# ICoBC Certified Lead Reviewer *Certification for reviewers who conduct Global Quality Seal reviews.* ## About this course This is a candidate guide for a work-based validation. It is not a taught course. You already hold the Lead Reviewer training. This guide explains what evidence from live work to collect, how to structure your portfolio, how supervisors attest to your work and how to prepare for the professional discussion with the certification panel. **Who it is for.** ICoBC Lead Reviewers (N2) who conduct, or are ready to conduct, Global Quality Seal reviews of other issuers. **Framework alignment.** ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF), skill QUAL "Quality assurance and accreditation" (VRITE pillar: Rigor), level L4 "Assure", stage C "Competency". At this level the skill is: designs and leads internal quality assurance; conducts independent reviews of other issuers. Stage C means applying the capability in a real context, usually work, with the responsibility of the stated level, over time and with observable effect. **Learning outcomes.** When you have completed the validation, you can: 1. Show two supervised reviews completed to standard. 2. Show calibration results within tolerance. 3. Show independence and confidentiality in practice. **Workload.** About 20 hours of candidate preparation and assessment. The review work itself is part of your normal ICoBC assignments. The 20 hours cover portfolio preparation, calibration, supervisor meetings and the panel discussion. **Prerequisites.** - ICB-R01 Global Quality Seal: Lead Reviewer Training - ICB-R02 Reviewer Calibration Workshop - ICB-R04 Independence and Conflicts of Interest in the Quality Network **Eligibility.** As published on icobc.net: individual ICoBC membership and 7 or more years of relevant experience. Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. **How it is assessed.** Two supervised reviews with satisfactory supervisor reports, calibration results within tolerance, and a decision by the certification panel. **Badge.** "ICoBC Certified Lead Reviewer (Competency, L4)", alignment code ICSF-QUAL-L4-C. It is valid for 3 years, with annual calibration. | Outcome | Module | How it is assessed | |---|---|---| | 1. Show two supervised reviews completed to standard | Supervised review guidance | Two supervisor reports rated satisfactory; portfolio of review evidence | | 2. Show calibration results within tolerance | Calibration requirements | Calibration record checked against the published tolerance | | 3. Show independence and confidentiality in practice | Certification panel | Declarations in the portfolio and the panel professional discussion | ### How this guide is built Each module has units to read, a worked example of good evidence, a practice activity and a self-check. The final section holds the knowledge check and the rubric the panel uses. ### Pathway at a glance ## Supervised review guidance ### What the supervised reviews are The first outcome asks you to show two supervised reviews completed to standard. A supervised review is a real review of another issuer, conducted by you as lead reviewer, with a named ICoBC supervisor who observes, advises on process and writes a report. You carry the responsibility of the lead. The supervisor does not do the work for you. Stage C means the capability is applied in a real context, over time, with observable effect. For that reason the panel does not accept simulated reviews, case studies or reviews you only observed. It also prefers two reviews that differ in some way, for example in the size of the issuer, the type of credential or the review stage, so that the panel sees your judgement across more than one situation. Global Quality Seal reviews apply the ICoBC VRITE criteria. Their status needs care: the indicators for the criteria are not yet published, internal documents use different expansions of the acronym, and pilots are ongoing. In your evidence, cite the criteria and guidance versions that your review brief gave you, and state which version you used. Do not fill gaps with your own interpretation of the acronym. ### The evidence to collect from live work Collect evidence while the review runs. Reconstructing it afterwards is slow and weaker. For each supervised review keep: - The review brief and scope, with the date and version of the guidance used. - Your review plan, including sampling decisions and the reasons for them. - Your working notes, evidence log and findings, with each finding traced to the criterion and to the evidence. - The draft and final review report. - Your communication with the issuer, such as the opening and closing meetings and clarification requests. - Your independence and conflict declaration for this review, made before work began. - Your record of AI use in the review, even if the record says that no AI was used. - The supervisor's report. Remove or redact anything confidential before it enters the portfolio. Your portfolio must itself show confidentiality in practice, so ask the issuer and ICoBC what may be shared outside the review team. ### Disclosure of AI use in review work If you use an AI tool in review work, for example to summarise a long policy document or to draft a section of a report, you disclose it. The disclosure states which task, what you gave the tool, what you checked and who remained responsible for the finding. Confidential review material must not be entered into a tool unless the review brief and the issuer's agreement allow it. Judgements and findings stay with you as lead reviewer. If the review brief or ICoBC guidance does not yet cover AI use, ask your supervisor before you use any tool and record the answer. ### How the supervisor attests The supervisor's report is an attestation: a signed statement by someone who observed your work that it met the standard. Agree the supervisor's observation points with them at the start. A good supervisor report is specific. It names what the supervisor saw, on which dates, and gives a clear rating. A general statement that "the review went well" is weak evidence. Ask your supervisor to comment on at least these points: planning and scoping, quality of evidence and findings, handling of the issuer, independence and confidentiality, and any AI use. Supervisors write the report themselves. You may supply a factual timeline to help them, but you do not draft the judgement. ### Review lifecycle and evidence points **Worked example: A supervised review of a training provider** A candidate, a Lead Reviewer based in Lisbon, is assigned a Global Quality Seal review of a mid-sized training provider. The supervisor is an experienced ICoBC reviewer from another region. Before work starts, the candidate completes an independence declaration. She notes that she gave a conference talk in a session the provider also attended and judges that this is not a relationship that affects the review. She records the reasoning, and the supervisor countersigns the declaration. During planning she writes a sampling rationale: why she chose to examine certain credential records and not others. She logs every document the issuer sends, with the date received. When she uses an AI tool to produce a first summary of a long policy document, she records the task, the fact that the document was shared under the issuer's agreement, and that she checked the summary against the original before using any point from it. Her draft report links each finding to a criterion and to the evidence. The supervisor's report is specific. It names two observation dates, notes that the closing meeting was clear and fair, and comments on the sampling rationale and the AI note. It gives a satisfactory rating. Why this is good evidence: it is dated, traceable, shows judgement and responsibility, covers independence and AI disclosure, and is attested by a person who saw the work. The figures and names in this example are illustrative. **Practice activity: Build your evidence plan** Spend about 45 minutes on this. 1. List your two planned supervised reviews, with the supervisor for each. 2. For each review, copy the eight evidence items from this module into a table with columns: item, where it is stored, who can see it, date due. 3. Mark every item that contains confidential material and write how you will redact it. 4. Write down the three points you will ask your supervisor to comment on. 5. Send the plan to your supervisor and agree it. **Self-check: Supervised review guidance** **Question 1.** Which description fits a supervised review that counts towards this badge? [( )] A review you observed while another reviewer acted as lead [(X)] A real review of another issuer in which you act as lead and a named supervisor observes and reports [( )] A simulated review based on a past case study [( )] A review of your own organisation led by a colleague **** The reviews must be real, with you carrying the responsibility of the lead. Observed, simulated and self-review work does not show the stage C capability, because it lacks real responsibility and independence. **** **Question 2.** Which supervisor statement is the strongest piece of evidence? [( )] "The candidate is a strong reviewer and the review went well." [( )] "I have worked with the candidate for years and recommend them." [(X)] "I observed the opening meeting on two dates, reviewed the sampling rationale and the AI note, and rate the review satisfactory." [( )] "The candidate drafted this report and I agree with it." **** Specific, dated observations with a clear rating make an attestation useful. General praise does not tell the panel what was seen. A report drafted by the candidate is not the supervisor's own judgement. **** **Question 3.** You used an AI tool to summarise a long policy document during a review. What do you do? [( )] Nothing, because the final findings are your own [( )] Remove all notes of the tool use so the portfolio looks consistent [(X)] Record the task, what you gave the tool, what you checked and that you remain responsible, after confirming the use was allowed [( )] Ask the tool to certify that the summary is accurate **** Disclosure covers the task, the input, your checks and your responsibility. The use must also be allowed by the review brief and the issuer's agreement. A tool cannot take responsibility for a finding. **** **Question 4.** The VRITE indicators are not yet published. What should your review evidence do? [( )] Use your own expansion of the acronym and define the indicators yourself [(X)] State the version of the criteria and guidance given in your review brief and apply that [( )] Wait until the indicators are published before starting any review [( )] Use another scheme's indicators instead **** The VRITE criteria and Global Quality Seal are an emerging topic. Indicators are not yet published, internal documents use different expansions of the acronym and pilots are ongoing. Cite the version in your brief, and do not invent indicators. **** ## Calibration requirements ### What calibration shows The second outcome asks you to show calibration results within tolerance. Calibration tests whether reviewers reach consistent judgements when they assess the same material. A reviewer whose findings differ widely from the group's reference judgement could treat two issuers unequally. For that reason ICoBC treats calibration as part of rigour, and the badge requires annual calibration to stay valid. You attended the Reviewer Calibration Workshop (ICB-R02). This module builds on it. It explains what you need to hold as evidence and how to read your own results. The tolerance is set by ICoBC and defined in the calibration programme documents. This guide does not state a figure. Check the current value before you start, and do not rely on a number from an earlier workshop. ### The calibration record Your calibration record is the evidence for outcome 2. Keep it complete and dated. It should show: - The calibration exercise or exercises you took, with dates. - Your results compared with the reference judgements. - The tolerance that applied on the date of the exercise. - Whether your result was within tolerance. - Any follow-up, such as a discussion with a calibration lead or a repeat exercise. If a result falls outside tolerance, say so in your portfolio. A repeat after follow-up is acceptable if the programme allows it. Hiding a first result is not acceptable and conflicts with the honesty the panel expects from a lead reviewer. ### Using calibration in your reviews Calibration is only useful if it changes practice. Strong candidates connect the two. For example, a calibration exercise may show that you tend to rate evidence of learner assessment more strictly than the group. You can then show how you took that into account in your live reviews, for instance by asking a second question or by checking your finding with your supervisor. The panel looks for this kind of link between the calibration record and your supervised work. ### Annual calibration after certification The badge is valid for three years, with annual calibration. Plan for this from the start. Put the dates in a calendar and keep each year's record in the same folder as your original portfolio. A lapse in annual calibration is a lapse in the conditions of the badge. ### Calibration and AI Calibration measures your own judgement. Do not use an AI tool to produce or check your answers in a calibration exercise unless the programme rules explicitly allow it. If you use any tool in preparation, disclose it in your portfolio in the same way as in review work. ### Reading your calibration results **Worked example: A calibration record that links to practice** A candidate in Nairobi completes the annual calibration exercise for Global Quality Seal reviewers. The programme returns her results with the reference judgements and the tolerance in force on that date. On most items she is within tolerance. On one item, about the sufficiency of evidence for a provider's assessment moderation, she rated more strictly than the reference. In her portfolio she places the calibration record, dated and unaltered, and adds a short reflection of about 150 words. She notes that she is within tolerance overall, identifies the item where she was stricter, and explains what she did in her second supervised review: she checked her moderation finding against the criterion wording with her supervisor before the closing meeting, and she recorded the discussion in her working notes. The supervisor's report mentions the discussion. Why this is good evidence: the record is complete and unaltered, the candidate names a weakness honestly, and the link to live practice is documented by two sources, her notes and the supervisor's report. The scenario and any numbers are illustrative. **Practice activity: Prepare your calibration file** Spend about 40 minutes on this. 1. Create a folder with the sub-folders: record, tolerance, follow-up, reflection. 2. Check the current tolerance and the calibration dates on the programme pages or with the calibration lead. Note the source and the date you checked. 3. Put every calibration result you hold in the record folder, with dates. Do not delete weaker results. 4. Write a reflection of 150 words or fewer: where you were furthest from the reference and what you changed in live review work. 5. Add the dates of your future annual calibrations to your calendar. **Self-check: Calibration requirements** **Question 1.** What does calibration show? [( )] How many reviews you have completed [(X)] Whether your judgements are consistent with the reference when assessing the same material [( )] Whether the issuer you reviewed is accredited [( )] How well you know the VRITE acronym **** Calibration tests consistency of judgement against a reference. It supports equal treatment of issuers and is therefore part of rigour. **** **Question 2.** One of your calibration results falls outside tolerance. What should the portfolio do? [( )] Leave it out and include only results within tolerance [( )] Change the reference judgement to match your answer [(X)] Include it, state it openly and show the follow-up agreed with the calibration lead [( )] Replace it with a result from a different reviewer **** Honesty about results is part of the integrity the panel expects. Follow-up, and a repeat if the programme allows it, shows how you respond. **** **Question 3.** Where do you find the calibration tolerance that applies to you? [( )] In a figure remembered from an earlier workshop [( )] In this guide, which states the exact figure [(X)] In the current calibration programme documents or from the calibration lead, noting the date you checked [( )] By asking an AI tool to estimate it **** The tolerance is set by ICoBC. This guide does not state it, and older figures may have changed. Check the source and record the date. **** **Question 4.** Which action best links calibration to your live work? [( )] Quote your calibration score in the introduction of every review report [( )] Avoid reviews that touch the area where you were furthest from the reference [(X)] Name a calibration tendency, then show in your notes and supervisor report what you did about it in a live review [( )] Ask the issuer to check your judgement **** The panel looks for evidence that calibration changes practice. A documented action, confirmed by the supervisor, is stronger than a claim. **** ## Certification panel ### How the panel works The panel decides on your certification after reviewing your portfolio and holding a professional discussion with you. The third outcome asks you to show independence and confidentiality in practice. The panel tests this in two ways: through the declarations and handling shown in your portfolio, and through the way you talk about your work in the discussion. The panel members are ICoBC-appointed reviewers and quality staff. The panel is itself bound by independence rules. If a panel member knows you or has worked with the issuers you reviewed, they declare it and step aside from your case. You may ask about this before the discussion. ### Structuring the portfolio A portfolio is an organised set of evidence, not a collection of everything you produced. Aim for a structure the panel can read in under an hour. A suitable order is: 1. A one-page cover sheet: your name, membership details, eligibility confirmation and a contents list. 2. Part A, Supervised reviews: for each review, a one-page summary, the key evidence items, the independence declaration, the AI use record and the supervisor's report. 3. Part B, Calibration: the calibration record and your short reflection. 4. Part C, Independence and confidentiality: a summary of declarations, how you handled confidential material and any issue that arose. 5. Part D, Reflection: no more than two pages on what you would do differently. Label every item with the outcome it supports. Redact confidential content and say where you did so. A cross-reference table at the front, matching each outcome to the evidence items, helps the panel to find proof quickly. ### Showing independence and confidentiality Independence means that your review judgements are not influenced by relationships, interests or pressure. Confidentiality means that you protect the information you received in the course of the review. Your portfolio shows both through concrete records, such as: - Declarations made before each review, with your reasoning on any relationship you disclosed. - Evidence that you stepped back from, or asked to be replaced in, a review where independence was in doubt, if this ever happened. - A statement of how you stored review material and who had access to it. - Evidence that you did not use confidential material in tools or channels the issuer had not agreed to. If nothing difficult happened in your two reviews, say that. Do not invent a dilemma. The panel may ask a hypothetical question in the discussion to test your judgement. ### Preparing for the professional discussion The professional discussion is a conversation of about one hour. The panel asks you to talk about your evidence. Expect questions such as: - Walk us through how you decided your sampling in the first review. - Tell us about a time your judgement and your supervisor's differed. - How did calibration change anything you did? - How did you protect confidentiality when the issuer sent you sensitive records? - What would you do if you found that a colleague had a conflict of interest they had not declared? - How did you use AI tools, and what did you disclose? Prepare short, honest answers that point to your evidence. You are speaking as a lead reviewer. The panel wants to hear your own reasoning, including what was uncertain and how you handled it. ### The decision and what follows The panel decides on the evidence and the discussion against the rubric in the final section. Possible outcomes are certification, a request for further evidence, or no certification at this time. The panel decision is part of the badge evidence. If you are certified, you receive the badge with its three-year validity and the annual calibration condition. ### From portfolio to decision **Worked example: A portfolio section on independence and confidentiality** A candidate in Singapore prepares Part C of her portfolio. It is one page long and has three parts. First, a table lists her two reviews, the date of each declaration and the outcome. In the first review she disclosed that her employer had once exchanged a short email with the issuer about an event. She judged this not to be a relationship that affected the review, recorded her reasoning and her supervisor countersigned. In the second review she had nothing to declare and says so. Second, a paragraph describes how she stored review files on an access-controlled drive shared only with the review team and her supervisor, and how she deleted working copies after the review closed, as the issuer agreement required. Third, a short paragraph covers AI use: she used a tool in the first review for a summary, with the issuer's written agreement, and in the second review she used none. The AI use record is attached for the first. In the discussion, she is asked what she would do if the issuer asked for a draft finding to be softened. She answers that she would explain that the finding rests on the evidence and the criterion, offer to correct any factual error, and record the request in her notes. She would involve her supervisor if the pressure continued. The details here are illustrative. Why this is good evidence: it is short, specific and cross-referenced, it reports an actual declaration and its reasoning, it covers confidentiality and AI disclosure, and her discussion answers agree with her written record. **Practice activity: Rehearse the professional discussion** Spend about 60 minutes on this. 1. Build your cross-reference table: three outcomes down the side, evidence items across the top. 2. Write answers of about 90 seconds each to the six sample questions in this module. Use bullet notes, not a script. 3. For each answer, name the evidence item in your portfolio that supports it. 4. Find a colleague who has completed a similar certification, or your supervisor, and hold a mock discussion. Ask them to interrupt with follow-up questions. 5. Note two weak points and fix them in the portfolio or your answers. **Self-check: Certification panel** **Question 1.** What is the best way to organise your portfolio? [( )] Include every document from both reviews in date order [(X)] Use a clear structure with a cross-reference table showing which items support each outcome [( )] Include only the supervisor reports [( )] Send the panel a link to your whole work drive **** The panel should be able to find proof quickly. A selective, labelled portfolio with a cross-reference table shows judgement and respects the panel's time. **** **Question 2.** Nothing difficult happened about independence in your two reviews. What do you write? [( )] Invent a small dilemma so that the section looks richer [( )] Leave the independence section out [(X)] State that no issues arose and show your declarations and how you handled confidential material [( )] Describe a conflict from a past job in the same detail **** Honest reporting is part of independence. Declarations and handling records still show your practice, even when no conflict arose. **** **Question 3.** In the discussion, a panel member asks what you would do if an issuer asked you to soften a finding. Which answer is strongest? [( )] Soften it slightly to keep a good relationship [( )] Refuse to talk to the issuer again [(X)] Explain that the finding rests on the evidence and criterion, correct any factual error, record the request and involve the supervisor if pressure continues [( )] Ask the panel to decide **** This answer protects independence, stays fair to the issuer, keeps a record and uses the supervisor. It shows lead reviewer judgement. **** **Question 4.** What happens if a panel member knows you or has worked with one of the issuers you reviewed? [( )] They take part but do not speak [( )] Nothing, because the panel's decisions are always independent [(X)] They declare the relationship and step aside from your case [( )] You must withdraw your application **** The panel is bound by the same independence principles as reviewers. A declared relationship leads to the member stepping aside. **** ## Assessment and badge ### The task Your assessment has three parts: 1. **Two supervised reviews** with satisfactory supervisor reports. 2. **Calibration results within tolerance**, shown by your calibration record. 3. **A panel decision**, based on your portfolio and a professional discussion. Eligibility is as published on icobc.net: individual ICoBC membership and 7 or more years of relevant experience. Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. The knowledge check below helps you test your understanding before the panel. ### Assessment criteria | Criterion | Outcome | Satisfactory evidence | Not yet satisfactory | |---|---|---|---| | Review quality | 1 | Two real reviews led by you; plan, evidence log and findings traced to criteria; clear final reports | Simulated or observed reviews; findings without traceable evidence; unclear reports | | Supervisor attestation | 1 | Two signed, specific supervisor reports with a satisfactory rating and dated observations | General or unsigned statements; reports drafted by the candidate | | Calibration | 2 | Complete, dated record within tolerance, with a link to live practice; honest account of any result outside tolerance | Missing or altered records; results outside tolerance with no follow-up | | Independence | 3 | Declarations made before each review, with reasoning; conflicts handled and recorded | No declarations; conflicts ignored or reconstructed afterwards | | Confidentiality | 3 | Clear account of storage, access and redaction; no unapproved use of confidential material in tools | Unclear handling; confidential material shared without agreement | | AI disclosure | 1 and 3 | Honest record of AI use or non-use in each review, with checks and responsibility stated | No record; undisclosed use; findings delegated to a tool | | Professional discussion | 1, 2 and 3 | Answers match the written evidence, show the candidate's own reasoning and acknowledge uncertainty | Answers contradict the portfolio; reasoning not the candidate's own | ### Pass rule You pass when: - both supervisor reports are satisfactory, - your calibration results are within tolerance, and - the panel decides that the portfolio and discussion meet the criteria above. A "not yet satisfactory" in one area may lead the panel to ask for further evidence instead of a final decision. ### Evidence submitted for the badge - Supervisor reports (two) - Calibration record - Panel decision The badge is "ICoBC Certified Lead Reviewer (Competency, L4)", alignment code ICSF-QUAL-L4-C. It is valid for 3 years, with annual calibration. Completing this validation does not by itself prove competency in every job role. The badge records that ICoBC assessed your evidence against the stated criteria. ### Knowledge check **Question 1.** Which evidence best supports outcome 1, two supervised reviews completed to standard? [( )] A certificate of attendance at the training [(X)] Two supervisor reports plus review evidence from live reviews you led [( )] A description of reviews you plan to do [( )] A reference from a former employer **** Outcome 1 needs real reviews led by you and attested by supervisors. Training certificates and plans do not show stage C practice. **** **Question 2.** What is the main difference between a supervisor report and a candidate's own account? [( )] The supervisor report is longer [( )] The candidate's account is always more accurate [(X)] The supervisor report is an independent attestation from someone who observed the work [( )] There is no difference as long as the candidate signs it **** Attestation means a third party who saw the work states that it met the standard. The candidate may supply facts but not the judgement. **** **Question 3.** Your calibration result is outside tolerance. What is the best course of action? [( )] Submit only your best result [(X)] Include it, agree follow-up with the calibration lead and record what changed [( )] Ask the supervisor to adjust it [( )] Skip the calibration section **** The honest record and the follow-up are what the panel needs. Hiding a result conflicts with the integrity expected of a lead reviewer. **** **Question 4.** How long is the badge valid, and what keeps it valid? [( )] One year, with a new panel each year [( )] For life, with no conditions [(X)] Three years, with annual calibration [( )] Three years, with annual supervised reviews **** The badge is valid for 3 years and requires annual calibration. **** **Question 5.** When must you make your independence declaration for a review? [( )] After the final report [( )] Only if a conflict is found by the issuer [(X)] Before work on the review begins [( )] At the panel discussion **** A declaration made before work starts shows independence in practice. A declaration made afterwards is a reconstruction and weakens the evidence. **** **Question 6.** Which handling of confidential review material shows good practice? [( )] Keep everything on a personal device for convenience [( )] Share drafts with colleagues outside the review team for quick feedback [(X)] Store files with controlled access, redact portfolio items and use tools only where the issuer agreed [( )] Include full unredacted records in the portfolio **** Confidentiality is shown through controlled storage, redaction and agreed use of tools. The portfolio must itself protect confidential material. **** **Question 7.** Which statement about AI use in a review is correct? [( )] AI use needs no record if the findings are your own [( )] A tool can take over the judgement for a minor finding [(X)] You disclose the task, input, checks and your responsibility, after confirming the use is allowed [( )] AI tools must never be used in any review **** Disclosure and confirmed permission are required. Responsibility for findings stays with the lead reviewer. **** **Question 8.** What should the VRITE evidence in your review cite while indicators are unpublished? [( )] Your own definition of the acronym [( )] Whichever internal document uses an expansion you prefer [(X)] The version of the criteria and guidance given in your review brief [( )] The indicators of another scheme **** The topic is emerging: indicators are not yet published and internal documents differ in the expansions of the acronym. Cite the version given in your brief. **** **Question 9.** What makes a portfolio easy for the panel to assess? [(X)] A clear structure, labelled items and a cross-reference table linking evidence to outcomes [( )] As many documents as possible [( )] Handwritten notes only [( )] A chronological dump of the work drive **** A selective, well-labelled portfolio shows judgement and lets the panel check each outcome quickly. **** **Question 10.** In the professional discussion, which approach is best? [( )] Read a prepared script from start to finish [( )] Give general answers that avoid detail [(X)] Give short, honest answers in your own words and point to the supporting evidence [( )] Wait for the supervisor to answer for you **** The discussion tests your own reasoning. Answers that match and point to your written evidence are the strongest. **** ## Sources and further reading Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. - ICoBC website, icobc.net: eligibility, membership and published programme information. Check the current pages for the calibration tolerance, panel procedure and Global Quality Seal guidance. - ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF): the framework that defines skill QUAL, level L4 "Assure" and stage C "Competency". Use the current version published by ICoBC. - ISO/IEC 17021-1, Conformity assessment: Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems. Published by the International Organization for Standardization. - ISO 19011, Guidelines for auditing management systems. Published by the International Organization for Standardization. - ISO/IEC 17024, Conformity assessment: General requirements for bodies operating certification of persons. Published by the International Organization for Standardization. - ICoBC course ICB-R01, ICB-R02 and ICB-R04: the prerequisite courses for this validation. The ICoBC VRITE criteria and the Global Quality Seal are an emerging topic. Indicators are not yet published, internal documents use different expansions of the acronym and pilots are ongoing. Rely on the guidance given in your review brief.

Facilitator notes

This guide supports candidates and supervisors in a work-based validation. Suggested use: - Hold a short briefing with each candidate and supervisor at the start. Agree the evidence plan and the observation points. - Remind supervisors that they write the attestation themselves and that it should be specific and dated. - Check that candidates have verified the current calibration tolerance and the panel procedure on icobc.net before they start. All items marked VERIFY in this file need confirmation by ICoBC staff before publication. - For the mock discussion, use the six sample questions in the Certification panel module and add one question on each outcome. - Confirm that no confidential issuer material is included in any portfolio without agreement.