# Accredited Partner Programme: Running the Maturity Check *Preparing clients for the Seal without crossing into review.* ## About this course This course is for ICoBC Accredited Partners (N3). It sits at ICSF skill QUAL "Quality assurance and accreditation" (VRITE pillar: Rigor), level L3 "Enable", stage A "Ability". At this level you run a self-assessment against a quality framework, prepare a client for external review and help the client implement improvements. At the Ability stage you practise these tasks on realistic cases 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. **Learning outcomes.** After this course you can: 1. Run the Maturity Check with a client and interpret results. 2. Plan readiness work without compromising review independence. 3. Use ICoBC tools and templates correctly. 4. Apply the partner code of conduct. **Workload.** The course is blended and takes about 10 hours of notional learning. This file contains the self-paced part. Live and workshop elements are described in facilitator notes. **Assessment.** You complete a supervised Maturity Check with a case client and write a report. A person assesses the report using the rubric in "Assessment and badge". The file also contains a final knowledge check that prepares you for the supervised task. **Badge.** "Accredited Partner Programme: Running the Maturity Check (Ability, L3)", alignment code ICSF-QUAL-L3-A. Badge evidence: the report and the supervisor sign-off. | Outcome | Module | How it is assessed | |---|---|---| | 1. Run the Maturity Check with a client and interpret results | The Maturity Check; Working with clients | Supervised Maturity Check and report (rubric criteria 1 and 2); knowledge check | | 2. Plan readiness work without compromising review independence | Boundaries with review; Working with clients | Readiness plan in the report (rubric criterion 3); knowledge check | | 3. Use ICoBC tools and templates correctly | Tools and templates | Completed templates attached to the report (rubric criterion 4); knowledge check | | 4. Apply the partner code of conduct | The partner role; Boundaries with review | Conduct log and supervisor observation (rubric criterion 5); knowledge check | > **Status note.** The ICoBC VRITE criteria and the Global Quality Seal are Emerging. Indicators are not yet published, internal documents use different expansions of the acronym, and pilots are ongoing. This course teaches the partner process and the principles of rigorous self-assessment. It does not teach indicator wording, because none is published. Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. --- ## The partner role ### What an Accredited Partner does An Accredited Partner helps organisations understand where they stand against the ICoBC quality approach and what they can improve. Clients may be credential providers, employers who issue credentials, or associations. The partner works for the client's improvement. The partner does not decide whether a client receives the Global Quality Seal. The partner's main activities are: - Running the Maturity Check with the client. - Explaining the results in plain language. - Helping the client plan readiness work. - Using ICoBC tools and templates so that the work is consistent across partners. - Following the partner code of conduct. The partner role is a service role. It rests on skill, honesty and clear limits. Clients trust a partner who says what the Maturity Check can and cannot tell them. ### Partner and reviewer: two different roles The ICoBC quality network separates support from judgement. You learned the reasons in ICB-R04. Here is the working summary. The partner can explain what good practice looks like. The reviewer judges whether the client's evidence meets the criteria. These tasks never sit with the same person or the same organisation for the same client. ### The partner code of conduct in practice The partner code of conduct is an ICoBC document. Check the current version in the partner area before you work with a client. In practice, a code of this kind asks partners to act with honesty, to protect client information, to avoid conflicts of interest, to represent ICoBC accurately and to stay within the partner role. The working habits below apply those ideas. - **Declare interests early.** Tell ICoBC and the client about any relationship that could look like a conflict. - **Describe your service accurately.** Never promise or imply a Seal outcome. - **Protect information.** Handle client evidence and results only for the agreed purpose. - **Keep records.** Note what you advised, what you decided not to advise and why. - **Escalate doubts.** If you are unsure whether an activity crosses a boundary, ask your supervisor before you act. **Worked example: The enthusiastic client** Amara Okafor is a partner. Her client, a training provider, asks in the first meeting: "If we score well in your Maturity Check, will the Seal be ours?" Amara answers in three steps. First, she explains that the Maturity Check is a self-assessment that shows strengths and gaps. Second, she says that a separate independent review decides on the Seal and that she cannot influence it. Third, she writes the exchange in her engagement log and adds a sentence to the engagement letter that states the service does not include any Seal outcome. The client may be disappointed. The partner has protected both the client's expectations and the credibility of the Seal. **Practice activity: Spot the promise** Read these five statements a partner might say to a client. For each one, write "acceptable" or "not acceptable" and give one reason in a sentence. Then rewrite each unacceptable statement so that it is acceptable. 1. "After our workshop you will be ready for the Seal." 2. "The Maturity Check shows which areas need more evidence." 3. "I know the reviewers, so I can tell you what they will ask." 4. "I cannot predict the review outcome, but I can help you plan improvements." 5. "Pay for the full package and we will make sure you pass."

Facilitator notes

Run this as a 20-minute pair exercise in the live session. Ask pairs to share their rewrites. Statements 1, 3 and 5 are not acceptable (outcome promise, inside knowledge of the review, pass guarantee). Statements 2 and 4 are acceptable. Collect the best rewrites on a shared board and refer back to them in module 4.

### Quiz: The partner role **Question 1.** Which task belongs to the Accredited Partner? [( )] Deciding whether the client receives the Global Quality Seal [(X)] Running the Maturity Check and explaining the results to the client [( )] Judging the client's evidence against the review criteria [( )] Reporting findings to the decision body **** The partner supports the client. Judging evidence and reporting to a decision body are reviewer tasks. The partner has no role in the Seal decision. **** **Question 2.** A client asks whether a good Maturity Check result guarantees the Seal. What is the best response? [( )] "Yes, a high result nearly always leads to the Seal." [( )] "I cannot say anything about the Seal." [(X)] "The Maturity Check is a self-assessment. An independent review decides on the Seal, and I cannot predict that outcome." [( )] "It guarantees the Seal if you also complete the readiness plan." **** The best answer is accurate, helpful and within the role. It explains what the Maturity Check is and what it is not, without promising an outcome. **** **Question 3.** What should a partner do after noticing a possible conflict of interest with a client? [( )] Wait to see whether the client raises it [( )] Handle it privately and not record it [(X)] Declare it to ICoBC and the client early and follow the guidance given [( )] Stop keeping a log so that no record exists **** Early declaration is a core habit of the code of conduct. It protects the client, the partner and the quality network. **** **Question 4.** Why does the partner keep an engagement log? [( )] To replace the client's own records [(X)] To record advice given and boundaries kept, so the work can be explained and checked [( )] To pass evidence to the reviewer [( )] To calculate the client's fee **** A log makes the partner's work transparent. It does not replace client records and it is not a channel to the reviewer. **** --- ## The Maturity Check ### What the Maturity Check is The Maturity Check is a structured self-assessment that a client completes with an Accredited Partner. It helps the client see its current level of practice, find gaps and decide what to improve first. It uses the ICoBC quality approach, which is organised around the VRITE pillars. > **Status.** The ICoBC VRITE criteria and the Global Quality Seal are Emerging. Indicators are not yet published, and internal documents use different expansions of the acronym. Pilots are ongoing. In this course, treat the Maturity Check as a rigorous way to gather and rate evidence about the client's practice, and always use the current official template. Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. Three ideas make the Maturity Check useful: - **Evidence over opinion.** Every rating rests on something the client can show: a policy, a record, a data set, a decision log. - **Honest ratings.** An inflated score hides the gaps the client needs to close. - **Action focus.** Results lead to a short list of priorities, not just a score. ### The flow of a Maturity Check A Maturity Check follows a repeatable flow. The partner keeps to the flow so that clients are treated consistently. ### Running each step **Step 1: Scope and agree.** Confirm which part of the client's work is in scope: one credential, one programme or the whole organisation. Agree who joins the sessions and how information is stored. Put the agreement in writing. **Step 2: Collect evidence.** Ask the client to bring documents and records before the rating session. The client collects the evidence. The partner tells the client what kinds of evidence are useful and does not write or tidy evidence for them. **Step 3: Rate and discuss.** The client team rates each area using the official scale. The partner asks open questions such as "What shows this?" and "Who checked it?" The partner does not set the ratings. If the client and the evidence disagree, the partner asks the client to look at the evidence again. **Step 4: Interpret results.** Look for patterns, not only totals. Note which areas are strong, which are thin and which have no evidence at all. Mark ratings that rest on opinion. Check whether weak areas are linked: a missing governance process can explain several weak ratings. **Step 5: Agree priorities.** Turn the interpretation into three to five priorities with owners and timing. The client owns the priorities. Keep them realistic, since a long list rarely gets done. ### Interpreting results with care A score is a conversation starter. When you interpret results, ask four questions: 1. Is each rating backed by evidence the client can show? 2. Do ratings across areas fit together, or does one contradict another? 3. Which gaps would matter most to an independent reviewer? 4. Which gaps can the client close in the time available? Take care with the third question. You may point to areas where evidence is thin, using the published criteria. You must not say how a reviewer will decide. **Worked example: The generous rating** During a Maturity Check for an employer that issues workplace credentials, the client team rates "stakeholder feedback" as strong. The partner, Daniel Reyes, asks: "What shows this?" The team replies that managers speak to staff often. No record exists. Daniel does not change the rating. He asks the team to look at the scale description and compare it with what they can show. The team revises the rating to a lower level and adds a priority: start a simple, recorded feedback cycle with a named owner. The final result is lower than the first rating. It is also truthful, and it gives the client a clear first improvement. **Practice activity: Interpret a result sheet** Below is an illustrative result summary for a fictional training provider. All numbers are illustrative and use an invented scale of 1 (not yet in place) to 5 (well established). | Area | Client rating | Evidence shown | |---|---|---| | Governance and roles | 4 | Roles document, meeting minutes | | Assessment rules | 4 | Assessment policy, no moderation records | | Learner data handling | 2 | Draft policy only | | Stakeholder feedback | 5 | "We talk to employers regularly" | | Improvement cycle | 3 | One review report from last year | Tasks: 1. Mark the ratings that may be too high for the evidence shown, and explain why in one sentence each. 2. Name one link between two weak areas. 3. Propose three priorities for the client. 4. Write two open questions you would ask in the rating session.

Facilitator notes

Allow 30 minutes. Expected answers: stakeholder feedback (5) rests on opinion only; assessment rules (4) lack moderation records. Possible link: weak learner data handling limits the improvement cycle, since improvement needs data. Accept any three priorities that name an owner and a deliverable. In the debrief, stress that the partner asks questions and does not change ratings. Use two participants to role-play the rating conversation.

### Quiz: The Maturity Check **Question 1.** Who sets the ratings in a Maturity Check? [( )] The partner, using their experience [(X)] The client team, based on evidence, with the partner asking questions [( )] The reviewer, before the check begins [( )] ICoBC head office **** The Maturity Check is a client self-assessment. The partner guides the process but does not set the ratings. **** **Question 2.** A client rates an area as strong but cannot show any record. What should the partner do? [( )] Accept the rating to keep the session positive [( )] Lower the rating privately in the report [(X)] Ask what shows the rating and invite the team to compare it with the scale description [( )] Write a record for the client **** Honest ratings rest on evidence. The partner asks questions and the client revises the rating. The partner never creates evidence for the client. **** **Question 3.** Which statement about the results is appropriate for a partner to make? [( )] "The reviewer will fail you on this gap." [(X)] "Evidence in this area is thin, and the published criteria ask for records of this kind." [( )] "Our score means you will pass the review." [( )] "Ignore the weak areas, they will not matter." **** The partner may point to thin evidence using published criteria. The partner must not predict how a reviewer will decide. **** **Question 4.** What is the purpose of step 5, "Agree priorities"? [( )] To give the client a final score for the Seal [( )] To list every possible improvement [(X)] To turn the results into a short, realistic list with owners and timing [( )] To pass the client's plan to the reviewer for approval **** A short list with owners is more likely to be done. The priorities belong to the client, and the plan is not submitted to the reviewer for approval. **** --- ## Working with clients ### Building a working relationship A good client relationship starts with clear expectations. In the first meeting, explain what the Maturity Check is, what the partner does, what the partner does not do and what the client must provide. Confirm this in writing. Clients differ. A small association may have few documents and one person doing several jobs. A large employer may have many policies and a team of specialists. Adjust your pace and language to the client, and keep the process the same. Useful habits: - Ask who will own the work inside the client organisation. - Agree how often you will meet and how you will share documents. - Use plain language. Explain terms the first time you use them. - Give honest feedback in a respectful way. Start with what is working. - Write short summaries after each session and share them. ### Facilitating the rating session The rating session is the heart of the Maturity Check. It works best with a small, mixed group: someone who leads the work, someone who handles records and someone who delivers the service to learners or customers. Invite people who know the daily reality, not only managers. Set ground rules at the start. Everyone may speak, ratings need evidence and disagreement is useful. When two people rate the same area differently, ask each to explain what they have seen. The difference often reveals an inconsistency in practice. Manage time. A long session loses energy. Plan breaks and agree which areas you will cover. If an area needs more evidence, park it, name an owner and return to it. ### Handling difficult moments Some situations are common. - **The client wants a high score.** Explain that a high score without evidence helps nobody. Remind the client that the aim is improvement. - **The client asks you to write the policy.** You may explain what a good policy covers and share a generic template from ICoBC. The client writes and owns its own policy. You will see in the next module why this matters for independence. - **A key person is absent.** Postpone areas that depend on that person's knowledge instead of guessing. - **Results are poor.** Present them calmly, begin with strengths and move quickly to priorities. - **The client shares confidential data.** Use it only for the agreed purpose, store it as agreed and do not discuss it with other clients. **Worked example: The missing policy** Partner Lena Hoffmann is working with an association that issues member credentials. In the Maturity Check, the area "complaints and appeals" has no evidence. The association's director asks, "Can you draft the procedure for us? We are short of time." Lena replies: "I can explain what a complaints procedure normally covers and show you the ICoBC generic outline. Your team should write the procedure so that it fits how you work and so that you can stand behind it." She shares the outline, the director nominates a quality officer as owner, and the item becomes priority two in the plan with a date for a first draft. Lena logs the request, her response and the template she shared. **Practice activity: Role play a rating session** Work in groups of three: partner, client lead and observer. Use the illustrative case below. *Case:* A fictional provider, Northfield Skills Academy, offers short courses and issues digital badges. The client lead says the assessment process is "very strong". The only evidence is an assessment policy that nobody has updated for four years. 1. The partner runs a five-minute rating conversation for the area "assessment rules". 2. The client lead pushes for a high rating. 3. The observer notes: Did the partner ask for evidence? Did the partner avoid setting the rating? Did the partner stay respectful? 4. Swap roles and repeat with a new area of your choice. 5. Write three lessons you will carry into your supervised Maturity Check.

Facilitator notes

This is the main live element for this module, about 60 minutes in the workshop. Brief the client-lead role players to push politely, not aggressively. Give observers a checklist: asked open questions, referred to the scale, did not write evidence, kept notes, stayed polite. Collect lessons on a board. Use the debrief to link to the code of conduct. Note any role play where the partner offered to write documents and discuss it as a bridge to module 4.

### Quiz: Working with clients **Question 1.** What is the best way to start work with a new client? [( )] Begin the rating session immediately to save time [(X)] Explain the service, its limits and what the client must provide, and confirm this in writing [( )] Promise a Seal outcome to build trust [( )] Ask the client to sign a pass guarantee **** Clear expectations in writing protect both sides. A partner never promises an outcome. **** **Question 2.** Two team members rate the same area very differently. What should the partner do? [( )] Take the average and move on [( )] Choose the rating of the most senior person [(X)] Ask each person to explain what they have seen and use the difference to understand actual practice [( )] Skip the area permanently **** Different ratings often show that practice is inconsistent. Exploring the difference gives useful information. **** **Question 3.** The client asks the partner to write its complaints procedure. What is the best response? [( )] Write it quickly, as the client is short of time [( )] Refuse to discuss complaints procedures at all [(X)] Explain what such a procedure covers, share the generic ICoBC outline and let the client write and own it [( )] Ask another client to share their procedure **** The partner may explain and share generic materials. The client writes and owns its documents. Sharing another client's document would also break confidentiality. **** **Question 4.** Why should the group in a rating session include people who deliver the service? [( )] They are cheaper than managers [( )] They decide the final ratings alone [(X)] They know the daily reality, so ratings are more honest and evidence is more complete [( )] They replace the need for documents **** People who deliver the service can describe real practice. Their view complements, not replaces, documented evidence. **** --- ## Boundaries with review ### Why independence matters The Global Quality Seal is only worth trusting if the review behind it is independent. If the same person advises a client and then judges the client, the judgement is open to doubt. ICB-R04 explained the risks. This module turns them into working rules for partners. > **Status.** The ICoBC VRITE criteria and the Global Quality Seal are Emerging. Pilots are ongoing and rules about review may change. Use the current partner guidance in the partner area, and ask your supervisor when the guidance is unclear. Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. ### Support and review: where the line runs Readiness work and review are different activities. Readiness work helps a client improve its own practice. Review checks whether the client's evidence meets the criteria. ### Rules of thumb for partners Use these rules in every engagement. 1. **Explain, do not write.** You may explain what a criterion asks for. You do not produce the client's policies, evidence or records. 2. **Generic, not tailored.** You may share generic ICoBC templates and examples. You do not tailor them to pass a review. 3. **Question, do not decide.** You ask questions that help the client find gaps. You do not tell the client how the reviewer will decide. 4. **No inside information.** You never share non-public information about review practice, reviewers or other clients. 5. **No dual roles.** You do not act as reviewer for a client you have supported. Declare any past support before you accept any review work. 6. **No promises.** You do not promise, imply or hint at a Seal outcome. 7. **Log and escalate.** You record borderline requests and ask your supervisor. ### Planning readiness work within the boundary A readiness plan lists improvements the client will make before applying for review. A good plan has these features: - Each action is owned by a named person at the client. - Each action produces evidence the client can show. - The plan uses plain verbs: write, run, record, check, publish. - The plan states what the partner will do, such as run a workshop on how to keep assessment records, and what the client will do. - The plan avoids language that hints at a result, for example "to secure approval". Be careful about how much support you give. A partner who does most of the work leaves the client without the skills to keep the improvements going. That also undermines the review, since the evidence would reflect the partner's work. **Worked example: The friendly reviewer** Partner Kwame Mensah supported a provider through a Maturity Check. Months later the provider applies for review. A colleague at ICoBC asks Kwame whether he would join the review team as he knows the client well. Kwame sees a clear conflict. He supported the client, so he cannot judge the client's evidence. He declines the review role, informs his supervisor and records the request and his answer in his log. The review is assigned to people with no history with the client. Later, the client asks Kwame whether he can "put in a good word". He declines this too and reminds the client that review decisions are made independently. **Practice activity: Draw the line** Read these seven requests a client might make. For each one, decide whether the partner can agree, can agree in part, or must decline. Write a one-sentence reply you would give. 1. "Please write our complaints policy." 2. "Please explain what a good complaints policy normally contains." 3. "Please tell us what the reviewers will focus on." 4. "Please look at our draft and ask us questions about gaps." 5. "Please share another client's policy as an example." 6. "Please act as one of our reviewers next year." 7. "Please add our improvement actions to the plan with owners and dates."

Facilitator notes

Allow 30 minutes, in pairs, then plenary. Suggested answers: 1 decline (offer an explanation and the generic outline); 2 agree; 3 decline (no inside information, point to published criteria only); 4 agree (questions, not rewriting); 5 decline (confidentiality); 6 decline (dual role); 7 agree. Discuss grey areas, for example how detailed a question may be before it becomes advice. Remind participants that doubt means asking the supervisor.

### Quiz: Boundaries with review **Question 1.** Which action is within the partner role? [( )] Writing the client's assessment policy [(X)] Sharing a generic ICoBC template and asking the client questions about gaps [( )] Telling the client how the reviewer will decide [( )] Sharing another client's records as a model **** Generic templates and questions support the client's own work. The other actions produce the client's evidence, hint at review outcomes or break confidentiality. **** **Question 2.** A partner supported a client last year. ICoBC asks the partner to join that client's review team. What should the partner do? [( )] Accept, since they know the client well [( )] Accept if the client agrees [(X)] Decline, inform the supervisor and record the request [( )] Accept but keep quiet about the earlier work **** Supporting a client and then judging the same client is a dual role. The partner declines and escalates. **** **Question 3.** Which readiness plan action respects independence? [( )] "Partner drafts the policy to secure approval" [( )] "Partner prepares the evidence folder for the reviewers" [(X)] "Quality officer writes and publishes the complaints procedure; partner runs a workshop on what such procedures cover" [( )] "Partner confirms to the client that the plan will lead to the Seal" **** The client creates and owns its evidence. The partner supports through explanation. The plan makes no promise about a result. **** **Question 4.** A client asks what a reviewer is likely to look for. What can the partner say? [( )] Share the reviewer's private notes from other cases [( )] Predict the questions the reviewer will ask [( )] Say that nothing can be discussed at all [(X)] Point the client to the published criteria and guidance and explain what they ask for **** Published criteria are open to everyone. The partner has no inside information and must not predict review decisions. **** **Question 5.** Why should a partner avoid doing most of the improvement work for the client? [( )] It is too expensive for the client [( )] Partners are not allowed to attend client meetings [(X)] The client would lack the skills to sustain improvements, and the evidence would reflect the partner's work [( )] The reviewer dislikes seeing partners **** Readiness work should build the client's own capability. Evidence produced by the partner does not show the client's real practice and weakens independence. **** --- ## Tools and templates ### Why consistent tools matter ICoBC provides tools and templates for the Maturity Check. Using them correctly keeps the work consistent across partners, makes results comparable and protects client information. A partner who invents their own forms or edits official ones creates confusion and weakens trust. > **Status.** Tools and templates may change while the VRITE criteria and the Global Quality Seal are Emerging. Always download the current versions from the ICoBC partner area before each engagement, and check the version number in the document. Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. ### The partner toolkit The partner toolkit usually contains items of the following kinds. Names here are descriptive. Use the official names from the partner area. - **Engagement letter template:** states scope, service limits, confidentiality and the no-outcome statement. - **Maturity Check template:** the structured form with areas, rating scale and evidence column. - **Evidence checklist:** a list of typical evidence types the client may bring. - **Results summary and report template:** the format for interpretation and priorities. - **Readiness plan template:** actions, owners, evidence and dates. - **Engagement and conduct log:** a record of decisions, advice and boundary questions. ### Using templates correctly Follow these rules. - **Use the current version.** Check the version number and date before each engagement. - **Do not alter the structure.** You may add notes in the spaces provided. You do not delete areas, change scales or rename fields. - **Complete every field.** If a field does not apply, write "not applicable" and a short reason. - **Keep evidence references clear.** Name the document, its date and where it is stored. - **Separate facts from views.** Record the client's rating, the evidence shown and your own observations in different places. - **Store safely.** Keep client materials only where the engagement letter allows, and delete or return them as agreed. - **Label drafts.** Mark working versions as drafts and final versions as final, with the date. ### Writing the report The report is the main record of the engagement. Write it in plain English for the client. A good report contains: 1. The scope and the date of the Maturity Check. 2. A short description of how it was run, with the names of participants by role. 3. The results by area, with the rating and the evidence shown. 4. An interpretation: strengths, gaps and links between them. 5. The agreed priorities and the readiness plan. 6. A statement of the limits of the service, including that it gives no view on any review outcome. 7. A short note on any boundary questions that arose and how they were handled. Avoid vague phrases such as "generally good". Say what was seen. Avoid any wording that sounds like a verdict, for example "this will pass". Use "the evidence shown covers" or "no evidence was shown for". **Worked example: The altered template** Partner Sofia Marchetti is preparing a Maturity Check for a provider. Her own copy of the template has an area she finds repetitive, so she deletes it and merges two rating scales "to save time". Her supervisor, reviewing a draft, notices that the client's result sheet no longer matches other partners' sheets. Sofia downloads the current official template, copies the client's ratings into it and completes every field. She adds a note in her log that she altered the structure by mistake and corrected it. The supervisor confirms that the result is now consistent. The lesson is simple. Use the template as issued, and put your own thoughts in the notes fields. **Practice activity: Complete the template and report extract** Use the illustrative case below. Use the official templates from the partner area if you have access, or copy the table layout provided. *Case:* A fictional association, the Riverside Professional Association, issues a member credential. In the Maturity Check, the area "complaints and appeals" has these facts: the client rated it 2; evidence shown is a one-page draft procedure with no named owner and no record of use. Tasks: 1. Complete one row of the Maturity Check template: area, client rating, evidence reference, observation. 2. Write a two-sentence interpretation for the report that states what was seen, without a verdict. 3. Write one readiness plan action with owner, evidence to be produced and a date (use an illustrative date such as "30 January 2027"). 4. Write one line for the conduct log that records a boundary question: the client asked you to finish the draft procedure, and you declined.

Facilitator notes

Give participants 30 minutes. Provide the official templates in the live session or as a download. Check that rows use evidence references, that the interpretation avoids verdict language, and that the plan action names a client owner. Common errors: partner named as owner, vague dates, "should pass" wording. Collect two examples of good wording and share them anonymously.

### Quiz: Tools and templates **Question 1.** Before starting an engagement, what should the partner do with the templates? [( )] Use the copy saved last year [(X)] Download the current versions and check the version number and date [( )] Create a new template to fit the client [( )] Ask the client to design the form **** Current official versions keep work consistent across partners. Old or home-made templates cause confusion. **** **Question 2.** A field on the template does not apply to the client. What should the partner do? [( )] Delete the field [( )] Leave it blank [(X)] Write "not applicable" and a short reason [( )] Replace it with a different field **** Completing every field, even with "not applicable", shows that the area was considered and keeps sheets comparable. **** **Question 3.** Which sentence is suitable for the report? [( )] "The client's complaints procedure is generally good and will pass review." [( )] "The client is clearly ready for the Seal." [(X)] "A one-page draft procedure was shown. No named owner and no record of use were shown." [( )] "The reviewers will not worry about this gap." **** The suitable sentence states what was seen, without a verdict and without a prediction about review. **** **Question 4.** Why does the report include a note on boundary questions? [( )] To show off the partner's skills [( )] To tell the reviewer what to look at [(X)] To make the handling of boundary questions transparent and checkable [( )] To replace the conduct log **** A short note on boundary questions makes the partner's decisions transparent. It does not replace the log and it is not directed at the reviewer. **** --- ## Assessment and badge ### The assessed task The assessment is a **supervised Maturity Check with a case client, and a report**. A supervisor observes you running the Maturity Check with a case client. The case client is a role-played or simulated organisation provided by the programme. You then write a report using the official templates. You prepare for the task with the module activities and the knowledge check below. The knowledge check is not graded by this file. Your facilitator or supervisor discusses your results with you. A person assesses the report using the rubric. The file does not grade it. **Task steps:** 1. Prepare: download current templates, read the case brief, draft the engagement letter and an evidence checklist for the case client. 2. Run the supervised Maturity Check with the case client, following the five-step flow. 3. Keep a conduct log during the session. Record at least two boundary moments. 4. Write the report, including results, interpretation, priorities, a readiness plan and the limits statement. 5. Submit the report, completed templates and conduct log to your supervisor.

Facilitator notes

Brief the case client actors with a written case brief that includes at least: two areas with weak evidence, one area rated too high, and one request that crosses a boundary (for example "please write our policy" or "tell us what the reviewers will ask"). Observe silently and use the observation notes for rubric criteria 1, 2, 3 and 5. Allow 90 minutes for the session and about two hours for report writing. The supervisor signs off only after the rubric is completed. Where the participant does not reach the pass level, give written feedback and allow one resubmission of the report or one repeat of the observed session, as set by programme rules.

### Rubric The assessor rates each criterion on four levels: Not yet, Developing, Secure, Strong. | Criterion | Not yet | Developing | Secure | Strong | |---|---|---|---|---| | 1. Running the Maturity Check (outcome 1) | Steps missing or out of order; partner sets ratings | Most steps followed; some ratings accepted without evidence | All five steps followed; ratings tied to evidence by client | All steps followed with confident facilitation; handles disagreement and gaps in evidence well | | 2. Interpreting results (outcome 1) | Scores listed without interpretation | Some strengths and gaps named; links missing | Strengths, gaps and links named; evidence quality noted | Clear patterns, realistic priorities and an explanation the client can act on | | 3. Readiness planning and independence (outcome 2) | Plan promises outcomes or partner does the client's work | Plan has actions but owners or evidence are unclear | Actions owned by the client, with evidence and dates; no outcome hints | Plan builds client capability; partner role stated clearly; boundary reasoning explained | | 4. Tools and templates (outcome 3) | Wrong or altered templates; fields missing | Current templates used with some gaps or errors | Current templates complete and unaltered; evidence references clear | Templates complete and precise; report is clear, consistent and easy to audit | | 5. Code of conduct (outcome 4) | Breach of the code, for example an outcome promise or a confidentiality lapse | Code mostly followed; boundary moments not logged | Code followed; at least two boundary moments logged with reasoning | Code applied consistently; escalation used well; transparent record | ### Pass rule To pass, you need: - "Secure" or higher on every criterion, and - no breach of the code of conduct, and - supervisor sign-off. A rating of "Not yet" or "Developing" on any criterion means the badge is not yet awarded. You receive written feedback and follow the resubmission route set by the programme. ### Evidence for the badge Submit the following to your supervisor: - The report. - The completed Maturity Check template, readiness plan and engagement letter. - The conduct log. - The supervisor's observation notes and sign-off. Badge: "Accredited Partner Programme: Running the Maturity Check (Ability, L3)", alignment code ICSF-QUAL-L3-A. Completing this course and badge shows that you performed the assessed task in a controlled setting. It does not prove competence in a specific job. ### Final knowledge check Answer all ten questions. Use them to prepare for the supervised task. A person discusses your results with you. **Question 1.** What is the main purpose of the Maturity Check? [( )] To decide whether a client receives the Global Quality Seal [(X)] To help the client see its current practice, find gaps and choose improvements [( )] To train reviewers [( )] To produce a marketing score for the client **** The Maturity Check is a self-assessment for improvement. It does not decide on the Seal. This supports outcome 1. **** **Question 2.** In a Maturity Check session, a team member says a process is strong but shows no record. What should the partner do? [( )] Raise the rating on the team member's word [( )] Write a record for the team [(X)] Ask what shows the rating, and invite the team to compare it with the scale description [( )] End the session **** Ratings need evidence. The partner asks questions and does not create evidence. This supports outcomes 1 and 4. **** **Question 3.** Which statement belongs in a results interpretation? [( )] "The reviewer will probably accept this." [( )] "This area is hopeless." [(X)] "Evidence covers governance roles. No moderation records were shown for assessment." [( )] "This will certainly secure the Seal." **** Good interpretations describe what was seen without verdicts or predictions. This supports outcome 1. **** **Question 4.** Which readiness action best respects independence? [( )] The partner writes the data policy for the client [( )] The partner prepares the evidence folder for review [(X)] The client's data officer writes the policy, and the partner runs a short workshop on what such policies cover [( )] The partner promises that the plan will lead to the Seal **** The client owns the evidence. The partner explains. The plan promises nothing. This supports outcome 2. **** **Question 5.** Last year you supported a client. ICoBC now asks you to review that client. What do you do? [( )] Accept, as you know them well [( )] Accept if the client agrees [(X)] Decline, inform your supervisor and record the request [( )] Accept and keep the earlier work private **** Supporting and judging the same client is a dual role and must be avoided. This supports outcomes 2 and 4. **** **Question 6.** A client asks what the reviewers will focus on. What can you say? [( )] Share private information about review practice [( )] Describe likely questions based on a colleague's hints [(X)] Point to the published criteria and guidance and explain what they ask for [( )] Say nothing at all about criteria **** Published materials can be explained. Inside information must not be shared. This supports outcomes 2 and 4. **** **Question 7.** Which action shows correct use of templates? [( )] Merging two rating scales to save time [( )] Reusing last year's version without checking [(X)] Downloading the current version, completing every field and writing "not applicable" where needed [( )] Deleting areas that seem repetitive **** Templates are used as issued, in their current version, with every field completed. This supports outcome 3. **** **Question 8.** Which entry belongs in the conduct log? [( )] The client's private financial details [(X)] A note that the client asked you to write a policy, that you declined and what you offered instead [( )] Gossip about another client [( )] Predictions about the review result **** The log records advice given and boundaries kept. It holds no unrelated personal data or predictions. This supports outcomes 3 and 4. **** **Question 9.** What should an engagement letter state about the Seal? [( )] That the service increases the chance of the Seal [( )] That the partner will attend the review [(X)] That the service gives no Seal outcome and review is independent [( )] That the Seal is guaranteed after the readiness plan **** The letter must make the limits of the service clear. This supports outcomes 2 and 4. **** **Question 10.** Which readiness plan action is written correctly? [( )] "Partner to prepare the appeals procedure to secure approval" [( )] "Improve appeals somehow" [(X)] "Quality officer to write and publish the appeals procedure and record its first use, by 30 January 2027" [( )] "Ask the reviewer to confirm the appeals procedure" **** A good action has a named client owner, produces evidence and has a date. It does not hint at an outcome or involve the reviewer. This supports outcomes 2 and 3. **** --- ## Sources and further reading Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. Only sources that are certain to exist are listed. Add exact titles and links from the ICoBC partner area before publishing. - ICoBC, Accredited Partner materials in the partner area: current partner code of conduct, Maturity Check template and partner toolkit. - ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF), skill QUAL "Quality assurance and accreditation". - ICoBC course ICB-F09, Quality in Credentialing: How Trust Is Built (prerequisite). - ICoBC course ICB-R04, Independence and Conflicts of Interest in the Quality Network (prerequisite). - ISO/IEC 17000, Conformity assessment: Vocabulary and general principles, International Organization for Standardization. Background on the vocabulary of conformity assessment and the principle of impartiality. - ISO/IEC 17011, Conformity assessment: Requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies, International Organization for Standardization. Background on impartiality in accreditation. Topic status: ICoBC VRITE criteria and Global Quality Seal [Emerging]. Indicators are not yet published, internal documents use different expansions of the acronym, and pilots are ongoing. Status as of November 2026; check before publishing.