Competency Validation: Credential Designer

Proof that you design credentials to standard in live work.

This is a candidate guide for a work-based validation, not a taught course. It tells you what evidence from live work to collect, how to structure your portfolio, how attestation works and how to prepare for the professional discussion with an ICoBC assessor.

The validation sits at stage C "Competency" of the ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF), for the skill CRDS "Credential design" (VRITE pillar: Rigor) at level L3 "Enable". At this level you design credentials and pathways for a programme, decide granularity, stacking rules and alignment targets, and guide others in using templates. The stage definition is: applying the capability in a real context, usually work, with the responsibility of the stated level, over time and with observable effect.

Who it is for

• L&D and corporate academy leads
• Programme and micro-credential leads
• Learning designers and teaching staff
• Professional bodies and sector associations

Prerequisites

• ICB-P01 Designing a Credential: Claim, Criteria, Evidence and Metadata
• ICB-P02 Assessment Design for Credentials: Valid, Reliable, Fair

Learning outcomes

1. Show that credentials you designed in live work meet the ICoBC design standard.
2. Explain your design decisions and their effect on readers and earners.
3. Show improvement based on feedback or data.

Workload

About 15 hours of candidate preparation and assessment. Plan roughly 3 hours to read this guide, 7 hours to assemble the portfolio, 1 hour to obtain the attestation, 3 hours to prepare for the discussion and 1 hour for the discussion itself and its follow-up. These figures are illustrative; your own pace will vary.

How it is assessed

You submit a portfolio of two live credentials with outcome data, an attestation by your line manager or client, and you take part in a 45-minute professional discussion with an ICoBC assessor. The assessor scores your evidence against the rubric in the section "Assessment and badge".

Badge

"Competency Validation: Credential Designer (Competency, L3)", alignment code ICSF-CRDS-L3-C. The badge is valid for 3 years. Badge evidence is the portfolio, the attestation and the discussion record.

The graphic below shows the three steps that ICoBC validations use. This guide supports the third step.

Portfolio guidance

This module explains what the portfolio is, how to structure it and how attestation works. Read it first, then build your portfolio in the order given.

What the portfolio must show

Your portfolio is a structured record of two credentials that you designed and that are in live use. "Live" means that earners or readers outside a test group are using or have used the credential. A credential that exists only as a draft or a pilot with colleagues does not qualify.

At level L3 you carry responsibility for a programme or a set of credentials, not only for a single badge. For that reason the two credentials should show decisions at programme level: granularity, stacking rules and alignment targets. If one credential belongs to a pathway, show where it sits in that pathway.

The portfolio has to meet the ICoBC design standard that you studied in ICB-P01 and ICB-P02: a clear claim, criteria, evidence requirements, assessment that is valid, reliable and fair, and complete metadata. You do not repeat the teaching of those courses. You show that your live credentials meet them.

The four parts of the portfolio

Use the same four parts for each credential, plus one shared part at the start and one at the end.

1. Cover sheet (shared). Your name, role, organisation, the two credentials in one line each, and the AI disclosure statement for the whole portfolio.
2. Credential record (per credential). The published claim, criteria, evidence requirements, assessment method and metadata, exactly as readers and earners see them.
3. Design rationale (per credential). A page of plain prose that explains your decisions on granularity, stacking, alignment and assessment, and why you made them.
4. Outcome data and improvement log (per credential). Numbers and feedback from live use, and a dated list of changes you made because of them.
5. Attestation (shared). The signed statement from your line manager or client.

How attestation works

The attestation is a short signed statement from a person who can confirm your role and the live use of the credentials. This is normally your line manager. If you work as an independent designer, it is the client who commissioned the work.

The attester confirms five things:

• that you were the lead designer or a named co-designer, and what your share of the work was;
• that the credentials are in live use, with the dates of first issue;
• that the outcome data in the portfolio comes from real use;
• that you guided others in using templates or methods, where this applies;
• that they have read the portfolio cover sheet and the AI disclosure.

The attester does not judge the quality of the design. The assessor does that. Give your attester the template from the ICoBC candidate pack, the cover sheet and at least one week to respond. Do not write the statement for them and ask them to sign it unread. If the attester is also a co-designer, say so on the cover sheet, because the assessor may ask for a second contact.

AI disclosure in portfolio artefacts

If you used AI tools to draft any artefact, such as criteria wording, rubric text, metadata descriptions or the design rationale, you disclose it. For each artefact, state which tool type you used, what you asked it to do and what you changed afterwards. You remain responsible for every artefact in the portfolio. In the discussion the assessor may ask you to explain any wording, and you need to be able to do so.

Worked example: a university portfolio structure

Amira is a micro-credential lead at a university. She submits two credentials: "Data Ethics for Research Staff" (a stand-alone credential) and "Research Methods Foundations" (the first credential in a three-credential pathway).

Her cover sheet names both credentials, states that the university's quality office is her attester and includes this disclosure: "I used a general-purpose AI assistant to propose first drafts of the metadata descriptions for both credentials. I rewrote all descriptions after checking them against the published criteria. The design rationales and outcome analysis are my own."

For "Research Methods Foundations" her credential record shows the live issuer page. Her rationale explains why she set the credential at 30 hours of learner effort (illustrative), why it stacks with two later credentials and which framework level it targets. Her improvement log shows a dated change to the evidence requirement after earners reported that the original submission format was unclear.

An assessor reading this sees the credential as readers see it, the reasons behind it and a record of change.

Practice activity: build your portfolio skeleton

Create an empty folder or document with the following headings, in this order: Cover sheet; Credential A record, rationale, data and log; Credential B record, rationale, data and log; Attestation; AI disclosure. Then complete these steps:

1. Choose your two credentials. Write one sentence for each saying why it qualifies as live work.
2. Note for each credential where its published page can be seen by a reader.
3. Name your attester and send a short request with the date by which you need the statement.
4. List every artefact for which you used AI help and draft the disclosure sentence for each.

Keep the skeleton. You will fill it in Module 2.

Selecting evidence

This module explains which evidence from live work to collect, how to choose between candidates for inclusion and how to present outcome data and improvement.

What counts as strong evidence

Strong evidence has four features: it comes from live work, it is dated, it can be traced to you and it shows an effect. Weak evidence is generic, undated or could have been produced by anyone.

Collect evidence in four groups.

Design artefacts. The published claim and criteria, the evidence requirements given to earners, the assessment instructions and rubric, the metadata fields, and any stacking or pathway rules. Show the artefact in its live form, not a later clean copy.

Decision records. Short notes, emails, meeting minutes or design briefs that show why you chose a given granularity, stacking rule or alignment target. A dated decision note written at the time is stronger than a reflection written later.

Outcome data. Numbers from live use: how many earners applied, how many were awarded, completion and resubmission rates, time to award, and any available feedback from earners, readers or employers. Label all figures with their source and period. If numbers are small, say so, and do not round them up to look larger.

Guidance given to others. Because L3 includes guiding others in using templates, include evidence of that: a template you adapted, a short guide you wrote, an agenda from a session you ran, or feedback from colleagues who used your template.

Choosing your two credentials

Choose credentials that let you show different things. Two near-identical credentials give the assessor one story twice. Good pairs differ in one or more of these ways: stand-alone and part of a pathway, different assessment methods, different audiences, or different outcomes after revision.

Choose for evidence quality, not for prestige. A small, well-documented credential with clear data and a visible revision is a better choice than a large credential with no data.

Showing improvement from feedback or data

Outcome 3 asks you to show improvement. A useful improvement log has four columns for each change: the date, the signal (what feedback or data you saw), the change you made and the effect afterwards. If the effect is not yet known, say so and state when you will check.

Not every change has to be a success. A change that did not work, followed by a second change that did, shows more rigour than a perfect record. Assessors read honesty about limits as a sign of competence.

What to leave out

Leave out personal data about earners. Use counts, rates and anonymised quotes with permission. Leave out confidential commercial information, or redact it and say that you did so. Leave out generic claims such as "the credential was well received" unless you can show the source.

Worked example: a corporate academy improvement log

Tomasz is a learning designer at a corporate academy. One of his two credentials is "Safe Handling in Warehouse Operations", issued to warehouse staff. His outcome data covers six months of live use (illustrative figures): 120 applications, 96 awarded at first submission, 18 awarded after resubmission and 6 not yet awarded.

His improvement log has one entry among several:

• Date: 14 March 2026.
• Signal: 18 of 24 resubmissions cited the same criterion, "demonstrates correct manual lifting technique", as unclear. Two supervisors reported that earners did not know what photo or video evidence to submit.
• Change: Tomasz rewrote the criterion with an observable standard, added two annotated examples of acceptable evidence and shortened the submission form.
• Effect: In the following eight weeks, resubmissions on that criterion fell from 18 of 120 to 5 of 60 (illustrative figures). He notes that the second period is shorter and the sample is small.

The log entry links to the dated decision note, the old and new criterion text and the supervisor emails. An assessor can trace every step.

Practice activity: evidence audit

For each of your two credentials, complete a table with these columns: Evidence item; Group (design artefact, decision record, outcome data, guidance given to others); Date; Source; Shows which outcome (1, 2 or 3). Aim for at least eight items per credential. Then:

1. Mark any gap: a group with no item, or an item with no date.
2. Write one improvement-log entry in the four-column format for each credential.
3. Mark every item where AI helped to produce the artefact, and add it to your disclosure.
4. Remove or redact personal data.

Preparing for the professional discussion

This module explains what happens in the 45-minute professional discussion and how to prepare for it.

What the discussion is for

The professional discussion is a structured conversation with an ICoBC assessor. It checks that the portfolio is your work, that you can explain your decisions and that you understand their effect on readers and earners. It also gives you a chance to explain gaps and limits in your evidence.

The assessor has read your portfolio before the discussion. You do not present it again. The assessor chooses questions that follow the rubric, so you can prepare by walking through the rubric criteria and finding your best evidence for each.

Shape of the 45 minutes

The timings below are a guide. The assessor may adjust them.

• Opening (about 5 minutes). Introductions, how the discussion will run and any adjustments you need.
• Design decisions (about 15 minutes). Questions on granularity, stacking rules, alignment targets and assessment choices for each credential.
• Effect on readers and earners (about 10 minutes). Questions on how readers interpret the credential, how earners experience it and what the data shows.
• Improvement and AI use (about 10 minutes). Questions on your improvement log and your AI disclosure.
• Close (about 5 minutes). Anything you want to add and what happens next.

How to prepare

Prepare for three kinds of question.

Why questions. "Why did you set this credential at this size?" "Why did you allow stacking here and not there?" Answer with the reason, the options you considered and the evidence you used. Point to a portfolio item by name.

Effect questions. "What did readers need that the metadata did not give them?" "How did earners react to the evidence requirement?" Answer with data and, where possible, with a short example. Say what you do not know.

Change questions. "What would you do differently?" "What did the data tell you?" Answer with a specific change, not a general wish to improve.

Place the portfolio in front of you in a form you can navigate quickly, with tabs or numbered pages. Prepare one-sentence answers for each rubric criterion and one example for each. Be ready to explain every line of AI-assisted text.

Reference to the policy context

You may be asked how your designs relate to the wider policy context. Be ready to speak about the EU Council Recommendation on micro-credentials (2022) if it applies to your work, for example in the way you describe learning outcomes, workload, level, assessment and quality assurance in your metadata. You do not need to recite its text. You need to explain which parts of it you used and why. Status as of November 2026; check before publishing.

Practical points on the day

Check your connection and room in advance if the discussion is online. Have the portfolio open and a copy of the rubric to hand. Ask for a question to be repeated if you need it. If you do not know something, say so and say how you would find out. The discussion record is kept as badge evidence, so speak clearly and name the portfolio items you refer to.

Worked example: a strong answer in a discussion

An assessor asks Priya, a programme lead at a training provider: "Why did you not allow the first two credentials in your pathway to stack towards the third?"

Priya answers: "In the design note of 9 January I compared two options. The first allowed stacking of any two credentials. The second required the foundation credential and one named elective. Employers in our advisory group told us the foundation credential carried the core claim, so I chose the second option. I recorded the group's feedback in the minutes you have in item 6. After six months, 11 of 40 earners (illustrative) asked whether they could use a different elective. I have not changed the rule, because the data does not yet show that the alternative would keep the claim intact. I plan to review it in the next cycle."

Priya names the options, the evidence, the effect on earners and a decision not to change yet, and she points to portfolio items by number.

Practice activity: rehearse with a colleague

Ask a colleague who has not read your portfolio to act as assessor for 20 minutes. Give them three rubric criteria and the list of question types above. Then:

1. Answer one why question, one effect question and one change question, each in under two minutes.
2. For each answer, name the portfolio item you rely on.
3. Ask your colleague to note any answer where you made a claim without pointing to evidence.
4. Revise your notes and repeat for one more criterion.

Record the date and the points you changed. You do not submit this record, but it helps you to see where your evidence is thin.

Assessment and badge

The assessment task

You complete three parts of assessment.

1. Portfolio of two live credentials with outcome data, structured as described in "Portfolio guidance".
2. Attestation by your line manager or client, confirming your role, the live use and the origin of the data.
3. 45-minute professional discussion with an ICoBC assessor.

You also answer the knowledge check below. It helps you to check your understanding of the process before you submit. The assessor scores the portfolio and the discussion, not the knowledge check.

Self-check checklist

Before you submit, confirm each item:

• [ ] Both credentials are in live use, with dates of first issue.
• [ ] Each credential has a record, a design rationale, outcome data and an improvement log.
• [ ] Every evidence item is dated, sourced and traceable to my role.
• [ ] Personal and confidential data are removed or redacted.
• [ ] The AI disclosure names each affected artefact, the tool type, the task and my changes.
• [ ] My attester has signed the statement and the cover sheet is attached.
• [ ] I have prepared one-sentence answers and one example for each rubric criterion.
• [ ] I have rehearsed the discussion at least once.

Assessment criteria

Pass rule

You pass when all three assessment parts are completed and the assessor scores "Meets the standard" or "Strong" on every criterion. A score of "Developing" on any criterion means the validation is not yet awarded. The assessor gives written feedback and you may resubmit the affected parts.

Evidence submitted for the badge

The badge "Competency Validation: Credential Designer (Competency, L3)", alignment code ICSF-CRDS-L3-C, is awarded on the basis of:

• the portfolio;
• the attestation;
• the discussion record.

The badge is valid for 3 years.

Final knowledge check

Sources and further reading

Status as of November 2026; check before publishing.

• Council of the European Union. Council Recommendation of 16 June 2022 on a European approach to micro-credentials for lifelong learning and employability (2022/C 243/02). Published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Available through the EUR-Lex portal.
• ICoBC. ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF), skill CRDS "Credential design". Framework owner: International Council on Badges and Credentials, Berlin.
• ICoBC. ICoBC design standard as taught in ICB-P01 Designing a Credential: Claim, Criteria, Evidence and Metadata, and ICB-P02 Assessment Design for Credentials: Valid, Reliable, Fair.
• ICoBC. Candidate pack for work-based validations, including the attestation template.