# Competency Validation: Credential Designer *Proof that you design credentials to standard in live work.* ## About this course 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. | Outcome | Module | How it is assessed | |---|---|---| | 1. Show that credentials you designed in live work meet the ICoBC design standard. | Portfolio guidance | Portfolio of two live credentials; assessor scoring against the rubric | | 1. Show that credentials you designed in live work meet the ICoBC design standard. | Selecting evidence | Portfolio artefacts and outcome data; attestation by line manager or client | | 2. Explain your design decisions and their effect on readers and earners. | Portfolio guidance | Design rationale in the portfolio | | 2. Explain your design decisions and their effect on readers and earners. | Preparing for the professional discussion | 45-minute professional discussion with an ICoBC assessor | | 3. Show improvement based on feedback or data. | Selecting evidence | Outcome data and revision history in the portfolio | | 3. Show improvement based on feedback or data. | Preparing for the professional discussion | 45-minute professional discussion with an ICoBC assessor | 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. **Question 1.** Which description best fits a credential that qualifies as "live" for this validation? [( )] A credential that you have fully designed and approved but not yet published. [( )] A credential that colleagues have tested in an internal pilot only. [(X)] A credential that earners or readers outside a test group are using or have used. [( )] A credential that you plan to launch within the next year. **** A live credential is in real use. Drafts, internal pilots and plans do not give the observable effect that the Competency stage requires. **** **Question 2.** What does the attester confirm? [( )] That the design is of high quality and meets the ICoBC design standard. [(X)] Your role, the live use of the credentials and that the outcome data comes from real use. [( )] That you have passed the professional discussion. [( )] That the credentials are valid in all EU member states. **** The attester confirms facts about your role and the live use. The assessor judges design quality against the rubric. **** **Question 3.** You used an AI tool to draft the criteria wording of one credential. What should the portfolio contain? [( )] Nothing, because the final text is your own responsibility. [( )] A general statement that AI exists in modern workplaces. [(X)] A disclosure naming the artefact, what the tool was asked to do and what you changed. [( )] A removal of the artefact from the portfolio. **** Disclosure is specific to each artefact. You remain responsible for the final wording and need to be able to explain it in the discussion. ****

Facilitator notes

Candidates often over-invest in the cover sheet and under-invest in the improvement log. Remind them that Outcome 3 depends on the log. If a candidate works for an organisation that cannot share outcome data, agree early with the assessment office how to anonymise it, for example by reporting rounded figures and ranges.

## 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. **Question 1.** Which item is the strongest evidence for a design decision on granularity? [( )] A paragraph written this week saying you always consider granularity carefully. [(X)] A dated design note from the time of the decision that sets out the options and the reason for the choice. [( )] A template downloaded from a public website. [( )] A general statement from a colleague that you are a good designer. **** Strong evidence is dated, traceable to you and tied to the specific decision. A contemporary note shows the reasoning as it happened. **** **Question 2.** Your outcome data comes from a small group of 14 earners. What should you do? [( )] Leave the data out, because small numbers are not accepted. [( )] Round the figures up so that they look more convincing. [( )] Combine the data with figures from a different credential without saying so. [(X)] Report the actual numbers, state the group size and the period, and say what you will check as more data arrives. **** Honest reporting of small samples is acceptable and shows rigour. Hiding or inflating figures harms credibility. **** **Question 3.** Which improvement-log entry best supports Outcome 3? [( )] "We improved the credential after feedback." [( )] "The credential is regularly reviewed." [(X)] A dated entry that names the signal, the change made and the effect observed afterwards. [( )] A copy of the credential's final criteria with no earlier version. **** Outcome 3 asks you to show improvement based on feedback or data. That requires the link from signal to change to effect, with dates. ****

Facilitator notes

Check that candidates have chosen two credentials that differ in a meaningful way. Ask candidates to bring one improvement-log entry to a peer session and have a colleague try to trace the evidence behind it in five minutes. If the colleague cannot, the entry needs more links.

## 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. **Question 1.** What is the main purpose of the professional discussion? [( )] To repeat the portfolio contents in a presentation. [(X)] To check that the portfolio is your work and that you can explain your decisions and their effect. [( )] To teach you the ICoBC design standard. [( )] To collect the attestation from your line manager. **** The assessor has read the portfolio already. The discussion tests ownership and understanding of the design decisions and their effect. **** **Question 2.** The assessor asks what you would change in a credential. Which answer is strongest? [( )] "Nothing, it works well." [( )] "I would improve everything if I had more time." [(X)] A specific change, linked to a signal from the data or feedback, with the reason and a plan to check the effect. [( )] "I would ask my line manager what to do." **** A strong answer ties the change to evidence and to a way of checking it. This supports Outcome 3. **** **Question 3.** You do not know the answer to a factual question in the discussion. What should you do? [( )] Guess confidently, so that you appear knowledgeable. [( )] Change the subject to a topic you know well. [(X)] Say that you do not know and explain how you would find out. [( )] End the discussion early. **** Honest limits are acceptable. Guessing or deflecting weakens trust in your other answers. ****

Facilitator notes

Offer a short rehearsal session using the rubric. Keep rehearsal assessors separate from the ICoBC assessor who will score the discussion, to avoid conflict of interest. Remind candidates that adjustments, for example extra time or a different format, need to be requested before the date of the discussion.

## 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 | Criterion | Developing (not yet met) | Meets the standard | Strong | |---|---|---|---| | 1. Design standard: claim, criteria, evidence, assessment and metadata of both credentials (Outcome 1) | One or more elements missing or unclear; assessment validity, reliability or fairness not addressed | All elements present and consistent; assessment addresses validity, reliability and fairness; metadata complete | All of the standard, plus clear alignment of claim, criteria and assessment, and metadata that a reader can use without further help | | 2. Programme-level decisions: granularity, stacking rules, alignment targets (Outcome 1) | Decisions not stated or not tied to the programme | Decisions stated for each credential, with reasons linked to the programme | Decisions form a coherent set across the programme, and trade-offs are explained | | 3. Live use and evidence quality (Outcome 1) | Evidence undated, generic or not traceable to the candidate | Evidence dated, sourced and traceable; live use confirmed by the attestation | Evidence covers all four groups, with decision records made at the time | | 4. Explanation of decisions (Outcome 2) | Reasons missing or given only in general terms | Reasons given for key decisions, with reference to evidence | Reasons compare options, cite evidence and show awareness of limits | | 5. Effect on readers and earners (Outcome 2) | Effect not discussed or based on assumption | Effect described using data or feedback from live use | Effect analysed for both readers and earners, with honest account of what is not yet known | | 6. Improvement from feedback or data (Outcome 3) | No change shown, or changes not linked to a signal | At least one dated change per credential, linked to a signal, with the effect checked or a plan to check | Several changes, including one that did not work, with clear learning and follow-up | | 7. Guiding others in using templates (L3 skill) | No evidence of guiding others | At least one item showing guidance given to others | Guidance used by others, with feedback from users | | 8. AI disclosure and responsible use | No disclosure, or disclosure too general to check | Disclosure names artefacts, tool type, task and changes; candidate can explain AI-assisted text | Disclosure is complete and the candidate shows how AI-assisted text was checked and corrected | ### 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 **Question 1.** Which statement describes the Competency stage in the ICoBC framework? [( )] Knowing the standard and being able to describe it. [( )] Applying the standard in a controlled task set by a trainer. [(X)] Applying the capability in a real context, usually work, with the responsibility of the stated level, over time and with observable effect. [( )] Teaching the standard to other people. **** The Competency stage is about live application at the stated level of responsibility, over time and with observable effect. Knowledge and Ability are the earlier steps. **** **Question 2.** Which pair of credentials gives the strongest portfolio? [( )] Two near-identical credentials from the same template, both launched last month. [(X)] A stand-alone credential and a credential within a pathway, both in live use with data. [( )] One credential in live use and one draft that has not been published. [( )] Two credentials designed by a colleague that you reviewed. **** Two credentials that differ in meaningful ways let you show a wider range of decisions. Both must be live and designed by you. **** **Question 3.** Which item is NOT a task of the attester? [( )] Confirming your role in the design. [( )] Confirming the dates of live use. [(X)] Scoring the quality of your design against the rubric. [( )] Confirming that the outcome data comes from real use. **** The assessor scores the quality of the design. The attester confirms facts about your role and the live use. **** **Question 4.** What makes an improvement-log entry useful for Outcome 3? [( )] It states that the credential is regularly reviewed. [( )] It lists the names of everyone who gave feedback. [(X)] It links a dated signal to a specific change and to the effect observed or a plan to check it. [( )] It describes plans for a new credential. **** Outcome 3 requires you to show improvement based on feedback or data, so the log has to link signal, change and effect. **** **Question 5.** Which approach to a small data set of 14 earners is acceptable? [( )] Leave out the data altogether. [( )] Present the figures as percentages without stating the group size. [(X)] Report the actual counts, state the period and say what the data can and cannot show. [( )] Add data from another organisation to make the set larger. **** Honest reporting of small data sets is acceptable. Hiding the group size or mixing sources misleads the reader. **** **Question 6.** You used an AI tool to draft metadata descriptions. What is the correct action? [( )] No action is needed because the final text is yours. [( )] Remove all AI-assisted text without comment. [(X)] Disclose the artefact, the tool type, the task and your changes, and be ready to explain the text. [( )] Ask the attester to check the text. **** Disclosure is specific to each artefact. You remain responsible for every artefact and need to explain it in the discussion. **** **Question 7.** Which answer to "Why did you choose this granularity?" is strongest in the discussion? [( )] "It seemed right at the time." [( )] "Our competitor uses the same size." [(X)] "I compared two sizes in my design note of a stated date, used earner effort data and employer feedback, and chose the one that kept the claim coherent." [( )] "The template set the size." **** A strong answer names the options, the evidence and the reason, and points to a portfolio item. **** **Question 8.** How does the portfolio show Outcome 2, explaining decisions and their effect on readers and earners? [( )] Through the attestation alone. [(X)] Through the design rationale and the outcome data, which the candidate explains in the discussion. [( )] Through the badge metadata alone. [( )] Through the self-check checklist. **** Outcome 2 is assessed in the design rationale and in the professional discussion, supported by outcome data. **** **Question 9.** Which statement about the EU Council Recommendation on micro-credentials (2022) is appropriate for this validation? [( )] You must recite its articles during the discussion. [( )] It replaces the ICoBC design standard. [(X)] You may be asked which parts of it you used in your designs and why, and its implementation status needs to be checked before you cite it. [( )] It applies only to universities. **** The Recommendation is a stable reference, but you should check current implementation reporting and national transpositions before you cite them. **** **Question 10.** What happens if the assessor scores "Developing" on one criterion? [( )] The badge is awarded with a note. [( )] The whole validation is cancelled for 3 years. [(X)] The badge is not yet awarded, and you receive feedback and may resubmit the affected parts. [( )] The attester is asked to revise the statement. **** All criteria must reach "Meets the standard" or better. Feedback and resubmission allow you to close the gap. **** ## 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.