Global Quality Seal: Lead Reviewer Training

Applying VRITE consistently in desk review and interview.

This course is for ICoBC Lead Reviewers (N2). A Lead Reviewer plans a review, leads a small review team, tests the evidence an issuer submits, and signs a report that the Quality Network can rely on. The course is aligned to the ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF), skill QUAL "Quality assurance and accreditation" (VRITE pillar: Rigor), level L4 "Assure", stage A "Ability". At this level the skill is to design and lead internal quality assurance and to conduct independent reviews of other issuers. At the Ability stage you practise that capability on realistic tasks in a controlled setting.

Prerequisites: ICB-F09 Quality in Credentialing: How Trust Is Built, and ICB-R04 Independence and Conflicts of Interest in the Quality Network.

Workload: 16 hours notional learning, in a blended cohort. This file covers the self-paced part. Live and workshop elements appear as facilitator notes inside each module.

Learning outcomes. When you finish, you can:

1. Apply VRITE criteria and indicators consistently to issuer evidence.
2. Conduct desk reviews and review interviews.
3. Write findings and recommendations that are evidence-based and fair.
4. Maintain independence and confidentiality.

How it is assessed. Each module has a quiz with feedback and a practice activity. The assessed task is a full review of a case file with a written report, scored by a person against the reviewer rubric in the section "Assessment and badge". You also complete one shadow review. A final knowledge check supports the task. Nothing in this file grades your report.

Badge. "Global Quality Seal: Lead Reviewer Training (Ability, L4)", alignment code ICSF-QUAL-L4-A. Badge evidence: your case report and your shadow review record. The badge records that you met the assessment criteria for this course. It does not prove competence in any job.

Quality focus: core VRITE application. AI focus: use and disclosure of AI in review work.

Status of the Seal. The Global Quality Seal and the ICoBC VRITE criteria are [Emerging]. Indicators are not yet published. Internal documents use different expansions of the acronym VRITE. Pilots are ongoing. This course therefore teaches the review method and uses illustrative indicators that are labelled as such. Status as of November 2026; check before publishing.

The Seal and the review process

In this module you learn what a review is for, who does what in it, and the order of its stages. Later modules build the skills for each stage.

What the Seal is and what a review does

The Global Quality Seal is a quality mark that ICoBC is developing for issuers of credentials. A review is the structured check that supports a decision about whether an issuer meets the VRITE criteria. VRITE is the ICoBC framework of quality pillars, and this course works with the Rigor pillar as it applies to reviewing.

Because the Seal and its indicators are [Emerging], you will meet three facts in practice:

• Indicators are not yet published, so reviewers work from the criteria and from guidance given for each pilot.
• Internal documents use different expansions of the acronym VRITE. Use the expansion given in your engagement brief and do not substitute your own.
• Pilots are ongoing, so procedures may change between engagements. Record the version of every document you use.

A review has one purpose: to give the decision-making body a fair, evidence-based picture. The review team does not decide the outcome. It reports what the evidence shows against the criteria.

Roles in a review

Each review has defined roles. Names of bodies and committees vary by engagement, so confirm them in your brief.

• The issuer is the organisation under review. It submits an application and evidence.
• The Lead Reviewer plans the review, assigns work, leads interviews, checks the quality of the team's notes and signs the report.
• Reviewers (where the team has more than one) examine evidence and take part in interviews.
• The ICoBC review coordinator handles logistics, documents and communication with the issuer.
• The decision-making body receives the report and decides. Reviewers do not.

A Lead Reviewer carries two duties at once: to the issuer, who deserves a fair and well-run process, and to the Quality Network, which relies on consistent reviews.

The review process from application to decision

The stages run in this order:

1. Application. The issuer applies and submits its evidence.
2. Conflict check and assignment. The Lead Reviewer and team declare any conflicts. The coordinator confirms the team.
3. Planning. The Lead Reviewer reads the brief, lists what must be tested and sets the schedule.
4. Desk review. The team studies the documents and records what each document shows.
5. Interviews. The team tests and clarifies the desk findings with the people who run the work.
6. Findings. The team agrees findings and recommendations.
7. Report. The Lead Reviewer writes and signs the report.
8. Issuer factual accuracy check. The issuer may correct errors of fact.
9. Decision. The decision-making body decides.

How the stages link

Each stage feeds the next. Planning decides what the desk review must test. The desk review produces questions for the interview. The interview confirms or corrects what the documents seemed to show. Findings rest on both. The report presents findings so the decision-making body can follow the trail from evidence to conclusion.

Worked example: A first reading of a review brief

A Lead Reviewer, Amara, receives a brief from the ICoBC review coordinator for an engagement with a partner training provider (the issuer). The brief lists the criteria, the document set, a two-week desk review window and one half-day interview slot. Amara reads it in this order:

1. She checks the version number of the criteria document and notes it in her log.
2. She notes that no published indicators exist, so she reads the pilot guidance for how criteria should be interpreted.
3. She lists three questions for the coordinator: which expansion of VRITE applies, whether a factual accuracy check is part of this engagement, and who the decision-making body is.
4. She sends her conflict declaration before she opens any issuer document.

Amara did not open the evidence first. She fixed the rules of the review before she began, so that every later judgement can be traced to a stated basis.

Practice activity: Plan the first week of a review

You are Lead Reviewer for a pilot review of a partner issuer called Northfield Learning Partners (an invented name for this exercise). Write a first-week plan of no more than 250 words that covers:

• the documents you will read first and why,
• the three questions you will send to the coordinator,
• your conflict declaration step and when it happens,
• how you will log document versions.

Compare your plan with a peer in your cohort. Each of you names one thing the other plan lacks.

Criteria and indicators

This module teaches you to apply criteria and indicators the same way every time, to every issuer. Consistency is the heart of the Rigor pillar for reviewers.

From criterion to indicator to evidence

A criterion states what good looks like. An indicator is an observable sign that the criterion is met. Evidence is the material you can examine: a document, a record, a data extract or something said in an interview.

The chain runs in one direction: criterion, then indicator, then evidence, then judgement. If you start from evidence and look for a criterion that fits, you will find what you expect to find.

Because VRITE indicators are [Emerging], the examples in this course use illustrative indicators. They show the method. They are not the official indicators and must not be quoted as such in a real review.

Illustrative indicator example

Take an invented criterion: "The issuer defines the learning outcomes for each credential." Illustrative indicators might be:

• Each credential has a written statement of outcomes.
• The statement uses verbs that can be observed or measured.
• The statement was approved by a named body and carries a version date.

A reviewer looks for evidence against each indicator. Each indicator is judged on its own. A credential can meet the first and fail the third.

Consistency across cases

Consistency means that two reviewers looking at the same evidence reach the same judgement, and that you reach the same judgement for similar evidence from different issuers. Four habits help:

1. Write the indicator before you read the evidence. Keep the wording in front of you.
2. Use a fixed scale. Use the rating scale from the engagement brief. Do not invent half points.
3. Record the evidence reference. Note the document name, version and page, or the interview date and speaker role.
4. Calibrate. Before the review, the team reviews one sample item together and compares judgements. Differences are discussed and the shared reading is written down.

Common threats to consistency

• Halo effect: a strong first impression colours later judgements.
• Anchoring: a first rating pulls the next ones towards it.
• Leniency or severity drift: standards loosen or tighten as fatigue grows.
• Confirmation: you seek only evidence that supports your first view.

A Lead Reviewer names these threats to the team at the start and checks for them when reading draft ratings.

Use of AI in applying criteria

AI tools may be offered to help summarise documents or sort evidence. In review work, treat AI output as unverified. You remain responsible for every judgement. Do not paste confidential issuer material into any tool unless your engagement terms allow it and the tool's data handling has been approved. Disclose any AI use in the report, as module 6 explains.

Worked example: Calibrating a rating on outcomes statements

Two reviewers, Jonas and Priya, examine a sample credential description from a partner training provider in a pilot engagement. The illustrative indicator reads: "The statement uses verbs that can be observed or measured."

The statement says: "Learners will understand data protection and appreciate its importance."

• Jonas rates the indicator as met, because the topic is clear.
• Priya rates it as not met, because "understand" and "appreciate" cannot be observed.

They discuss. The indicator concerns the verbs. The topic's clarity belongs to a different indicator. They agree on "not met" for this indicator and write the reasoning in the calibration note: "Verbs such as understand and appreciate are not observable; statements with these verbs rate as not met unless an assessment criterion makes them observable." Both use this reading from then on.

Practice activity: Rate and justify

Below are three invented outcomes statements. Using the illustrative indicator "The statement uses verbs that can be observed or measured", rate each as met or not met and write one sentence of justification that cites the wording.

1. "Participants will be familiar with the safety rules."
2. "Participants will list the five stages of the safety procedure and carry out the first two."
3. "Participants will gain a deep awareness of safety culture."

Then compare with a peer. Where you differ, write a calibration note that would settle the difference.

Desk review

The desk review is where most of the evidence is examined. A good desk review is planned, systematic and recorded so that another reviewer could follow it.

Plan the desk review

Before reading, write a short desk review plan:

• the criteria and indicators in scope,
• the document list, with version and date for each,
• what each document could show and what it cannot show,
• the time you will allow per criterion,
• the questions you expect to carry into the interview.

A document shows that something was written. It does not by itself show that it is used. This gap between documented and practised is what the interview later tests.

Read documents in a fixed way

For each document, make a short record:

1. Identify it: title, version, date, author or owner, and status (draft or approved).
2. Note what it says that is relevant to an indicator, with page or section.
3. Note what it does not say where you would expect it to.
4. Mark open questions.

Keep observation and interpretation apart. "The policy was last revised in 2021" is an observation. "The policy is out of date" is an interpretation that needs a stated standard to compare against.

Test evidence quality

Ask four questions of each piece of evidence:

• Authentic: is it what it claims to be, from whom it claims?
• Current: is it in force during the review period?
• Relevant: does it speak to the indicator?
• Sufficient: is there enough to support a judgement, or only one example?

A single approved policy may be enough to show that a policy exists. It is not enough to show that the policy is applied. For application you need records such as meeting minutes, samples of completed forms or data extracts.

Triangulation

Where possible, support a judgement with at least two kinds of evidence, for example a document and an interview, or a document and a record sample. This is called triangulation. If sources disagree, do not choose the one you prefer. Record the conflict and take it to the interview.

Sampling

When an issuer has many credentials or many records, you cannot read all of them. State how you chose the sample, and why. A sample should cover the range of credentials, not only the best ones. Do not state a finding about the whole population from a small sample unless you say how the sample was chosen and how large it was.

Confidentiality in the desk review

Issuer documents may contain personal data about learners and staff. Store them only in the location named in the engagement terms. Do not copy them to personal devices. If you use an AI tool to summarise any issuer document, you need prior permission under the engagement terms, and you must disclose it in the report.

Worked example: Document says yes, record sample says not quite

Lead Reviewer Tomasz examines an invented partner engagement: a vocational school (the issuer) that issues a digital certificate. The illustrative indicator reads: "Assessment decisions are checked by a second person."

• Document: the assessment policy, version 3, approved, says that all final assessments are second-marked.
• Record sample: Tomasz asks for ten completed assessment files, chosen by him from a list of 120 (illustrative figure). Seven show a second marker's signature. Three show none.
• What he records: "Policy v3 states second marking for all final assessments (section 4.2). In a sample of ten files chosen by the reviewer from a list of 120, seven showed second marking and three did not. The sample is small and does not allow a statement about the whole population."
• Open question for the interview: "How is second marking recorded, and what happens when it is skipped?"

Tomasz did not write "the school does not second-mark". He wrote what he saw, said how the sample was chosen, and carried a question forward.

Practice activity: Build an evidence table

You review an invented issuer, Lakeside Skills Association, against the illustrative indicator "Complaints are logged and answered within a stated time." You have:

• A complaints policy (version 2) that states a 15 working day response time.
• A complaints log extract of eight entries (illustrative): five show a response date within 15 working days, two show no response date, one shows 22 working days.

Create a table with the columns: Evidence item, What it shows, Quality check (authentic, current, relevant, sufficient), Open question. Then write two sentences that state your provisional finding without overstating it.

Interview technique

Interviews test, clarify and enrich the desk findings. They are a form of evidence gathering, not a conversation to build rapport at any cost.

Purpose of the review interview

An interview does three things:

• It tests whether what the documents describe is how the work is done.
• It clarifies gaps and conflicts found in the desk review.
• It explores how people understand their responsibilities.

An interview does not decide a finding on its own. What people say is evidence of what they say. It becomes stronger when it agrees with documents or records.

Prepare the interview

Before the interview:

1. Draft a question plan from the open questions in the desk review, grouped by criterion.
2. Decide who you need to speak to: the person who owns the process, a person who carries it out and, where relevant, a person affected by it.
3. Agree roles: who leads, who takes notes, who watches time.
4. Send the issuer the agenda and the list of roles you wish to meet, not the full question list, unless your engagement terms say otherwise.
5. Confirm ground rules: purpose, how notes are used, confidentiality and whether the session is recorded. Recording needs consent and a basis in the engagement terms.

Question types

• Open questions invite description: "Walk me through what happens when a learner appeals a result."
• Probing questions go deeper: "Can you give a recent example?" "What happened next?"
• Closed questions confirm a fact: "Is the register kept by the programme office?"
• Evidence requests ask to see: "Could you show me where that is recorded?"

Avoid leading questions ("You do second-mark every file, don't you?"), double questions (two questions in one) and questions that contain your own judgement.

Listening and neutral behaviour

A Lead Reviewer shows interest without signalling approval or disapproval. Say "thank you, that helps me understand" and not "that is good practice". Do not coach: do not tell the issuer what you think they should have done. Reflect back what you heard to check it ("So the form is signed by the programme lead before it is filed. Is that right?").

Handle difficult moments

• Vague answers: ask for an example or a record.
• Defensive answers: restate the purpose and the fairness of the process; lower the pace.
• Answers that conflict with documents: do not accuse. Say: "The policy describes X. I would like to understand how that works in practice."
• Over-talkative or silent participants: invite quieter people by role, not by name, and manage time politely.

Record the interview

Take notes in a standard form: date, participants by role, topic, what was said, what was shown, and follow-up actions. Mark direct quotations clearly and keep them short. Keep your interpretation in a separate column or section. After the interview, the team compares notes on the same day, while memory is fresh.

Interviews and AI

If a transcription or summary tool is proposed, check the engagement terms and obtain consent before use. Treat any generated transcript or summary as a draft that you check against your own notes. Disclose use in the report.

Worked example: Turning a document gap into an interview question

In the desk review of an invented employer-run training academy (the issuer), Lead Reviewer Chidi finds that the appeals policy describes three stages but the appeals log shows only stage one entries for the last year. His first draft question reads: "Why do you never let appeals go to stage two?"

He sees three problems. The question assumes a cause, it is leading, and it is accusing. He rewrites it:

• Open: "Could you walk me through what happens after a learner submits an appeal?"
• Probe: "Can you describe a recent case, without names, and what happened at each stage?"
• Evidence request: "Could you show me where stage two outcomes would be recorded?"

In the interview, the programme manager explains that stage two decisions are held in a separate file. Chidi asks to see it. The file exists and shows four stage two decisions, which the desk review missed. The finding moves from "gap in the log" to "the log and the stage two file are kept apart, which made the evidence harder to trace."

Practice activity: Rewrite and run a short interview

Part A: Rewrite these three questions so that they are open, neutral and single.

1. "You have a proper induction for all staff, don't you?"
2. "Why is your complaints process so slow, and who is responsible?"
3. "Do you think your assessors are well trained?"

Part B: In pairs, one person plays an invented programme manager at a partner training provider, the other plays the reviewer. The reviewer has five minutes to explore how staff induction works, using at least one open question, one probe and one evidence request. A third person observes and notes any leading questions and any signals of approval or disapproval. Swap roles twice.

Writing findings

A finding is a statement the reader can follow from evidence to conclusion. A recommendation is a suggestion that follows from a finding. Both must be fair to the issuer and useful to the decision-making body.

The chain from evidence to finding

Each finding should be traceable through four links:

1. Criterion and indicator: what was tested.
2. Evidence: what was seen or heard, with references.
3. Analysis: what the evidence means against the indicator.
4. Finding: the conclusion, with a rating from the agreed scale.

If a link is missing, the reader cannot check the finding, and the issuer cannot respond to it fairly.

Anatomy of a good finding

A well-built finding has:

• A neutral heading that names the topic, not a verdict.
• A statement of what was examined, including sample details.
• The evidence, with references.
• The analysis, in plain words.
• The rating from the agreed scale.
• Any mitigating or positive evidence, so that the picture is balanced.

Language for fair findings

Use precise, neutral wording:

• Say what you saw: "In eight of ten files examined, the second marker's signature was present."
• Avoid emotive words: "failure", "negligent", "alarming".
• Avoid vague words: "some", "many", "often", unless you give numbers.
• Avoid speculation about motives: write "the log did not record" and not "the issuer hid".
• Keep to the criteria: do not rate the issuer on matters outside the review scope.

Fairness checks before you finish

1. Does every finding rest on evidence that the issuer could recognise as its own?
2. Have I reported positive evidence as carefully as negative evidence?
3. Would I write the same finding for a different issuer with the same evidence?
4. Have I separated what I observed from what I infer?
5. Is each recommendation proportionate to the finding?

Recommendations

A recommendation says what would address the finding. Good recommendations are:

• Linked to one finding.
• Specific about the outcome, leaving the method to the issuer.
• Proportionate to the size of the gap.
• Achievable in a stated period.

Reviewers recommend outcomes and do not design the issuer's solution. Designing the solution would compromise independence, since the reviewer would later judge their own advice.

Use of AI in drafting

AI tools can help with grammar and structure, but they can also add unsupported statements. If you use one, check every sentence against your evidence table. Never give an AI tool confidential issuer material without permission under the engagement terms. State in the report which tool category was used and for what task.

Worked example: Rewriting an unfair finding

Lead Reviewer Sofia reads a draft finding from a colleague about an invented industry association that offers a professional badge: "The association clearly fails to manage complaints. Records are poor and the team seems unconcerned."

Sofia applies the fairness checks. The draft uses emotive words, gives no numbers, speculates about attitude and does not reference evidence. She rewrites it:

Finding: Complaint handling records.
Indicator tested (illustrative): Complaints are logged and answered within a stated time.
Evidence: The complaints policy (version 2) states a 15 working day response time. The complaints log for the review period contains eight entries (illustrative). Five show a response within 15 working days, one shows a response after 22 working days, and two show no response date. In the interview, the membership manager said that responses are sent by email and not always entered in the log.
Analysis: The policy sets a clear time limit. The log shows that the limit was met in five of eight entries. Two entries cannot be assessed because no response date is recorded.
Rating: Partly met (using the scale in the engagement brief).
Recommendation: Ensure that every complaint response is recorded with its date so that compliance with the stated time limit can be shown.

Every claim now has a reference. The rating is traceable. The recommendation names an outcome.

Practice activity: Write a finding and a recommendation

Using the evidence table you built in the desk review practice activity (Lakeside Skills Association, complaints indicator), write one finding of 120 to 180 words using the structure above. Then write one recommendation of no more than 40 words. Finish by running the five fairness checks and noting your answer to each in one line.

Swap with a peer. The peer marks any sentence they cannot trace to evidence.

Ethics

Independence and confidentiality are the basis of trust in the Quality Network. This module builds on ICB-R04 and applies it to your daily review practice.

Independence in practice

Independence means that your judgements are based only on evidence and criteria, and that a reasonable observer would see no reason to doubt it. It has two parts: independence in fact (you are free of influence) and independence in appearance (others have no reasonable grounds to doubt it).

Typical threats are:

• Financial or personal interest in the issuer or a competitor.
• Prior involvement, such as advising the issuer on the area under review.
• Familiarity, from a long relationship with the issuer's staff.
• Pressure, from the issuer, from colleagues or from time constraints.
• Gifts and hospitality that create a sense of obligation.

Your declaration covers these threats. If a threat arises during the review, you inform the coordinator at once and follow their instruction. When in doubt, declare.

Confidentiality in practice

Reviewers see material that the issuer has not made public: policies, data, names and internal discussions. Basic rules:

• Use material only for the review.
• Store it only where the engagement terms allow.
• Share it only with team members and the coordinator.
• Do not discuss the review with outsiders, including in social media or casual conversation.
• Remove or mask personal data in working notes where possible.
• Return or delete material at the end, as the terms require.

Confidentiality has limits. If you see evidence of serious harm, illegality or risk to learners, do not wait for the report. Raise it with the coordinator at once, as the engagement terms and applicable law require.

Use and disclosure of AI

AI tools raise specific ethical points in review work:

• Confidentiality: issuer material must not be sent to tools that are not approved for the engagement.
• Accuracy: AI output can contain errors and invented details. You check it.
• Accountability: you remain responsible for every judgement and sentence in the report.
• Bias: a tool may reproduce biases in its training material. Do not use it to rate issuers.
• Disclosure: the report states which tasks used AI, which tool category and how output was checked.

Do not use AI to generate ratings or findings. Use it, if at all, for low-risk support tasks that the engagement terms allow.

Fairness to the issuer

Fairness is an ethical duty as well as a quality requirement. It includes giving the issuer a chance to respond to the facts, treating all issuers by the same method, and reporting positive evidence as carefully as negative. It also includes courtesy: reviewers are guests in the issuer's organisation.

Handling pressure

An issuer representative may suggest that a negative finding could damage the organisation. A colleague may suggest a softer rating to keep the relationship friendly. Respond calmly. State that the report follows the evidence and the criteria, and that the issuer can use the factual accuracy step to correct errors. Do not negotiate ratings. Record the approach and inform the coordinator.

Worked example: An invitation and an unexpected disclosure

Lead Reviewer Marta is on site at an invented employer-led training academy (the issuer). At the end of the first day, the academy director invites the review team to a dinner at a restaurant, and mentions that the academy would welcome Marta's advice on its new quality manual "informally, outside the review".

Marta considers both threats. The dinner is hospitality that could create a sense of obligation. The advice request is prior involvement, since she would later judge the manual she helped to shape. She replies politely: "Thank you for the invitation. We have to decline hospitality during a review, and we cannot advise on matters within the review scope. Our coordinator can answer questions about the process." She records the exchange and informs the coordinator the same evening.

The next day, a staff member mentions in passing that learner files are kept on a shared drive open to the whole organisation. Marta notes the remark, says she will raise it with the coordinator, and does not look at the drive. The coordinator advises on the route for the concern. Marta records it in her log and does not discuss it with anyone outside the team.

Practice activity: Three scenarios

For each scenario, write a short response (60 to 100 words) that says what you would do, what you would say and whom you would inform.

1. You discover that a cousin of yours is the finance manager at the issuer you are about to review.
2. The issuer's quality lead emails you a draft of the factual accuracy response and asks whether you could "adjust the rating slightly" if they add one more document.
3. A fellow reviewer proposes to paste the issuer's full complaints log, including learner names, into a free public chat tool to get a quick summary.

Compare answers in your cohort and identify any step that all responses share.

Assessment and badge

Assessed task

The assessed task has two parts. A trained assessor scores both against the reviewer rubric below. This file does not grade your work.

Part 1: Full review of a case file with report. You receive a case file for an invented issuer (provided by your facilitator). The file contains an application, policies, records and an interview schedule with interview notes or a recorded role-play. You:

1. Write a desk review plan.
2. Complete an evidence table that applies the illustrative indicators supplied with the case.
3. Prepare an interview question plan and, where the cohort format provides one, conduct the interview.
4. Write a report with findings, ratings and recommendations.
5. Include your declaration of independence and confidentiality and your AI use statement (even if the statement says no AI was used).

Part 2: One shadow review. You shadow a Lead Reviewer on a real or simulated review, as arranged by your facilitator. You observe the planning, desk review, interview and reporting stages and complete a shadow review record that notes:

• what you observed at each stage,
• two decisions the Lead Reviewer made and your reasoning on them,
• one thing you would do the same and one thing you would do differently,
• how independence and confidentiality were handled.

Facilitators arrange shadow reviews so that the shadowed reviewer is not from your own organisation, to protect independence.

Reviewer rubric

Each criterion is scored by the assessor on four levels: Not yet, Developing, Secure, Strong.

Pass rule

To pass, you must:

• reach Secure or higher on every criterion in the rubric, and
• complete both parts of the assessed task, and
• achieve at least 8 of 10 correct answers in the final knowledge check below (illustrative threshold).

If you do not pass a criterion, the assessor gives written feedback and one chance to resubmit that part.

Evidence submitted for the badge

• The case report (Part 1), including the desk review plan, evidence table, interview plan, findings and recommendations, and your declarations.
• The shadow review record (Part 2).

The badge "Global Quality Seal: Lead Reviewer Training (Ability, L4)", alignment code ICSF-QUAL-L4-A, records that you met the assessment criteria for this course. It does not prove competence in any job.

Final knowledge check

Sources and further reading

Status as of November 2026; check before publishing.

The Global Quality Seal and the ICoBC VRITE criteria are [Emerging]. Indicators are not yet published, and internal documents use different expansions of the acronym. Always use the current versions supplied in your engagement brief.

ICoBC materials

• ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF), skill QUAL "Quality assurance and accreditation". Available from ICoBC, info@icobc.net.
• ICoBC engagement brief, criteria document and pilot guidance for your review. Issued by the review coordinator. Record the version of each.
• ICoBC course ICB-F09 Quality in Credentialing: How Trust Is Built.
• ICoBC course ICB-R04 Independence and Conflicts of Interest in the Quality Network.

Standards bodies and frameworks

• International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 19011, Guidelines for auditing management systems. Check the current edition with ISO or your national standards body.
• International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). ISO/IEC 17021-1, Conformity assessment: Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems. Check the current edition.
• European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). Check the current version on the ENQA website.

These sources describe audit and review practice in neighbouring fields. They offer useful background on evidence, independence and reporting, but they are not ICoBC requirements. Where they differ from your engagement brief, follow the brief.