# Competency Validation: Credential Programme Lead > Proof that you lead a credential programme to standard. ## About this course This is a candidate guide for a work-based validation, not a taught course. You do not learn new content here. You show, with evidence from live work, that you already lead a credential programme at the responsibility of ICSF level L4 "Assure". The guide explains what evidence to collect, how to structure your portfolio, how the sponsor attestation works and how to prepare for the professional discussion. **Framework alignment:** ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF), skill STRV "Credential strategy and value" (VRITE pillar: Value), level L4 "Assure", stage C "Competency". **Skill at this level:** You design the credential portfolio for an organisation or major programme and align it with talent or academic strategy. You advise leaders on investment and trade-offs. **Stage definition:** Competency means applying the capability in a real context, usually work, with the responsibility of the stated level, over time and with observable effect. ### Who this is for - L&D and corporate academy leads - Programme and micro-credential leads - Professional bodies and sector associations ### Learning outcomes 1. Show that a credential programme you lead has a clear purpose, governance and measured results. 2. Show how you engaged sponsors, champions and verifiers. 3. Show decisions you took on the basis of evidence. ### Prerequisites You should have completed, or be able to show equivalent experience in: - ICB-P21 Building the Business Case for a Credential Programme - ICB-P20 Credential Champions: Getting Adoption Inside Your Organisation - ICB-A01 Credential Portfolio Strategy ### Workload and assessment Plan for about 18 hours of candidate preparation and assessment. The assessment has three parts: - A programme portfolio with business case, governance and results - A sponsor attestation - A 60-minute professional discussion ### Badge On a successful outcome you receive the badge "Competency Validation: Credential Programme Lead (Competency, L4)", alignment code ICSF-STRV-L4-C. The badge is valid for 3 years. Badge evidence is your portfolio, the attestation and the discussion record. Completing this validation shows that you met the criteria for this programme at the time of assessment. It does not by itself prove competency in any particular job. ### Outcomes, modules and assessment | Outcome | Module | How it is assessed | |---|---|---| | 1. Show that a credential programme you lead has a clear purpose, governance and measured results. | Portfolio guidance | Portfolio sections on purpose, business case, governance and results; discussion questions on results | | 2. Show how you engaged sponsors, champions and verifiers. | Selecting evidence | Stakeholder evidence in the portfolio; sponsor attestation; discussion questions on engagement | | 3. Show decisions you took on the basis of evidence. | Preparing for the professional discussion | Decision log in the portfolio; 60-minute professional discussion | ### How to use this guide Work through the three modules in order. Each module has a graphic, a worked example of good evidence, a practice activity and a self-check. Keep your own working notes as you go. The final section, "Assessment and badge", holds the rubric, the pass rule and a knowledge check.

Facilitator notes

Assessors and mentors can use this guide to brief candidates before they start. Agree the programme you will assess in the first week. Check that the candidate has real responsibility for the programme and that live data exists. Remind candidates that the portfolio shows their own work and decisions, even where a team delivered the programme.

## Portfolio guidance This module shows you how to structure your programme portfolio so that an assessor can see purpose, governance and measured results quickly. It supports outcome 1. ### What the portfolio must show Your portfolio describes one credential programme that you lead. The programme can be a single badge family, a set of micro-credentials, a certificate range or a full credential portfolio. It must be live, or have run long enough to produce results. A plan that has not yet run does not meet the stage definition, because competency means applying the capability in a real context over time with observable effect. Assessors look for three things in this order: 1. **Purpose.** Why the programme exists, for whom, and what decision or change it supports. 2. **Governance.** Who decides, who owns quality, how changes are approved and how risks are handled. 3. **Results.** What changed, measured against what you expected, and what you did next. Business case material belongs in the purpose section. The business case shows the value you expected and the investment you asked for. Results show what happened. ### A recommended structure Use the six-part structure shown in the graphic. Keep the portfolio to about 20 to 30 pages in total, plus annexes. Quality matters more than volume. ### What goes in each part **1. Purpose and context (1 to 2 pages).** Describe the organisation or institution, the strategy the programme serves and the audience. State the programme purpose in two sentences. State what success looks like and by when. **2. Business case (2 to 4 pages).** Summarise the case you made: the problem, the options you considered, the investment, the expected value and the risks. Include the version that decision makers saw, with its date. **3. Governance (2 to 4 pages).** Show who sponsors the programme, who owns quality, how credentials are approved, reviewed and withdrawn, and how you handle complaints and appeals. Include the roles, the meeting rhythm and one real record of a governance decision. **4. Engagement of stakeholders (2 to 3 pages).** Show how you worked with sponsors, champions and verifiers. Module 2 covers this in detail. **5. Results and evidence (3 to 5 pages).** Report measured results against your original success measures. Include the data source, the period, the method and the limits. Say what did not work. **6. Decisions and learning (2 to 3 pages).** Present a decision log with at least three decisions you took on evidence. Module 3 covers this in detail. ### Disclosure of AI use If you used generative AI tools to draft, summarise, analyse or format any portfolio artefact, disclose it. Add a short disclosure note to the portfolio front page and mark the affected artefacts. State the tool type, the task, what you checked and what you changed. Assessors will ask about AI use in the discussion. Disclosure is not penalised. Undisclosed use that comes to light later can lead to the badge being withdrawn. ### Evidence from live work Prefer evidence that already exists because the programme runs: steering group minutes, dashboards, issuing logs, approved policies, survey results, budget papers, emails that show decisions. Evidence created only for the assessment carries less weight. Anonymise personal data. Check with your organisation before sharing confidential material, and redact where needed. **Worked example: Results section in a corporate academy portfolio** Context: Amira Haddad leads the corporate academy of a mid-sized logistics company. She runs a programme of 14 internal skills badges for warehouse supervisors and team leaders. Her sponsor is the HR director. The programme supports internal mobility from shift lead to site manager. Her results section (all numbers illustrative): - **Success measures set at launch:** 60 per cent of eligible supervisors start a badge pathway within 12 months. 30 per cent of internal vacancies for site manager roles list the badge pathway as a selection input within 18 months. - **Data source and period:** Learning platform issuing log and HR vacancy records, January to December. - **Result:** 52 per cent started a pathway. 18 per cent of vacancies referenced the pathway. - **Method note:** Vacancy referencing counted only where the advert or selection form named the badges. She explains that informal use by hiring managers is not captured. - **What did not work:** Uptake at two smaller sites was under 20 per cent. She records that site managers there had not been briefed. - **Next step:** A decision to run briefings with site managers and re-measure at six months. Why this is good evidence: it states the measures set in advance, names the data sources, reports a gap honestly, explains limits and links to a decision. Annex A holds the issuing log extract and the vacancy records, anonymised. **Practice activity: Draft your portfolio outline** Spend about 90 minutes on this activity. 1. Write the programme purpose in two sentences. 2. List the six portfolio parts. Under each, list the two or three best pieces of existing evidence you hold, with dates. 3. Mark any gaps where evidence is thin or does not yet exist. 4. For each gap, decide whether you can gather live evidence within the next four weeks. If not, consider whether this programme is the right one to assess. 5. Write your AI disclosure note: which tools you plan to use for the portfolio, for which tasks, and how you will check the output. Keep the outline. You will refine it in modules 2 and 3. **Self-check: Portfolio guidance** **Question 1.** Which programme is suitable for your portfolio? [( )] A well-designed programme plan that has not yet launched [(X)] A programme you lead that has run long enough to produce results [( )] A competitor's programme that you admire [( )] A programme that a supplier runs for you with no input from you **** The stage definition for Competency requires applying the capability in a real context over time with observable effect. A plan that has not run has no results. You must also lead the programme yourself, so a competitor's programme or a fully outsourced one does not fit. **** **Question 2.** What belongs in the results section? [( )] Only the successes, so the assessor sees a strong programme [( )] The original business case text, copied without changes [(X)] Measured results against the success measures set at the start, with data sources, limits and what did not work [( )] A list of tools used to deliver the programme **** The results section reports measured outcomes against your original measures, states how you measured them and what the limits are, and includes gaps. Honest reporting of what did not work shows the evidence-based practice assessors look for. **** **Question 3.** You used a generative AI tool to summarise survey comments for the results section. What should you do? [( )] Nothing, because you edited the summary [( )] Remove the summary from the portfolio [(X)] Disclose the use on the front page, mark the artefact and note what you checked and changed [( )] Ask the tool to hide that it was used **** The AI focus of this validation is disclosure. You state the tool type, the task, what you checked and what you changed. Disclosure is not penalised and you can still use the summary. **** ## Selecting evidence This module helps you choose evidence that shows how you engaged sponsors, champions and verifiers, and that supports the results and governance claims in your portfolio. It supports outcome 2 and strengthens outcome 1. ### Principles for choosing evidence Good evidence is **authentic** (it comes from your real work and shows your own part), **current** (it is recent enough to show how the programme works today), **sufficient** (there is enough of it to show a pattern, not one lucky event) and **traceable** (an assessor can see where it came from and when). Aim for 12 to 20 pieces of evidence in the annexes, each referred to from the portfolio text. Label each piece with a short title, a date, the source and your role. Use a simple evidence index. ### Three groups you must engage **Sponsors** fund and protect the programme. They are usually senior leaders: an HR director, a dean, a head of professional standards. Evidence shows how you gained and kept their support. For example: the briefing paper you wrote, the investment decision, a trade-off discussion where you advised them to choose between options. **Champions** carry the programme into teams and departments. In a company they may be line managers or learning partners. In a university or training provider they may be course leaders or tutors. Evidence shows how you recruited, equipped and supported them, and what they did as a result. **Verifiers** check credentials. They include employers who read a badge, hiring managers, admissions staff, professional body assessors and partner institutions. Evidence shows that verifiers can find, read and trust your credentials, and that you listened to their feedback. The colours in the graphic carry the ICoBC meaning, but every shape is also labelled. Sponsors here are shown in lime because many sponsors in associations and policy bodies fit that group. In companies, sponsors are employers, and in education they may be institutional leaders. Use the labels, not the colours, to decide which group a person belongs to. ### Types of evidence that work well - **Meeting records:** steering group minutes, champion network agendas, verifier feedback sessions. - **Communications:** briefing notes, onboarding packs for champions, emails that show a decision or a negotiation. - **Data:** issuing logs, verification request counts, survey results, adoption dashboards. - **Governance artefacts:** approved policies, review calendars, appeals records. - **Testimony:** the sponsor attestation and, where useful, short statements from champions or verifiers. Avoid evidence that only shows activity without effect. A list of 40 emails sent says little. One email chain that shows a champion changing a hiring practice says more. ### Skills-based hiring and internal mobility Skills-based hiring and internal mobility are widely discussed, and practice varies between organisations. Credentials can provide the evidence layer: a way for an employer or a hiring manager to see what a person has shown and how it was checked. If your programme links to skills-based hiring or internal mobility, show how. For instance, show how a hiring manager used badge data in a selection step, and describe the limits. Do not claim wider effects than your data supports. Status: November 2026. ### How the sponsor attestation works The sponsor attestation is a short signed statement from a person with authority over your programme. It confirms the facts of your role, not your quality as a person. **Who can attest.** The sponsor should be senior to you or have budget or governance authority over the programme, for example the HR director, the dean, the head of a department or the chair of the programme board. They must have worked with you on the programme for at least six months. You cannot attest for yourself and the attester should not be a direct report. **What it confirms.** The attestation confirms that you lead the programme, since when, the scope of your responsibility, the decisions you took or advised on and the effect they observed. It names two or three specific contributions. **How to prepare.** You send your sponsor the ICoBC attestation template and a short brief. The sponsor writes the statement in their own words. You may suggest facts to check, but you do not write the attestation for them. The sponsor signs it and sends it to ICoBC assessors directly or through you in a sealed file. **What assessors check.** Assessors compare the attestation with your portfolio. They look for consistency, for specific claims, and for a sponsor who knows the programme. A generic letter of praise carries little weight. **Worked example: Evidence of engaging sponsor, champions and verifiers at a university** Context: Dr Elena Marković leads the micro-credential programme of a university's continuing education unit. The programme offers 20 short credentials for working professionals. Her sponsor is the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Education. Her stakeholder evidence (details illustrative): - **Sponsor:** A briefing paper dated March setting out three investment options for expanding the programme, with trade-offs on cost, quality assurance load and speed. Minutes from the senior education board show that the sponsor chose option two and set a review point at nine months. Annex 4 and Annex 5. - **Champions:** A champion pack for course leaders, a monthly 45-minute champion call, and a log showing that 11 of 16 course leaders took part in at least four calls. A short note from one course leader describes how she redesigned an assessment after a call. Annex 7 to Annex 9. - **Verifiers:** A feedback session with three regional employers and one professional body assessor. The notes record that employers could not tell which credentials were assessed and which were attendance-based. Elena then added an assessment type label to the credential metadata, and the revised badge page is in Annex 10. A follow-up message from one employer confirms that the label helped. Why this is good evidence: each group has dated, traceable material. The sponsor evidence shows advice on trade-offs, not only reporting. The verifier evidence shows a change made because of feedback. The champion evidence shows effect as well as activity. **Practice activity: Build your stakeholder evidence map** Spend about 2 hours on this activity. 1. Draw a table with three columns: sponsors, champions, verifiers. 2. Name the real people or roles in each group for your programme. 3. For each group, list the two strongest items of evidence, with date and source. 4. Mark which items show effect, not only activity. 5. Choose your sponsor for the attestation. Write the three facts you would like them to check, and book a 30-minute conversation with them. 6. Add the items to an evidence index with title, date, source and your role. **Self-check: Selecting evidence** **Question 4.** Which item is the strongest evidence of engaging verifiers? [( )] A list of employers you intended to contact [( )] A promotional brochure for the programme [(X)] Notes from a feedback session with employers and the change you made to credential metadata as a result [( )] A statement that verifiers like the programme **** Strong verifier evidence is dated, traceable and shows effect. A feedback session followed by a change you made shows that you listened, acted and improved how verifiers can trust the credential. **** **Question 5.** Who is a suitable person to give your sponsor attestation? [( )] You, because you know the programme best [( )] A direct report who has worked with you for three years [(X)] A senior person with authority over the programme who has worked with you for at least six months [( )] A supplier who sells you platform services **** The sponsor needs authority over the programme, such as budget or governance, and direct knowledge of your work. A direct report is not independent and a supplier does not hold that authority. You cannot attest for yourself. **** **Question 6.** Your sponsor asks you to write the attestation text for them to sign. What should you do? [( )] Write it, because it saves their time [(X)] Offer a short brief with facts to check, and ask them to write the statement in their own words [( )] Ask a colleague to write it for them [( )] Use a template letter and sign it for them **** The attestation must be the sponsor's own statement. You can supply facts to check, but assessors compare it with your portfolio and look for specific claims in the sponsor's own voice. **** ## Preparing for the professional discussion This module shows you how to show decisions taken on evidence and how to prepare for the 60-minute professional discussion. It supports outcome 3 and draws on outcomes 1 and 2. ### What the professional discussion is The professional discussion is a structured conversation between you and two ICoBC assessors. It lasts 60 minutes and is recorded for the badge evidence. It is not a presentation and not an exam. The assessors have read your portfolio and attestation beforehand. They use the conversation to test that the work is yours, to explore your reasoning and to clarify anything the documents leave open. Typical shape: - Opening and ground rules: about 5 minutes - Purpose, governance and results: about 15 minutes - Engagement of sponsors, champions and verifiers: about 15 minutes - Decisions on evidence, trade-offs and what you would change: about 20 minutes - Close and questions from you: about 5 minutes ### Decisions taken on evidence Outcome 3 asks you to show decisions that you took on the basis of evidence. A good decision record has five parts: 1. **The question or problem.** What did you need to decide? 2. **The evidence you had.** Data, feedback, cost figures, risk information. Say how reliable it was. 3. **The options.** At least two realistic options. 4. **The decision and the reason.** What you chose and why. Include the trade-off. 5. **The follow-up.** What happened afterwards and what you learned. Include at least three decisions in your decision log. At least one should be a decision where evidence led you to stop, change or scale back something. Stopping a weak credential is as valuable as launching a new one. ### Preparing to talk about your own work Read your portfolio again as if you were an assessor. Mark every claim that has a number, a date or a decision. For each, be ready to answer: Where did the number come from? What did you personally do? What would you do differently? Assessors often ask: - Which part of this programme would you stop first, and why? - Where did the evidence disagree with what your sponsor expected, and what happened? - How do you know the badge is read and trusted by verifiers? - How does the programme link to talent or academic strategy, and how would you advise leaders on the next investment? - Which artefacts did you produce with AI support, and how did you check them? Answer with specific examples. Say "I" when you took the action and "we" when a team did. If you do not know, say so and explain how you would find out. ### Preparation plan Use the final two weeks before the discussion: - **Week 1:** Finalise the portfolio, evidence index and AI disclosure. Confirm the attestation has been sent. Read all annexes once. - **Week 2:** Do two practice discussions with a colleague or mentor who has not read your portfolio. Ask them to challenge your claims. Prepare one page of notes: your three key decisions, your three strongest results and one honest weakness. Do not read from a script. You may refer to your portfolio during the discussion. Check your technology and recording set-up in advance. **Worked example: Decision log entry at a corporate academy** Context: Amira Haddad, from the logistics company academy, records this decision (numbers illustrative). - **Question:** Should the academy keep the badge "Advanced route planning" in the portfolio? - **Evidence:** Over 12 months, 9 of 140 eligible supervisors earned it. Survey comments from supervisors said the content duplicated a mandatory course. Two hiring managers said they did not use it in selection. Assessment cost per candidate was high because it needed a trained assessor. Reliability of the survey data was moderate: 38 per cent response rate. - **Options:** (a) Keep it unchanged. (b) Merge it into the mandatory course and retire the badge. (c) Redesign it as a short assessment of a work task. - **Decision and reason:** She chose (b) after discussing it with the HR director. The trade-off: the academy loses a visible badge but saves assessor time, which it redirected to the site manager pathway. She noted the weakness in the survey data and checked the finding with three hiring managers. - **Follow-up:** Six months later, completion of the merged course was 91 per cent, and the saved assessor time funded 30 additional site manager assessments. She records that she would now collect usage data from hiring managers earlier. Why this is good evidence: it states the evidence and its weaknesses, compares options, records a trade-off, shows advice to a leader and includes a follow-up. The decision involved stopping something. **Worked example: Decision log entry at a training provider** Context: Tomasz Nowak leads the credential programme of a vocational training provider that issues 12 short certificates for the construction sector (numbers illustrative). - **Question:** Should the provider extend the validity period of its site safety certificate from 2 to 5 years? - **Evidence:** An employer panel asked for a longer period. A review of incident reports from partner employers showed no clear difference between certificate holders who were 2 years and 4 years past issue. A professional body's guidance on renewal for related roles asked for refresher checks. Tomasz recorded that the incident data covered only 6 employers. - **Options:** (a) Extend to 5 years without conditions. (b) Keep 2 years. (c) Extend to 4 years with a short online refresher check at year 2. - **Decision and reason:** He chose (c) with agreement from the programme board. The trade-off: employers get a longer period, but the provider must run refresher checks and must tell verifiers about the condition in the credential metadata. - **Follow-up:** After 12 months, 83 per cent of holders completed the refresher check. Two employers asked for clearer wording on the badge page, which he changed. Why this is good evidence: the evidence is limited and he says so. The options are realistic. The decision involves a verifier-facing change and a follow-up. **Practice activity: Prepare your decision log and a practice discussion** Spend about 4 hours on this activity. 1. Choose at least three decisions from your programme. One must involve stopping, changing or scaling back something. 2. Write each decision using the five-part structure: question, evidence, options, decision and reason, follow-up. 3. For each, find the supporting artefact for the annex and note its date. 4. Write answers to the five typical assessor questions in this module, 5 to 6 sentences each. 5. Run a 30-minute practice discussion with a colleague. Ask them to question you on one decision and one result. Note where you hesitated. 6. Update your one-page notes. **Self-check: Preparing for the professional discussion** **Question 7.** Which decision log entry is strongest? [( )] "We decided to launch three new badges because stakeholders were enthusiastic." [( )] "We reviewed everything and made the best choice." [(X)] "Nine of 140 eligible staff earned the badge in 12 months and hiring managers did not use it, so after comparing three options we retired it and moved its content into a mandatory course." [( )] "The sponsor told us to retire the badge." **** A strong entry names the evidence, the options and the reason, and shows a result. The third entry includes numbers, an alternative comparison and an action. The others give no evidence or reasoning. **** **Question 8.** In the professional discussion an assessor asks about a result you cannot fully explain. What is the best response? [( )] Make up a plausible explanation [( )] Say that your team handled that part and move on [(X)] Say what you know, say what you do not know and explain how you would find out [( )] Refuse to answer **** Assessors test authenticity and reasoning. Honest, structured answers show professional judgement. Inventing an explanation is a risk, and passing responsibility to a team may suggest the work was not yours. **** **Question 9.** What is the purpose of the professional discussion? [( )] To repeat the portfolio in a presentation [( )] To test you on facts from the prerequisite courses [(X)] To test that the work is yours, explore your reasoning and clarify points the documents leave open [( )] To collect the sponsor attestation **** The discussion is a structured conversation based on the portfolio and attestation, recorded as badge evidence. It is neither a presentation nor an exam on prerequisite course content. **** ## Assessment and badge ### The assessment task You submit a programme portfolio and a sponsor attestation, and you take part in a 60-minute professional discussion. Assessors decide against the criteria below. **Part 1: Programme portfolio.** Six parts as set out in "Portfolio guidance": purpose and context, business case, governance, engagement of stakeholders, results and evidence, and decisions and learning. Include an evidence index, annexes and an AI disclosure note. **Part 2: Sponsor attestation.** A signed statement from a sponsor as described in "Selecting evidence". **Part 3: Professional discussion.** A 60-minute recorded conversation as described in "Preparing for the professional discussion". ### Assessment criteria | Criterion | Outcome | What assessors look for | Evidence source | |---|---|---|---| | A. Purpose | 1 | Clear purpose, audience and link to talent or academic strategy; success measures set in advance | Portfolio parts 1 and 2; discussion | | B. Governance | 1 | Defined roles, approval, review and appeals; a real governance record | Portfolio part 3; discussion | | C. Measured results | 1 | Results against original measures, with data sources, limits and gaps | Portfolio part 5; discussion | | D. Sponsor engagement | 2 | Advice on investment or trade-offs; sponsor support gained and kept | Portfolio part 4; attestation; discussion | | E. Champion and verifier engagement | 2 | Champions equipped and active; verifier feedback heard and acted on | Portfolio part 4; annexes; discussion | | F. Evidence-based decisions | 3 | At least three decisions with evidence, options, reasoning and follow-up, including one to stop or change | Portfolio part 6; discussion | | G. Authenticity and integrity | 1, 2, 3 | Own role is clear; evidence is traceable; AI use is disclosed; consistency between portfolio, attestation and discussion | All parts | Each criterion is rated **Not yet met**, **Met** or **Met with distinction**. - **Not yet met:** claims are unsupported, unclear or not the candidate's own work. - **Met:** the criterion is shown with sufficient, authentic and traceable evidence. - **Met with distinction:** the evidence is exceptionally strong, shows notable insight and includes clear effect over time. ### Pass rule You pass when all seven criteria are rated Met or higher. A rating of Not yet met on any criterion means the overall outcome is Not yet met. You receive written feedback and may resubmit the affected parts and take a further discussion once. ### Evidence submitted for the badge - The programme portfolio, with evidence index and annexes - The sponsor attestation - The record of the professional discussion On a successful outcome you receive the badge "Competency Validation: Credential Programme Lead (Competency, L4)", alignment code ICSF-STRV-L4-C. The badge is valid for 3 years. After that period you can renew through a new validation. Completing this validation shows that you met the criteria at the time of assessment. It does not by itself prove competency in any particular job. ### Self-check before you submit Tick each item in your own notes before you submit. - [[X]] My programme is live or has run long enough to show results. - [[X]] The portfolio has all six parts, an evidence index, annexes and an AI disclosure note. - [[X]] Every result states a measure, a source, a period and its limits. - [[X]] I have at least three decisions with evidence, options, reasoning and follow-up, and one involves stopping or changing something. - [[X]] My sponsor has written the attestation in their own words. - [[X]] I have done two practice discussions. ### Final knowledge check **Question 10.** Which of these shows a clear purpose for a credential programme? [( )] "To offer many badges to our staff." [(X)] "To give shift leaders a recognised way to show readiness for site manager roles, so that internal vacancies are filled from within." [( )] "To keep up with other organisations." [( )] "To use the learning platform fully." **** A clear purpose names the audience and the decision or change the programme supports. The second option links the credential to a talent need. The others describe activity or imitation without a purpose. **** **Question 11.** Which governance evidence is strongest? [( )] A statement that quality is important to the organisation [( )] A job title for the programme lead [(X)] An approved policy on issuing, review and withdrawal plus minutes showing a real decision made under it [( )] A slide listing the names of all learners **** Strong governance evidence shows defined rules and shows that the rules are used in practice. A policy with a record of its use meets both needs. **** **Question 12.** A result in your portfolio says "adoption was high". What should you add? [( )] A stronger adjective [( )] A quote from a satisfied learner [(X)] The measure, the target set in advance, the data source, the period and the limits of the data [( )] A photo of the launch event **** Results must be measured against original success measures, with sources, period and limits. A general claim cannot be checked. **** **Question 13.** Which evidence best shows effective engagement with champions? [( )] A list of champion names [(X)] A champion pack, call attendance records and an example of a champion changing practice as a result [( )] A promise to recruit champions next year [( )] A newsletter sent to all staff **** Strong champion evidence shows how you equipped them, whether they took part and what effect they had. A name list or an intention shows none of that. **** **Question 14.** Verifiers told you they cannot tell assessed credentials from attendance-based ones. Which action and evidence best fit the criteria? [( )] Ignore the feedback because verifiers are not your learners [( )] Remove all attendance-based credentials without discussion [(X)] Add an assessment type label to the credential metadata and keep the feedback notes and revised badge page as evidence [( )] Tell verifiers that they should read the details more carefully **** Verifier engagement means hearing feedback and acting on it in ways that improve trust. A metadata change with traceable evidence shows both. The other responses ignore or overreact to the feedback. **** **Question 15.** What should a sponsor attestation contain? [( )] General praise for your personality [( )] A copy of your portfolio summary written by you [(X)] Confirmation of your role, the scope and duration of your responsibility, and two or three specific contributions the sponsor observed [( )] A list of the credentials the sponsor holds **** The attestation confirms facts about your role and effect, in the sponsor's own words. Assessors compare it with the portfolio and look for specific, consistent claims. **** **Question 16.** Which statement describes a good evidence-based decision? [( )] A decision that the sponsor approved quickly [( )] A decision that launched a new credential [(X)] A decision where you set out the question, the evidence and its limits, compared realistic options, chose with a stated trade-off and followed up [( )] A decision made by a committee you did not attend **** The criterion is about the quality of reasoning and follow-up. It can involve stopping or changing something as well as launching. It must be your decision or advice. **** **Question 17.** You used a generative AI tool to format the annex index and to draft a first summary of survey data. What does the AI disclosure require? [( )] Nothing for formatting, and nothing for summaries you edited [( )] A statement that no AI was used [(X)] A note stating the tool type, the tasks, what you checked and what you changed, with affected artefacts marked [( )] Removal of all AI-assisted material **** Disclosure covers any portfolio artefact where AI supported drafting, summarising, analysis or formatting. It supports authenticity and integrity, and assessors will ask about it in the discussion. **** **Question 18.** An assessor notices that your portfolio claims a 70 per cent adoption rate and the attestation describes adoption as "still low in most departments". What is the likely outcome? [( )] No effect, because assessors only read the portfolio [(X)] The assessor will probe the inconsistency in the discussion and may rate the authenticity and results criteria as Not yet met if it is not explained [( )] The attestation will be ignored [( )] The badge will be awarded automatically **** Assessors compare all three parts of the evidence. An unexplained inconsistency affects the results criterion and the authenticity criterion. A clear explanation, for example different definitions or time periods, can resolve it. **** ## Sources and further reading Status: November 2026. - ICoBC, ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF) and the VRITE quality model. Published by the International Council on Badges and Credentials, Berlin.- ICoBC, assessment and attestation templates for work-based validations.- European Commission, Council Recommendation of 16 June 2022 on a European approach to micro-credentials for lifelong learning and employability. Official Journal of the European Union.- 1EdTech Consortium, Open Badges specification. Standards body for the Open Badges data standard.- W3C, Verifiable Credentials Data Model. World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation.- ISO/IEC 17024, Conformity assessment: General requirements for bodies operating certification of persons. International Organization for Standardization.