1
assessment precondition
Standard Pilot v0.9 · Pillar 1
Support must be real before somebody needs it.
Support should be real before a person needs it: qualified, reachable, understandable, voluntary, confidential and protected from performance consequences.
Complete working proposal — not yet an approved certification standard.
The detailed requirements need clinical, privacy, legal, accessibility, lived-experience, measurement and operational review. P1.2 is a proposed taxonomy change.
7
cross-cutting rules
5
working indicators
20
cumulative stage requirements
10
risk-routed addenda
Purpose
Athlete Support Systems
Sport organisations provide proportionate routes to qualified, accessible, clearly explained and confidential mental-health support, with voluntary referral, continuity and protection from performance disadvantage.
Architecture decision still open
This draft reorganises the current four Pillar 1 indicators into five. P1.2 — timely, equitable and practical access — remains a taxonomy proposal until expert and measurement review explicitly approves it.
Assessment precondition
AP-01 · Support-system scope and service map
Before MindsMelt can assess access, the organisation must show exactly who is covered, what each service does, where it operates, who pays, who can see information and what happens when the route cannot meet the need.
Minimum evidence
- Scope statement
- service map
- provider and route register
- exact inclusions/exclusions
- ownership
- costs and eligibility
- privacy/data-flow map
- update record.
Not sufficient
- A list of logos or provider names
- a national helpline presented as a formal partner
- “all athletes covered” without defining teams, countries or exclusions.
Proposed consequence: Major where scope or service meaning is materially unclear; critical where deliberate misrepresentation conceals unsafe or unqualified provision.
CR-01
Availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality
Every route must be tested against whether it exists, can be reached, respects the person and is delivered safely and competently. [S01–S04]
CR-02
Autonomy and voluntary participation
Routine check-ins, support and screening must not compel unnecessary disclosure or treatment. People must understand their choices and any lawful exceptions. [S02, S03, S12]
CR-03
Confidentiality and data minimisation
Collect, access and share only what is necessary for the stated purpose. Do not rely on apparently “free” consent where sporting power makes refusal difficult. [S07, S14, S15]
CR-04
Clinical independence and conflict control
Qualified professionals must be able to exercise independent judgement. Coaching, selection or commercial interests must not control clinical decisions. [S07, S11, S19]
CR-05
Accurate service descriptions
Performance, wellbeing, peer and clinical services must not be presented as interchangeable. Provider titles and partnerships must be truthful.
CR-06
Continuity and no avoidable abandonment
Delays, travel, transitions, provider absence and loss of organisational eligibility require a proportionate continuity or handoff plan.
CR-07
Controlled “not applicable”
An organisation may route out of a requirement only through verified scope facts. Lack of resources is not, by itself, proof that a safeguard is inapplicable.
P1.1
Retained · remappedQualified and appropriate professional support
When I need formal mental-health care, the route leads to someone appropriately qualified, correctly described and able to act independently in my interests.
Construct
Provider qualification, appropriateness, clinical governance and independence.
Core obligation
The organisation shall maintain and operate proportionate routes to appropriately qualified professional mental-health support, verify competence and jurisdiction, describe each service accurately and protect qualified clinical judgement from inappropriate performance influence.
Boundary
P1.1 owns provider quality and clinical governance. P1.2 owns practical access; P1.4 owns referral and continuity; P1.5 owns confidentiality and performance separation; urgent response belongs to Pillar 4.
BronzeP1.1-BR
Bronze — Verified route to appropriately qualified professional support
Operating support baseline
P1.1-BR
Bronze — Verified route to appropriately qualified professional support
Operating support baseline
Universal foundation with clinical routingMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll organisations; the route may be internal, contracted, public or community-based, but must be accurately described and verified.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall maintain at least one current and proportionate route to appropriately qualified mental-health care for people in scope who may require formal assessment or treatment. It shall verify provider identity, current professional registration or licence where applicable, scope of practice and jurisdiction; distinguish clinical care from performance psychology, coaching, peer support and general wellbeing activity; and define a qualified urgent alternative when the routine route is unavailable.
Intent: To ensure that “access to support” means a real route to someone competent and legally able to provide the service, not merely a name, app, campaign or unverified directory.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- provider/route register
- current registration or licence checks
- scope-of-practice statement
- service description visible to users
- referral or contact pathway
- urgent and backup route
- contract or public-route verification where applicable
Evidence that is not sufficient
- a provider biography or logo without registration verification
- a mental-skills coach presented as a therapist
- a search-engine list
- an employee-assistance number that has not been checked
- a professional whose licence does not cover the jurisdiction or service offered
Audit methods
Document review · independent sample of provider registration · route walkthrough · service-description comparison · interview with the responsible owner · crossover check with MSF role boundaries and Pillar 4 urgent routes.
Evidence validity
Provider status checked at engagement and at least at renewal or annually as a pilot default; registration current at decision date; route details rechecked after any failed contact or material change.
Proposed failure
Major if no viable qualified route exists or services are materially misdescribed. Critical where the organisation knowingly permits unqualified clinical practice, conceals provider status or deliberately directs a person to unsafe or unlawful care.
CAPA and decision
Major must be corrected before any badge. Closure requires a verified route and corrected communication, not only a promise to recruit later. Critical triggers immediate safety and scheme-integrity review.
Expert review
Qualified clinical reviewer, professional-regulation/legal reviewer, operational reviewer and lived-experience reviewer.
Sources
[S05–S11, S13, S16]
SilverP1.1-SI
Silver — Operational professional-support arrangements and clinical boundaries
Implementation records exist
P1.1-SI
Silver — Operational professional-support arrangements and clinical boundaries
Implementation records exist
Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; clinical-governance depth increases where the organisation commissions, employs or controls providers.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall operate the qualified-support route through defined intake, referral acceptance, role boundaries, provider availability, supervision or specialist access, complaints, backup and handoff arrangements. Where it commissions or controls clinical care, the organisation shall assign a qualified clinical-governance function and protect professional judgement from coaching, selection, employment or commercial interference.
Intent: To demonstrate that verified qualifications are connected to a functioning service and that the organisation cannot override clinical judgement for performance reasons.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- operating procedure
- intake and referral records
- provider availability and backup arrangements
- clinical-governance terms where routed
- supervision/consultation arrangements
- complaints route
- conflict and independence clauses
- redacted sample of a successful and a failed referral where available
Evidence that is not sufficient
- a contract with no operating pathway
- provider availability dependent on coach approval
- no backup during leave
- an internal clinician reporting clinically to selection staff
- complaints handled only by the person complained about
Audit methods
Sample records · provider and owner interviews · test a failed-referral scenario · review reporting lines, contracts and conflicts · confirm that complaints and clinical escalation can bypass performance management.
Evidence validity
Current operating cycle; at least 12 months of records where available; governance and provider arrangements current at decision date.
Proposed failure
Major for systemic intake, backup, supervision, conflict or complaints failure. Critical for deliberate interference with necessary care, unsafe unqualified treatment or retaliation linked to a clinical decision.
CAPA and decision
Major closed before Silver/Gold/Diamond. Evidence must demonstrate operation, such as a tested handoff or supervised pathway, not only revised contract wording.
Expert review
Clinical governance, professional regulation, legal/conflict, audit and lived-experience review.
Sources
[S07, S09–S13, S19]
GoldP1.1-GO
Gold — Quality, capacity and provider-system improvement
The service is monitored and improved
P1.1-GO
Gold — Quality, capacity and provider-system improvement
The service is monitored and improved
Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold or Diamond; monitoring is proportionate to volume and avoids unnecessary clinical detail.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall monitor the quality and reliability of its professional-support system using protected system-level information, including provider currency, service capacity, rejected or delayed referrals, complaints, adverse events, cultural and accessibility barriers, continuity failures and conflicts. It shall record corrective action and verify whether changes improved the route.
Intent: To move beyond “we have a provider” and test whether the provider system remains qualified, reachable, appropriate and safe over time.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- annual provider and route review
- capacity and failed-access data
- qualification rechecks
- complaint/adverse-event summaries
- accessibility and inclusion review
- provider review records
- corrective actions and effectiveness checks
Evidence that is not sufficient
- utilisation totals alone
- renewing a contract without quality review
- measuring success only by low complaint numbers
- collecting clinical outcomes the organisation does not need
- identical annual review with only the date changed
Audit methods
Review protected aggregate data · sample a provider review and corrective action · compare sites/populations · interview governance and clinical leads · verify that data minimisation and confidentiality are maintained.
Evidence validity
At least annual review and after a serious complaint, provider change, repeated failed referral, new jurisdiction or material scope change.
Proposed failure
Major for persistent uncorrected quality/capacity failure, expired provider status, unmanaged conflict or misleading service claims. Critical for knowingly continuing unsafe clinical practice or concealing serious provider failure.
CAPA and decision
Major requires verified service correction, capacity or provider change and an effectiveness check before Gold/Diamond.
Expert review
Clinical governance, audit, procurement/commissioning, privacy, accessibility and lived-experience review.
Sources
[S01–S04, S09–S13, S18, S19]
DiamondP1.1-DI
Diamond — Independently verified professional-support quality and independence
Embedded and independently corroborated
P1.1-DI
Diamond — Independently verified professional-support quality and independence
Embedded and independently corroborated
Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; sampling proportionate to provider model, scale, jurisdictions and risk.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall demonstrate through independent audit that professional-support routes across the certified scope are appropriately qualified, correctly represented, clinically governed where applicable, available in practice and protected from inappropriate performance influence. The review shall sample provider status, agreements, failed referrals, complaints or adverse events, governance, conflicts and protected athlete experience. No open major or critical finding may remain.
Intent: To substantiate Diamond’s promise that people can reach competent care and that clinical judgement is not controlled by the organisation’s performance interests.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- independent registration and agreement sample
- clinical-governance review
- protected athlete/service-user corroboration
- failed-referral and complaint sample
- cross-site or cross-jurisdiction testing
- independent closure of major findings
Evidence that is not sufficient
- provider testimonials selected by management
- auditor reliance on contracts alone
- no sample outside the flagship team
- raw therapy notes supplied unnecessarily
- clinical lead who also has unchecked selection authority
Audit methods
Independent credential verification · protected provider and athlete interviews · sample handoffs, failures and governance · cross-scope comparison · test independence and alternative routes.
Evidence validity
Normally previous 12–24 months, adjusted for operating history and volume; provider status and material arrangements current at certification decision.
Proposed failure
Major for unreliable qualification, access, governance or independence. Critical for falsification, deliberate obstruction, retaliation, unlicensed practice or serious unresolved danger.
CAPA and decision
All major and critical findings independently closed before certification; effectiveness must be demonstrated, not merely planned.
Expert review
Independent clinical/safeguarding auditor, professional-regulation, privacy, lived-experience and assurance-method review.
Sources
[S07, S09–S13, S18, S19]
P1.2
Proposed new indicatorTimely, equitable and practical access
The service is not only listed — I can realistically reach it, understand the conditions and receive an alternative when the preferred route cannot help.
Construct
Availability, accessibility, acceptability, quality and practical access barriers.
Core obligation
The organisation shall make support practically accessible by defining and operating transparent eligibility, cost, waiting, location, language, disability, scheduling and backup arrangements, and shall identify and reduce material barriers across the assessed scope.
Boundary
P1.2 owns routine practical access and capacity. P4.3 owns urgent and statutory escalation; P1.3 owns communication; P5 owns cultural willingness and stigma.
BronzeP1.2-BR
Bronze — Transparent and usable access conditions
People know whether and how the route will work
P1.2-BR
Bronze — Transparent and usable access conditions
People know whether and how the route will work
Universal foundationMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll organisations and all populations in scope; route detail scales with service model.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall define and communicate who may use each support route, how to make contact without unnecessary permission, any cost or funding limits, expected response and waiting boundaries, location and opening hours, languages and formats, remote options, reasonable-adjustment process, urgent alternatives and what happens when the preferred route is unavailable.
Intent: To prevent a nominal service from being treated as accessible when hidden eligibility, cost, waiting, permission or practical barriers make it unusable.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- athlete-facing access guide
- eligibility and cost information
- contact route
- hours and waiting boundaries
- language/accessibility information
- alternative route
- reasonable-adjustment process
- current local or public-service information
Evidence that is not sufficient
- “contact the welfare lead” with no next step
- support requiring coach permission
- unknown costs
- no explanation of waiting or emergency alternatives
- a digital-only route that is unusable for part of the population
Audit methods
Unaided route walkthrough · review access information from the user perspective · test one routine and one unavailable-provider scenario · accessibility review · compare claims with actual service terms.
Evidence validity
Access information reviewed at least every six months as a pilot default and immediately after service, cost, eligibility, provider or contact changes.
Proposed failure
Major where a material part of scope has no usable access route or where conditions are misleading. Minor for an isolated outdated detail when a safe and clear alternative remains available.
CAPA and decision
Major corrected before any badge; correction includes updated information and route testing. Minor corrected promptly with verification.
Expert review
Operational access, accessibility, clinical, consumer-information and lived-experience review.
Sources
[S01, S02, S04, S05, S09, S17, S20]
SilverP1.2-SI
Silver — Operational access, barrier support and backup
The organisation records whether people get through
P1.2-SI
Silver — Operational access, barrier support and backup
The organisation records whether people get through
Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; data collection must be minimal and proportionate.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall operate and record the access pathway, including initial response, accepted and failed contacts, waiting or capacity delays, practical accommodations, backup routes and reasonable follow-up. It shall provide proportionate navigation or practical support where known barriers such as cost, transport, scheduling, language, disability, travel or digital access would otherwise prevent use.
Intent: To demonstrate that the access route works for real people and that predictable barriers do not end the process without an alternative.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- access log with minimal data
- response/waiting records
- failed-contact and backup records
- reasonable-adjustment examples
- navigation or practical-support records
- after-hours and travel alternatives
- complaint or feedback route
Evidence that is not sufficient
- counting website clicks as access
- closing the referral after one unanswered call
- collecting diagnosis details to measure waiting
- no record of failed or rejected contacts
- informal exceptions available only to favoured athletes
Audit methods
Sample anonymised access journeys · test unavailable provider and accommodation scenarios · review data minimisation · interview route owners and users · compare different teams/sites.
Evidence validity
Current operating cycle; normally previous 12 months or all journeys if fewer; current access and backup information.
Proposed failure
Major for systemic failed access, discriminatory barriers, no backup or misleading eligibility. Critical where access is deliberately blocked or delayed in a way that creates serious danger or retaliation.
CAPA and decision
Major closed before stage; closure requires demonstrated access or a tested alternative, not only a new policy.
Expert review
Operational, accessibility/equality, clinical, privacy and lived-experience review.
Sources
[S01–S04, S09, S17, S20]
GoldP1.2-GO
Gold — Equity, capacity and access improvement
Barriers are measured and corrected
P1.2-GO
Gold — Equity, capacity and access improvement
Barriers are measured and corrected
Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold/Diamond; analysis proportionate to population size and privacy risk.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall monitor availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality across the assessed scope; analyse waiting, failed access, affordability, language, disability, geography, schedule, identity and status-related barriers using protected data; compare materially different sites or groups; and implement and verify improvements without exposing individuals.
Intent: To reveal who the service does not reach and prevent overall utilisation averages from hiding unequal or unusable access.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- defined access indicators
- protected disaggregated analysis
- capacity/waiting review
- barrier and failed-referral trends
- under-served group feedback
- resource or service changes
- re-test or effectiveness evidence
Evidence that is not sufficient
- overall utilisation only
- small subgroup reporting that risks identification
- assuming low use means low need
- collecting sensitive demographic data without necessity and safeguards
- no action after repeated access gaps
Audit methods
Review indicator definitions and privacy controls · compare groups/sites · sample one identified barrier through to corrective action and re-test · protected user feedback.
Evidence validity
At least annual access/equity review and after repeated failures, major scope changes or new jurisdictions.
Proposed failure
Major for persistent material inequity, ignored capacity failure or unsupported claims of universal access. Critical for deliberate discriminatory exclusion or concealment of dangerous access failure.
CAPA and decision
Major closed with a proportionate access plan and evidence of implementation/effectiveness before Gold/Diamond.
Expert review
Accessibility/equality, measurement, privacy, clinical, operational and lived-experience review.
Sources
[S01–S04, S09, S10, S13, S20]
DiamondP1.2-DI
Diamond — Independently verified practical and equitable access
People across the certified scope can actually reach support
P1.2-DI
Diamond — Independently verified practical and equitable access
People across the certified scope can actually reach support
Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; independent sampling across material sites, statuses, languages and access routes.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall demonstrate through independent route testing, protected participant evidence and review of access records that support can be reached in practice across the certified scope, including by people facing relevant language, disability, financial, geographic, schedule, status or power barriers. The auditor shall test backup and failed-access processes and confirm that no unresolved major access failure remains.
Intent: To ensure Diamond access claims survive independent testing rather than relying on service descriptions or selected success stories.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- independent route-finding tests
- protected interviews across relevant groups
- sample access and failed-access journeys
- reasonable-adjustment verification
- cross-site comparison
- verified access improvements
Evidence that is not sufficient
- management-selected testimonials
- testing only headquarters or elite squads
- scripted route demonstrations
- no sampling of non-permanent or lower-status participants
- no failed-access sample
Audit methods
Independent unaided contact tests where ethical · protected interviews · anonymised journey sampling · cross-scope and backup testing · review unresolved complaints and barriers.
Evidence validity
Evidence normally covers the previous 12–24 months; access information and routes current at decision date.
Proposed failure
Major for inconsistent or inequitable access, unreliable backup or uncorrected exclusion. Critical for obstruction, retaliation, deliberate discrimination or grave danger caused by blocked access.
CAPA and decision
Independent closure and, where appropriate, repeat route test before certification.
Expert review
Independent audit, accessibility/equality, privacy, clinical and lived-experience review.
Sources
[S01–S04, S09, S10, S18, S20]
P1.4
Retained · remappedVoluntary check-ins, referral and continuity
A check-in does not force me to disclose, a referral leads somewhere, and support does not disappear when circumstances change.
Construct
Autonomy in check-ins, referral activation, safe handoff, follow-up and continuity.
Core obligation
The organisation shall ensure check-ins are voluntary and non-diagnostic, operate a qualified referral and handoff pathway, support people during delay or failure and maintain proportionate continuity across foreseeable transitions without unnecessary surveillance.
Boundary
P1.4 owns routine check-in/referral and continuity. Formal clinical assessment belongs to qualified providers; urgent escalation belongs to Pillar 4; broader transition support belongs to P5.2.
BronzeP1.4-BR
Bronze — Voluntary, non-diagnostic check-ins and defined referral
Choice and boundaries are clear
P1.4-BR
Bronze — Voluntary, non-diagnostic check-ins and defined referral
Choice and boundaries are clear
Universal foundation with screening routingMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll organisations that conduct wellbeing check-ins, screening, monitoring or staff-initiated referral; referral route required universally.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall define a referral pathway and ensure that any routine wellbeing check-in is voluntary, non-diagnostic and clear about its purpose, who will see information, what is recorded, the right not to answer and the circumstances requiring urgent or safeguarding action. Non-clinical personnel shall not use check-ins or scores to diagnose, compel treatment or decide that escalation is unnecessary.
Intent: To preserve the supportive value of check-ins without turning them into covert assessment, compulsory disclosure or false clinical reassurance.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- check-in/referral procedure
- participant information and opt-out wording
- role boundaries
- referral destinations
- urgent escalation link
- recording/data rules
- formal-screening addendum where applicable
Evidence that is not sufficient
- mandatory “wellness scores” linked to selection
- a coach-administered diagnostic questionnaire
- no explanation of who sees answers
- referral based only on a cut-off score
- assuming refusal indicates a problem
Audit methods
Review check-in tools and communication · scenario interview · data-flow review · observe or reconstruct check-in process · verify urgent crossover with Pillar 4.
Evidence validity
Procedure current and reviewed after tool, provider, data-use or legal changes; participant information current each operating cycle.
Proposed failure
Major for compelled or misleading check-ins, undefined referral or non-clinical diagnosis. Critical where coercion, false reassurance, punitive use or deliberate delay creates serious harm.
CAPA and decision
Major corrected before any badge; closure includes removal/correction of coercive data use and participant re-communication, not only policy revision.
Expert review
Clinical, privacy, legal, lived-experience and measurement review mandatory.
Sources
[S02, S03, S08–S10, S12, S14, S15]
SilverP1.4-SI
Silver — Operational referral, handoff and proportionate follow-up
The pathway moves beyond signposting
P1.4-SI
Silver — Operational referral, handoff and proportionate follow-up
The pathway moves beyond signposting
Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; formal screening is routed to qualified clinical oversight.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall operate referral and handoff through trained roles, defined consent or other lawful authority, minimum-necessary information, confirmation of route acceptance where feasible, support during delay, failed-referral escalation and proportionate follow-up. Follow-up shall check whether the person reached a safe next step without demanding diagnosis or therapy details for performance staff.
Intent: To prevent referral from becoming “here is a number” followed by abandonment, surveillance or unnecessary clinical disclosure.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- referral workflow
- trained-role records
- redacted referral/handoff sample
- failed-referral route
- consent/lawful-basis guidance
- follow-up record
- urgent escalation criteria
- screening clinical oversight where routed
Evidence that is not sufficient
- closing after signposting
- sending complete medical/performance files
- asking coaches to confirm treatment details
- no response when a provider rejects the referral
- screening results reviewed only by performance staff
Audit methods
Sample successful, delayed and failed referral · privacy/minimisation check · role interviews · test unavailable provider · inspect formal-screening oversight if used.
Evidence validity
Current procedure; sample previous 12 months or all referrals if fewer; tool validity and oversight current.
Proposed failure
Major for systemic failed handoff, abandonment, excessive sharing or unqualified screening. Critical where deliberate interference, unsafe delay or coercion creates grave harm.
CAPA and decision
Major closed before Silver/Gold/Diamond with a demonstrated referral or tested scenario and corrected data flow.
Expert review
Clinical handoff, privacy, legal, operational and lived-experience review.
Sources
[S02, S04, S08–S10, S12, S13]
GoldP1.4-GO
Gold — Referral quality, continuity and transition improvement
The organisation learns where people are lost
P1.4-GO
Gold — Referral quality, continuity and transition improvement
The organisation learns where people are lost
Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold/Diamond; continuity contexts include travel, injury, relocation, deselection, contract end and retirement where relevant.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall monitor referral activation, failed handoffs, waiting, disengagement, continuity and transition barriers using protected system-level information; review the safety and validity of any screening or monitoring tool; and implement improvements. It shall maintain proportionate continuity plans when travel, injury, relocation, provider change, deselection, contract end or retirement would otherwise interrupt necessary support.
Intent: To reveal the gap between referral and care and to prevent organisational transitions from abruptly ending a person’s support.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- referral and continuity indicators
- failed-handoff analysis
- transition/portable-information process
- tool governance review
- barrier feedback
- corrective actions and re-test
- provider handover arrangements
Evidence that is not sufficient
- counting referrals made rather than support reached
- automatic transfer of clinical files without authority
- continuity only for selected athletes
- keeping people in organisational systems after eligibility ends without clear agreement
- no review of false positives/negatives from screening
Audit methods
Review protected referral/continuity data · sample one transition and one failed handoff · inspect tool governance · verify improvements and data minimisation.
Evidence validity
At least annual review and after repeated failure, provider/tool change or material transition programme change.
Proposed failure
Major for persistent failed referral, no continuity in a foreseeable material context, unsafe tool governance or repeated privacy failure. Critical for deliberate abandonment or coercive/selection use causing serious harm.
CAPA and decision
Major closed with an implemented continuity or referral improvement and effectiveness evidence before Gold/Diamond.
Expert review
Clinical, measurement, privacy, transitions/lived-experience and operational review.
Sources
[S02, S04, S08–S10, S12, S18, S20]
DiamondP1.4-DI
Diamond — Independently verified voluntary referral and continuity
Choice, handoff and continuity are corroborated
P1.4-DI
Diamond — Independently verified voluntary referral and continuity
Choice, handoff and continuity are corroborated
Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; sampling includes relevant transitions, failed referrals and screening where used.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall demonstrate through independent audit and protected participant evidence that check-ins are voluntary and non-punitive, referrals produce safe and privacy-respecting handoffs, failed routes trigger alternatives, and continuity is maintained across material contexts in the certified scope. The auditor shall sample tools, records and transitions without seeking unnecessary clinical content. No open major or critical finding may remain.
Intent: To substantiate that the organisation’s care pathway respects autonomy and continues to function when a person’s circumstances or sporting status change.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- independent check-in/tool review
- protected participant corroboration
- redacted successful and failed referral samples
- transition/continuity sample
- provider/tool governance verification
- independent CAPA closure
Evidence that is not sufficient
- only staff accounts
- participants interviewed by coaches
- raw therapy or diagnostic records
- no sample of people who declined a check-in or changed status
- scripted success cases only
Audit methods
Independent record and tool sampling · protected interviews · transition and failed-referral walkthroughs · privacy and autonomy review · cross-scope consistency test.
Evidence validity
Previous 12–24 months adjusted for volume; tools, pathways and provider arrangements current at decision date.
Proposed failure
Major for coercive, unreliable or discontinuous pathways. Critical for retaliation, evidence manipulation, deliberate interference with care or grave unresolved danger.
CAPA and decision
Independent closure required; repeat pathway test where necessary before certification.
Expert review
Independent clinical, privacy, measurement, lived-experience and assurance review.
Sources
[S02–S04, S08–S10, S12, S18]
P1.5
Retained · remappedConfidentiality, autonomy and protection from performance disadvantage
I can ask for help without unnecessary performance involvement, hidden data reuse or fear that disclosure will cost me my place.
Construct
Confidential access, informed boundaries, data separation, clinical independence and freedom from retaliation/performance disadvantage.
Core obligation
The organisation shall provide confidential and conflict-safe access, explain and enforce information boundaries, minimise and separate sensitive information, protect independent clinical judgement and prevent help-seeking information from being used against a person except through a lawful, necessary and transparent safety process.
Boundary
P1.5 owns routine care confidentiality and selection separation. MSF controls provide the general privacy floor; P5.1 owns wider non-retaliation culture; P3 owns governance oversight.
BronzeP1.5-BR
Bronze — Confidential access and transparent information boundaries
People can enter support without coach or selector permission
P1.5-BR
Bronze — Confidential access and transparent information boundaries
People can enter support without coach or selector permission
Universal foundationMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll organisations; lawful emergency, safeguarding and fitness/participation exceptions must be explained accurately.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall provide a route to support that does not require unnecessary coaching, management or selection permission; explain before access what information is collected, who may see it, confidentiality limits and lawful exceptions; restrict routine access to authorised roles; and prohibit the use of mental-health or help-seeking information in selection, contract or performance decisions except through a lawful, necessary, transparent and athlete-known process involving appropriately qualified judgement.
Intent: To address the sport-specific fear that asking for help will expose private information or damage selection, funding, employment or status.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- confidential access route
- athlete-facing privacy/confidentiality explanation
- role-based access list
- selection-use rule
- functional-information sharing process
- alternative route for conflicts
- provider independence statement
Evidence that is not sufficient
- “everything is confidential” with no exceptions
- coach consent required to book
- clinical records accessible to performance dashboards
- diagnosis routinely shared with selectors
- relying on consent that is tied to selection participation
Audit methods
User-perspective access walkthrough · privacy/data-flow review · role/access inspection · interview provider and performance owners separately · compare policy with system permissions.
Evidence validity
Current privacy and access rules; reviewed after system, provider, purpose or legal changes and at least annually as pilot default.
Proposed failure
Major for no confidential route, undefined boundaries or inappropriate access. Critical for deliberate harmful disclosure, retaliation, covert selection use, evidence tampering or systematic exposure of protected information.
CAPA and decision
Major corrected before any badge; closure includes access correction, communication and any required incident response. Critical triggers safety, privacy and scheme action.
Expert review
Privacy/legal, clinical ethics, lived-experience and operational security review mandatory.
Sources
[S02, S03, S07, S11–S15, S22]
SilverP1.5-SI
Silver — Operational confidentiality, consent and conflict controls
Access rights and exceptions work in practice
P1.5-SI
Silver — Operational confidentiality, consent and conflict controls
Access rights and exceptions work in practice
Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; enhanced for in-house clinical services, minors, interpreters, digital platforms and dual-role practitioners.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall operate role-based access, separated clinical/support and performance records, lawful-basis and consent/exception procedures, interpreter confidentiality, conflict-safe alternative access, controlled functional-information sharing and auditable access where proportionate. Staff shall be instructed against informal disclosure, and people shall be able to ask questions, correct inaccuracies and raise privacy concerns.
Intent: To make confidentiality an operating control rather than a promise and to manage legitimate safety communication without exposing unnecessary clinical detail.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- access matrix and system permissions
- separated records
- privacy notice and consent/exception records
- functional restriction template
- access logs where available
- interpreter/contractor confidentiality terms
- privacy concern route
- staff briefing
Evidence that is not sufficient
- clinical notes in shared messaging apps
- informal corridor updates
- full diagnosis shared when only availability status is needed
- dual-role provider with no conflict explanation
- access rights that do not match policy
Audit methods
System/access sample · redacted information-sharing sample · staff and provider interviews · conflict scenario · check correction/complaint route and access logging.
Evidence validity
Access rights current; formal review at least annually and after role/system changes; sample previous 12 months.
Proposed failure
Major for systemic access, separation, consent or conflict failure. Critical for deliberate disclosure, retaliation, harmful selection use or concealment of a serious breach.
CAPA and decision
Major closed before stage with technical and procedural correction plus effectiveness check. Privacy incidents handled under legal and scheme rules.
Expert review
Privacy/security, clinical ethics, legal, lived-experience and audit review.
Sources
[S07, S11–S15, S22]
GoldP1.5-GO
Gold — Trust, access-control and performance-separation improvement
The organisation tests whether confidentiality is believed and protected
P1.5-GO
Gold — Trust, access-control and performance-separation improvement
The organisation tests whether confidentiality is believed and protected
Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold/Diamond; monitoring must not itself create a privacy risk.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall test and review confidentiality, access rights, conflicts and separation from performance decisions; monitor privacy concerns, near misses, inappropriate requests, selection-fear indicators and route avoidance using protected information; and implement and verify improvements. It shall periodically confirm that only minimum necessary functional information reaches decision-makers and that clinical professionals retain independent judgement.
Intent: To detect the informal leaks, power dynamics and fear that written confidentiality rules often miss.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- access review
- privacy concern/near-miss analysis
- protected trust feedback
- sample functional-information sharing
- conflict review
- selection/performance separation test
- corrective action and re-test
Evidence that is not sufficient
- no complaints treated as proof of trust
- surveying athletes through coaches
- publishing small-group results
- reviewing only formal systems while ignoring messaging/email
- no action after inappropriate information requests
Audit methods
Review access and sharing samples · protected participant feedback · compare policy, system and actual practice · sample one concern or near miss through CAPA · interview clinical and selection leadership separately.
Evidence validity
At least annual review and after a privacy incident, role conflict, system change or substantiated retaliation concern.
Proposed failure
Major for repeated uncorrected leakage, conflict or selection-separation failure. Critical for retaliation, deliberate covert use, evidence manipulation or serious harmful disclosure.
CAPA and decision
Major closed with corrected permissions/process and demonstrated trust/control improvement before Gold/Diamond.
Expert review
Privacy/security, clinical independence, governance, lived-experience and audit review.
Sources
[S07, S11–S15, S19, S22]
DiamondP1.5-DI
Diamond — Independently corroborated confidentiality, autonomy and clinical independence
People trust the route and evidence supports that trust
P1.5-DI
Diamond — Independently corroborated confidentiality, autonomy and clinical independence
People trust the route and evidence supports that trust
Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; independent sample includes relevant clinical, performance, selection, HR and contracted roles.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall demonstrate through independent privacy/conflict audit, protected participant evidence and sampling of access and information-sharing controls that people can seek support without inappropriate performance involvement, coercion, retaliation or covert reuse of information. Qualified clinical decisions shall be protected from non-clinical override, and no unresolved major or critical confidentiality or autonomy finding may remain.
Intent: To substantiate Diamond’s trust promise in the area where sport’s power imbalance creates the greatest fear of help-seeking consequences.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- independent access/conflict audit
- protected athlete and staff interviews
- sample sharing and functional restrictions
- provider independence evidence
- privacy incident/CAPA sample
- cross-site/system consistency review
Evidence that is not sufficient
- organisation-selected testimonials
- management present during interviews
- audit limited to written privacy notices
- no inspection of actual access rights
- raw clinical files supplied to prove confidentiality
Audit methods
Independent system and role-access testing · protected interviews · sample conflicts, requests and functional information · cross-check clinical authority and selection separation · verify CAPA.
Evidence validity
Previous 12–24 months plus current permissions and arrangements at certification decision.
Proposed failure
Major for unreliable confidentiality, autonomy or independence. Critical for retaliation, deliberate harmful disclosure, covert selection use, obstruction or falsification.
CAPA and decision
All major/critical findings independently closed before certification; serious trust failure may require a sustained implementation period and repeat corroboration.
Expert review
Independent privacy/security, clinical ethics, legal, lived-experience and assurance review.
Sources
[S03, S07, S11–S15, S19, S22]
Evidence and assurance
A policy is a starting point. The audit tests the route.
Scope and service design
Service map, provider register, role descriptions, access conditions, privacy/data-flow map.
Design does not prove use.
Professional verification
Registration/licence checks, scope, jurisdiction, supervision and governance.
A certificate does not prove availability or independence.
Communication
Induction, route guides, accessible formats, updates and user tests.
Sending does not prove comprehension.
Implementation records
Access, referral, failed handoff, accommodation, continuity and complaint records.
Use minimum necessary data; absence of cases is not automatically proof of quality.
System-level monitoring
Waiting, barriers, access gaps, provider review, privacy concerns and CAPA.
Avoid identifying small groups or collecting diagnoses unnecessarily.
Protected corroboration
Confidential athlete/staff interviews and unaided route tests.
Organisation-selected testimonials are not independent corroboration.
External verification
Registration checks, public routes, contracts, service confirmations and system permissions.
Marketing claims and untested partner logos are insufficient.
Document and system review
Whether routes, roles, data flows and eligibility are defined and technically controlled.
Credential verification
Whether claimed providers and professional titles are current and appropriate.
Unaided route test
Whether a person can find and activate the route without coaching.
Journey sampling
Whether routine, delayed, failed and transition referrals are handled as described.
Protected interviews
Whether people understand, trust and can use the system without feared disadvantage.
Cross-scope sampling
Whether the flagship team and less visible teams/sites receive comparable minimum protection.
Conflict test
Whether a concern or care decision can bypass the coach, selector, executive or provider implicated.
CAPA effectiveness
Whether correction changed access, confidentiality or continuity in practice.
Evidence validity
Evidence expires when the route changes.
Provider registration/licence
At engagement and renewal; normally annual; current at decision.
Refresh trigger: Complaint, sanction, scope/jurisdiction change or provider role change.
Service/access information
At least six-monthly.
Refresh trigger: Provider, contact, cost, eligibility, hours, language or route change; failed contact.
Privacy/access controls
At least annually.
Refresh trigger: System, role, provider, purpose, legal or incident change.
Communication
Current season/programme and onboarding.
Refresh trigger: Service change, new population/site or material comprehension gap.
Implementation samples
Normally previous 12 months.
Refresh trigger: Use all available records for new/low-volume systems.
Gold/Diamond trends
Normally 12–24 months.
Refresh trigger: Adjust for organisation history and volume; do not fabricate volume.
Screening/tool review
Before use and after material evidence/licence/version changes.
Refresh trigger: Incident, false-reassurance concern, data-use change or new population.
Finding classification
Consequences match actual risk.
Observation
Requirement met; improvement would strengthen the system.
Example: Clear route exists but user-testing could be broader.
Minor
Isolated, limited failure without material systemic access or confidentiality risk.
Example: One outdated format while current alternatives remain usable; isolated overdue review.
Major
Systemic or material failure that undermines the stage claim or blocks safe access.
Example: No qualified route; inaccessible service; compulsory check-in; no confidential route; repeated failed handoff.
Critical
Current serious danger, deliberate concealment, retaliation, falsification, harmful disclosure or knowingly unsafe/unqualified practice.
Example: Covert selection use of therapy data; retaliating after help-seeking; knowingly allowing unlicensed treatment; deliberate interference with urgent care.
Controlled routing
One safety function, evidence proportionate to context.
RA-01
Minors and young athletes
Age-appropriate information; consent and assent; guardian involvement and limits; confidential access where lawful; safeguarding crossover; transition to adult services; school/academy coordination; no assumption that parents may see all information.
RA-02
Small and volunteer-led organisations
No requirement to employ a clinician solely because of size; verified external/public routes; clear limitations; practical navigation; conflict-safe alternative beyond the main coach; no unsupported “partnership” or availability claims.
RA-03
In-house or commissioned clinical services
Named qualified clinical governance; professional independence; supervision; adverse-event and complaint process; safe records; continuity; conflicts; no routine clinical reporting to performance staff.
RA-04
Performance psychology and dual-role practitioners
Clear distinction between performance and clinical services; role-change process; informed choice; separate records where required; conflict and referral rules; no ambiguous “psychologist” claims where title/scope differs.
RA-05
Travel, remote and cross-border care
Verify provider authority and indemnity by jurisdiction; know the person’s location during remote care; local emergency route; platform privacy; language; medication and continuity plan; handoff before travel or relocation.
RA-06
Residential, boarding and academy settings
Private out-of-hours access; separation from house, coaching and selection authority; youth/guardian rules; support when away from family; safe spaces for remote consultations; continuity during holidays and release.
RA-07
Federations, franchises, member bodies and multiple sites
Exact certified scope; central minimums; local service maps and providers; delegation controls; escalation where local route fails; cross-site access analysis; no claim that unaudited members are covered.
RA-08
Language, disability, culture and interpreters
Accessible formats and reasonable adjustments; qualified/confidential interpreters; culturally appropriate choices; private communication; no family or teammate interpreter by default where confidentiality or accuracy could be compromised.
RA-09
Screening, monitoring and digital wellbeing tools
Clear purpose; validated tool for population and use; qualified oversight; voluntariness and lawful basis; false-positive/negative response; crisis plan; data minimisation; no automated diagnosis or selection use; vendor and algorithm governance.
RA-10
Injury, deselection, contract end, retirement and other transitions
Advance explanation of eligibility end; proportionate continuation or handoff; portable information controlled by the person; safe medication/clinical continuity; no abrupt withdrawal as punishment; clear financial and provider boundaries.
Proportional organisation models
Small community club
A verified external/public route, clear and private navigation, voluntary referral, safe data handling and a conflict-safe alternative may be sufficient. The club must not claim guaranteed clinical access it does not provide.
Professional team or academy
Likely needs commissioned or embedded routes, defined capacity, clinical independence, rapid referral, travel/residential coverage, confidential entry and strong separation from selection.
National federation
Needs exact scope, central standards, local-country service maps, delegation controls, cross-squad consistency, provider governance and monitoring of unequal access.
International federation / multi-country body
Needs jurisdiction routing, travel/event provision, provider verification by country, language/accessibility choices and transparent limits where member organisations are outside scope.
Event organiser
Focuses on temporary access, clear signposting, qualified event provision, handoff to home systems, confidentiality in accreditation/medical structures and urgent crossover with Pillar 4.
Organisation serving staff and volunteers
Must state whether staff/volunteers receive the same, separate or public routes, and cannot imply coverage that excludes them without saying so.
Questionnaire blueprint
The applicant form is not the audit.
Translate requirements into routed measurement instruments; do not turn every control, evidence request and audit test into an applicant yes/no question.
Working range: Approximately 32–42 Pillar 1 applicant-bank items, with a typical routed sitting of roughly 22–30. This is an authoring hypothesis, not a quota or a validated scale.
1
Scope and service mapping
4–6 unscored selectors
Establishes covered populations, provider model, jurisdictions, costs, digital tools, minors, travel and transition contexts.
2
Cross-cutting rights and safeguards
6–8 applicant prompts
Tests voluntary participation, confidentiality, clinical independence, accurate service descriptions, continuity and controlled applicability.
3
Indicator maturity
15–20 focused prompts
Tests provider quality, practical access, navigation, referral continuity and performance separation without duplicating the same construct.
4
Routed risk modules
7–10 conditional prompts
Activates only for minors, commissioned care, digital tools, travel, residential settings, multiple sites, transitions and other relevant contexts.
01 · Applicant questions linked to one retained requirement and one primary construct.
02 · Evidence requests stating what may demonstrate practice and what is not sufficient.
03 · Auditor prompts, unaided route tests and sampling instructions kept separate from answer keys.
04 · Protected athlete, staff and provider corroboration with consent, independence, anti-retaliation and minimum-data safeguards.
Required review
Clinical and professional-regulation review
Provider qualification, scope of practice, role boundaries, referral, screening, supervision and clinical independence.
Privacy, data-protection and security review
Lawful basis, consent under power imbalance, access controls, data minimisation, retention, digital tools and functional-information sharing.
Accessibility and equality review
Language, disability, cost, geography, schedule, status, reasonable adjustments and equitable route testing.
Safeguarding, minors and legal review
Confidential access, guardian involvement, assent, reporting crossover, jurisdictional duties and retaliation protection.
Lived-experience and operational review
Findability, trust, feasibility, transitions, protected corroboration and whether routes work outside flagship teams.
Measurement and assurance review
Five-indicator distinctness, maturity progression, validity periods, finding consistency, sampling and question-bank coverage.
Open design decisions
- 01
Confirm the five-indicator model and whether “timely, equitable and practical access” should remain a separate indicator.
- 02
Define the minimum qualified route for organisations relying entirely on public/community services.
- 03
Decide whether MindsMelt should set any universal response or waiting-time boundary, or require each organisation to publish and justify its own.
- 04
Define what financial support or coverage, if any, is expected by stage and organisation type.
- 05
Approve professional-category and registration addenda for France, the UK and founding-cohort jurisdictions.
- 06
Approve the boundary between clinical mental health, sport psychology, performance psychology, counselling, psychotherapy, peer and player-care roles.
- 07
Approve check-in and formal-screening rules, including validated tools, consent, data use and clinical oversight.
- 08
Approve the precise rule for functional health information that may be shared for safety/participation decisions.
- 09
Define minors’ confidential access, guardian involvement and assent by jurisdiction.
- 10
Set evidence-validity and refresh periods after operational testing.
- 11
Define protected interview sampling and retention rules for Diamond.
- 12
Decide how staff, volunteers and entourage are included in scope and public claims.
- 13
Define continuity expectations when an athlete is deselected, released, retires or leaves the organisation.
- 14
Confirm finding severities and whether any limited minor findings may remain open at pathway verification.
- 15
Define how outsourced digital and teletherapy vendors are reviewed and represented publicly.
Readiness checklist
Can the organisation prove the route works?
21 source records support this working model. The register preserves the source gap in the draft so it can be resolved during controlled authoring.
- We can state exactly who and what is included in the assessed scope.
- We can distinguish clinical care, performance psychology, wellbeing/player-care, peer support and crisis routes.
- Every claimed professional route has been verified for qualification, scope and jurisdiction.
- People can access support without unnecessary coach, manager or selector permission.
- Eligibility, cost, waiting, language, disability, hours, location and backup routes are clear.
- Support information is available privately, proactively and in accessible formats.
- Routine check-ins are voluntary, non-diagnostic and clear about information use.
- Referrals include safe handoff, failed-route escalation and proportionate follow-up.
- We have plans for travel, injury, relocation, deselection, contract end and retirement where relevant.
- Clinical/support information is separated from performance and selection systems.
- Any necessary functional information sharing is lawful, minimal, transparent and clinically justified.
- We can demonstrate provider independence and manage dual-role conflicts.
- We monitor access barriers and failed referrals without collecting unnecessary clinical data.
- We can show how communication, access, provider or confidentiality failures produced improvement.
- We can support independent route testing and protected athlete/staff interviews without interference.
- We have no unresolved major or critical Pillar 1 finding for the stage claimed.
Pillar 1 is now inspectable — and ready to be challenged.
Next: decide the proposed P1.2 architecture, complete named expert review and build equivalent packs for Pillars 2 and 5 before controlled questionnaire authoring. Pillar 3 is now complete as a working proposal.