applies the four questions and the matrix, and proposes one change to the order. Look for actions with no named owner or no proof, and ask the participant to rewrite them on the spot. Close with a round on what each person will tell their sponsor about resources.

### Check your understanding **Question 1.** Which action is written so that someone can finish and prove it? [( )] Improve the quality of assessment [( )] Make moderation better over time [(X)] Hold two moderation sessions by 20 February 2027 and file a signed record of each [( )] Look into the assessment issues when possible **** A good action names what will be done, by when, and what record will show it is done. The other options are vague and leave no proof. **** **Question 2.** A gap has high impact and low effort. Where does it belong in the priority matrix? [(X)] Do first [( )] Plan carefully [( )] Do when convenient [( )] Review later **** High impact and low effort is the best combination. These gaps give the most benefit for the least cost, so they come first. **** **Question 3.** Why does the improvement action format include a "Proof" field? [( )] Because the field gives the action a more formal look [( )] Because proof is only needed for actions that fail [(X)] Because an action that leaves no record cannot be seen by a reviewer, so the record should be planned with the action [( )] Because proof replaces the need for an owner **** Reviewers judge what they can see. Planning the record with the action means the improvement shows up in your evidence. **** **Question 4.** A gap cannot be closed before the review. What is the best approach? [( )] Remove the gap from the Maturity Check so it does not appear [( )] Hope that the reviewers do not ask about it [( )] Mark it as closed and fix it later [(X)] Keep it in the plan, state it openly and be ready to explain what you will do and when **** A known gap with a credible plan shows that the programme understands itself. Hiding a gap damages trust and is likely to be noticed. **** ## Preparing for the review interview ### What the application and the interview do The application tells the reviewers about your programme and points them to your evidence. The interview lets them test the story, ask about gaps and hear from the people who run the programme. Both draw on the work you have already done. The Maturity Check gives you the story, the evidence index gives you the proof and the improvement plan shows how you act. ### Prepare the application Whatever the final form looks like, a strong application tends to include: - **A clear programme description:** purpose, audience, outcomes, assessment, duration and credential issued. - **A claim for each pillar,** stated plainly, with evidence IDs. - **An honest self-assessment:** your scores, with reasons. - **Your improvement plan:** what you have closed and what is under way. - **A tidy evidence set,** matched to the index and with no personal data of earners that is not needed. Check every claim against the index. If a statement has no evidence ID, either find the evidence or change the statement. Ask someone who has not worked on the programme to read the application and mark anything unclear. Keep the language plain. Short sentences, specific facts and numbers you can source work better than broad claims. ### Prepare the interview Reviewers want to hear from people who know the programme in detail. Choose a small team that covers the pillars, for example the review lead, an assessor, a person who handles data and a person who works with employers or learners. Prepare in four steps: 1. **Write a two minute overview** that the review lead can say clearly: what the programme is, who it serves, where it is strong and what you are improving. 2. **List likely questions** for each pillar. Use the claims in your application. Reviewers tend to ask: "Can you show me?", "What happens when something goes wrong?" and "How do you know it works?" 3. **Match each question to evidence.** Write the evidence ID next to every answer so that you can find it fast. 4. **Rehearse** with a colleague who plays the reviewer. Include difficult questions about your gaps and, if relevant, about AI. ### How to answer well Good answers share a pattern: - **Answer the question first** in one or two sentences. - **Give an example** from practice, with a real case, a date or a number. - **Point to the record,** for example "this is in the index as R-03". - **Say what you are improving** if the question touches a gap. - **Admit what you do not know** and offer to follow up. Do not guess. Avoid reading from notes, using jargon and defending weak points. Reviewers value honesty and learning. Saying "this is a gap, here is our action and date" shows control of the programme. ### Questions about AI If AI is part of your programme, prepare to answer clearly: - Where is AI used, and for what? - Who checks AI outputs, and what can they change? - How do you protect earner data in AI tools? - How do you keep assessment fair and honest when earners may use AI? Have the register of AI use and the oversight records ready, with evidence IDs. If you do not use AI, be ready to say so in one sentence and to explain how you would assess the risk before adopting it. **Worked example: a college rehearses a difficult question** At Northfield College, Amara rehearses with a colleague who plays the reviewer. The colleague asks: "Your Inclusion pillar looks weak. What are you doing about it?" Amara's first answer rambles and defends the programme. Her colleague gives feedback: "Start with the gap, then the plan." Her second answer: "Our Inclusion score is level 1 today. Adjustments depend on individual tutors and we have no written procedure. We started a procedure and a request log last month, and the first accessibility review is due in week 8. The plan is in the index as item P-04. We expect the log to show real cases within a term." The second answer is short, honest and points to the record. The details are illustrative. **Practice activity: prepare your application summary and interview pack** 1. Write a one page application summary for your programme: description, one claim per pillar with evidence IDs, your scores and your top three improvements. 2. Write your two minute overview as a script of about 250 words. 3. List three likely questions for each pillar, and write a short answer with evidence IDs for at least one question per pillar. 4. Prepare one answer about your weakest pillar, following the pattern: gap, action, date, record. 5. Prepare one answer about AI, or about why AI is not used. 6. Rehearse with a peer for 20 minutes. Ask for feedback on clarity and honesty. Note two changes. 7. Save as "05 Application summary and interview pack".

Facilitator notes

Run a mock interview day of about 3 hours. Form panels of two reviewers and one observer, and rotate the programme teams. Each interview lasts 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes of feedback. Give reviewers a card with three prompts: "Can you show me?", "What happens when it goes wrong?" and "How do you know it works?" Observers note whether each answer states the point first, gives an example and cites evidence. Remind everyone that the mock panel is not the real review and that the real process may differ.

### Check your understanding **Question 1.** What is the best structure for an answer in the review interview? [( )] A long background story first, then the answer at the end [(X)] The answer first, then an example, then the record that shows it [( )] A list of policy names without examples [( )] A promise that everything will be improved soon **** Short, direct answers with an example and a pointer to the evidence give reviewers what they need and show that you know the programme. **** **Question 2.** A reviewer asks about a gap you know about. What should you do? [( )] Change the subject to a strength [( )] Say the gap does not matter [(X)] Name the gap, describe the action, give the date and point to the record in your plan [( )] Say that you will check later and give no further detail **** Honest answers with a credible plan show control of the programme. Avoiding the question damages trust. **** **Question 3.** Why should each claim in the application have an evidence ID? [( )] Because IDs make the document look longer [( )] Because reviewers only read the IDs [( )] Because IDs remove the need for an interview [(X)] Because every claim can then be checked, and statements without proof can be found and fixed before the review **** Matching claims to evidence is the core of preparation. It shows reviewers where to look and shows you where you are exposed. **** ## Assessment and badge ### The assessed task You complete one task for a programme of your choice, real or realistic. A tutor reviews it. You submit four items: 1. **Maturity Check:** a score and a reason for each of the five pillars, with evidence IDs, and a gap statement for each pillar below your target. 2. **Evidence index:** the table with the seven fields, covering all five pillars, with a strength rating for each item and a note on AI (evidence held, or a statement that AI is not used). 3. **Improvement plan:** at least five prioritised actions in the action format, a priority matrix, and a list of gaps you will not close before the review with a reason. 4. **Interview preparation notes:** the one page application summary, the two minute overview and prepared answers for at least one question per pillar, including your weakest pillar and AI. Keep your submission to one folder or one combined document. Remove or anonymise personal data of earners and staff. If you use a real programme, get permission from its owner before you share material. **Time:** the task takes about 4 hours of the 10 hours of notional learning, and the live sessions take the rest. ### Rubric for the tutor The tutor rates each criterion at one of four levels. The file does not grade your task. | Criterion | Not yet | Developing | Competent | Strong | |---|---|---|---|---| | Maturity Check (outcome 1) | Scores are missing or have no reasons | All pillars scored, but reasons are thin or not tied to evidence | All pillars scored with clear reasons and evidence IDs; gaps stated | Scores are well calibrated, challenged by a second person and show where evidence is partial | | Evidence index (outcome 2) | Few items; claims not linked | Items listed for most pillars, but fields or ratings are incomplete | All pillars covered; all seven fields completed; strength rated honestly; AI note present | Index is easy to navigate, mixes policy, records and results, and flags weak evidence clearly | | Prioritisation and plan (outcome 3) | Actions are vague or have no owners | Actions have owners but dates or proof are missing; ranking not explained | At least five actions with owner, date and proof; ranking uses the four questions; open gaps listed with reasons | Plan is realistic, sequenced for the timeline and links every action to a gap and a record | | Application and interview preparation (outcome 4) | No usable summary or answers | Summary and answers are present but generic or not linked to evidence | Summary matches the index; answers state the point first and cite evidence; weakest pillar and AI covered | Notes show rehearsal and feedback, handle difficult questions honestly and are consistent across all items | | Accuracy and clarity | Frequent errors; claims not supported | Some unsupported claims or unclear writing | Claims supported; plain language; consistent terms | Precise, concise and ready to hand to a reviewer | **Pass rule.** To earn the badge you need Competent or Strong on all five criteria, and at least 8 of the 10 questions in the knowledge check below answered correctly. If you receive Developing or Not yet on any criterion, the tutor gives written feedback and you may resubmit that part once. **Badge evidence.** Maturity Check; evidence index; improvement plan. **Badge.** "Preparing for Quality Review: the VRITE Self-Assessment (Ability, L3)", alignment code ICSF-QUAL-L3-A. This badge records that you practised the skill on a realistic task and met the rubric. It does not prove competence in any particular job. ### Final knowledge check **Question 1.** (Outcome 1) You score a pillar. The procedure is written, applied the same way and backed by records, but the programme has no review of its own results. At which working level is the pillar? [( )] Level 1, Informal [( )] Level 2, Defined [(X)] Level 3, Managed [( )] Level 4, Improving **** Procedures that are applied consistently and proved by records sit at level 3. Level 4 needs regular review of results and action on them. **** **Question 2.** (Outcome 1) Which practice makes a Maturity Check score more reliable? [( )] Letting the programme lead score every pillar alone [(X)] Basing each score on evidence IDs and having a person outside the team challenge it [( )] Scoring on the basis of plans for next year [( )] Giving every pillar the same score to keep things simple **** Evidence-based scores that someone else challenges are more consistent and more honest. **** **Question 3.** (Outcome 1) Why is the heatmap useful for the team and the sponsor? [( )] It replaces the written reasons for the scores [( )] It proves that the programme will pass the review [(X)] It shows all pillar scores in one view so that gaps and priorities are easy to see [( )] It removes the need for a target level **** A heatmap is a summary view. It supports discussion, and the written reasons and evidence still carry the detail. **** **Question 4.** (Outcome 2) Which item is the weakest evidence for the claim "We moderate our marking regularly"? [( )] Signed moderation records from several sessions across two years [( )] A moderation schedule with notes of what was changed [(X)] An email saying that moderation happens regularly [( )] Minutes of a meeting where moderation results were discussed **** An email statement repeats the claim and gives nothing to check. Records and minutes are verifiable. **** **Question 5.** (Outcome 2) A programme uses AI to recommend learning content to earners. What evidence belongs in the index? [( )] None, because recommendation tools are not part of quality [( )] Only the tool's marketing description [(X)] A register of the AI use, the human oversight arrangements, the data handling notes and any fairness checks [( )] Only a list of earners who followed the recommendations **** When AI is used, reviewers can reasonably ask for evidence of oversight, data handling and fairness. Marketing material proves none of these. **** **Question 6.** (Outcome 2) What is the main purpose of the "Owner" field in the evidence index? [( )] To decide who gets credit for the programme [(X)] To make one named person responsible for keeping the item current and available [( )] To assign the score to the pillar [( )] To record who the reviewer is **** Evidence goes out of date. A named owner makes sure it is kept up to date and can be found. **** **Question 7.** (Outcome 3) Which gap should usually be tackled first? [( )] Low impact and high effort [( )] Low impact and low effort [(X)] High impact and low effort [( )] A gap that has no owner **** High impact with low effort gives the greatest quality benefit for the least cost, so it goes first. **** **Question 8.** (Outcome 3) A gap cannot be closed before the review. What should the improvement plan show? [( )] Nothing, because the gap is not ready to be discussed [(X)] The gap, a reason it stays open, and a dated action with an owner and a planned record [( )] A statement that the gap is closed [( )] A request to the reviewers to ignore the gap **** A visible, credible plan for an open gap is better than hiding it. It shows that the team understands and manages its programme. **** **Question 9.** (Outcome 4) Before submitting the application, what check matters most? [( )] That the document is as long as possible [( )] That every claim uses the strongest wording available [(X)] That every claim has evidence in the index and that someone outside the team has read it for clarity [( )] That all gaps are removed from the text **** Matching claims to evidence and testing clarity with a fresh reader reduces risk and improves the application. **** **Question 10.** (Outcome 4) A reviewer asks, "Your Trust pillar shows a gap in verification. What are you doing?" Which answer is best? [( )] "It is a minor point and the reviewers can disregard it." [( )] "We believe the process is fine and no action is needed." [(X)] "Verification is a gap at level 2 today. We have added a verification page and will show the first checks in the log by the end of the term. The action is in the plan as item T-02." [( )] "I am not sure and we can send something later." **** The best answer names the gap, states the action and date and points to the record. It is honest, short and shows control. **** ## Sources and further reading Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. - ICoBC, International Council on Badges and Credentials, Berlin: official information on the ICoBC VRITE criteria, the Global Quality Seal and the ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF). Check the ICoBC website and the course library for the current documents. Indicators for the VRITE criteria are not yet published, and the Global Quality Seal is at pilot stage. - ISO 9000, Quality management systems: Fundamentals and vocabulary. International Organization for Standardization. - ISO 9001, Quality management systems: Requirements. International Organization for Standardization. - ISO/IEC 17024, Conformity assessment: General requirements for bodies operating certification of persons. International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission. - Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), together with partner organisations. - European Qualifications Framework (EQF). European Union. - ICB-F09 Quality in Credentialing: How Trust Is Built. ICoBC course, prerequisite for this course.