1
assessment precondition
Standard Pilot v0.9 · Pillar 2
Training counts when people can use it safely.
The people around me know how to notice when something may be wrong, respond with care, stay within their role, connect me to appropriate support and obtain help themselves when needed.
Complete working proposal — not yet an approved certification standard.
The requirements need athlete, learning, clinical, safeguarding, privacy, legal, measurement and operational review. P2.5 remains a controlled taxonomy proposal.
10
cross-cutting rules
5
working indicators
20
cumulative stage requirements
10
risk-routed addenda
Purpose
Staff Training and Awareness
The people around athletes and staff have the role-specific knowledge, practical skills, boundaries, routes and support needed to contribute safely.
Architecture decision still open
P2.5 is approved for the working architecture. It reorganises the previous designated-lead function into a broader competence-leadership and workforce-support control. Detailed wording and measurement remain subject to expert and pilot validation.
Assessment precondition
AP-01 · Workforce, role and competence map
Before MindsMelt can assess competence, the organisation must show who works with or influences people in sport, what each role is expected to do, where its boundaries sit and how competence is maintained.
Minimum evidence
- Current role inventory
- competence matrix
- role descriptions
- contract/volunteer categories
- risk and scenario map
- induction and refresh rules
- owner and backup
- external expertise arrangements
- update record.
Not sufficient
- A staff list with no competence expectations
- course attendance records without role mapping
- excluding volunteers or contractors
- assuming clinicians cover every non-clinical role.
Proposed consequence: Major where a material role group or safety-critical competence is missing. Critical where deliberate omission, misrepresentation or known unqualified practice creates serious current danger.
CR-01
Role-based, not course-based
Competence expectations follow actual responsibilities, power and likely scenarios; completion of one named course is never the universal test.
CR-02
Support and refer; do not diagnose or treat
Non-clinical roles may listen, support, signpost and escalate within protocol, but must not provide clinical assessment or treatment outside competence.
CR-03
Routine, urgent and safeguarding routes remain distinct
Learning must show which route applies, how they connect and when immediate danger overrides normal process.
CR-04
Every employment status counts
Employees, volunteers, contractors, consultants, interns, board members and temporary/event staff are included where their role creates responsibility or access.
CR-05
Accessible and culturally responsive learning
Content, examples, delivery and assessment must account for language, disability, culture, age, identity, neurodiversity and digital access.
CR-06
Demonstrated competence, not attendance
Records of completion contribute evidence, but practical understanding, behaviour and role application must also be tested where material.
CR-07
Safe learning and rehearsal
Scenarios must be relevant without being humiliating, coercive, unnecessarily graphic or likely to expose personal experiences. Participation and debrief rules must be clear.
CR-08
Confidentiality and information minimisation
Training records should show competence without collecting unnecessary health information or exposing disclosures made during learning.
CR-09
Supervision and support are part of competence
People must be able to seek advice, acknowledge uncertainty, hand over responsibility and obtain support after difficult situations.
CR-10
Controlled “not applicable”
A role or module may be routed out only through verified scope facts and a recorded rationale, not because learning is inconvenient or costly.
P2.1
Retained · remappedRole-based competence framework and coverage
The people whose work affects me have been identified, know what is expected of them and receive learning appropriate to their actual role — including volunteers, contractors and temporary staff.
Construct
Role analysis, competence definition, coverage, induction and gap control.
Core obligation
The organisation shall define and maintain role-based mental-health and safeguarding competence requirements for all relevant personnel in the assessed scope, ensure proportionate induction and learning, maintain coverage records and manage competence gaps before people undertake responsibilities they are not ready to perform.
Boundary
P2.1 owns who needs which competence and whether coverage is complete. P2.4 owns learning quality and competence verification. P3.2 owns executive accountability and P2.5 owns technical support and supervision.
BronzeP2.1-BR
Role and competence requirements are defined
Every relevant person knows the baseline expected for their role.
P2.1-BR
Role and competence requirements are defined
Every relevant person knows the baseline expected for their role.
Universal foundationMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll organisations; role depth proportionate to scope, power and risk.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall maintain a current role and competence matrix identifying every material athlete-facing, support, decision-making and safety role; define the minimum mental-health, safeguarding, confidentiality, referral and emergency competence required; provide essential induction before unsupervised or safety-critical duty; and record how volunteers, contractors, temporary staff and backups are covered.
Intent: To ensure that essential roles are not missed and that competence is defined before training is purchased or responsibility is assigned.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- workforce/role map
- competence matrix
- role descriptions
- induction content and timing
- list of covered employees, volunteers and contractors
- owner and review date
- temporary supervision or duty restrictions for gaps
Evidence that is not sufficient
- a generic promise that all staff receive awareness training
- attendance list without role requirements
- permanent employees covered but volunteers excluded
- competence inferred from seniority or personal experience
Audit methods
Compare role map to organisation chart, rosters, contracts and operating contexts · sample induction · ask selected roles what competence is expected · test how an uncovered new starter is managed.
Evidence validity
Role matrix current and reviewed at least annually and after material workforce, activity, jurisdiction or service change. Induction before unsupervised relevant duty.
Proposed failure
Major for missing material role groups, no baseline induction or unsafe assignment. Minor for an isolated administrative gap where competence and supervision remain demonstrable.
CAPA and decision
Major closed before any badge through completed mapping, learning and demonstrated interim controls; booking future training alone is insufficient.
Expert review
Learning/competence, safeguarding, clinical, operations and lived-experience review required.
Sources
[S01, S02, S04, S08, S09, S10, S11]
SilverP2.1-SI
Coverage is operational and gaps are controlled
Learning reaches the people who need it and overdue competence is actively managed.
P2.1-SI
Coverage is operational and gaps are controlled
Learning reaches the people who need it and overdue competence is actively managed.
Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; includes new starters, changes of role and non-permanent personnel.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall operate the competence framework through documented induction, learning assignment, completion tracking, validity monitoring and gap management. Where a person has not yet demonstrated required competence, the organisation shall provide supervision, restrict relevant duty, arrange an alternative competent person or take another documented safety measure until the gap is closed.
Intent: To move from a matrix on paper to complete and controlled workforce coverage.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- learning assignment records
- completion/validity dashboard
- induction sample
- overdue and exception log
- supervision or restricted-duty records
- contractor evidence
- backup arrangements
- closure evidence
Evidence that is not sufficient
- completion percentage without a denominator or role groups
- automatic reminders with no action
- expired competence ignored because the person is experienced
- temporary staff allowed to work first and complete induction later
Audit methods
Reconcile role matrix to completion data · sample overdue cases and controls · interview new, volunteer and contractor roles · trace one role change from risk assessment to learning assignment.
Evidence validity
Current operating cycle; completion and exception data current at assessment; sample normally covers previous 12 months.
Proposed failure
Major for systemic non-coverage, no control of safety-critical gaps or misleading completion claims. Minor for isolated overdue learning with documented safe control and prompt closure.
CAPA and decision
Major requires competence to be completed and demonstrated or responsibility reassigned before stage verification.
Expert review
Operations, safeguarding, learning systems and audit review required.
Sources
[S04, S08, S09, S10, S12]
GoldP2.1-GO
Competence needs and coverage are reviewed by risk
The organisation learns where its workforce model is weak and corrects it.
P2.1-GO
Competence needs and coverage are reviewed by risk
The organisation learns where its workforce model is weak and corrects it.
Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold/Diamond; analysis proportionate to workforce and organisational complexity.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall evaluate whether competence requirements and coverage remain appropriate by analysing incidents, near misses, referral or reporting failures, athlete and workforce feedback, accessibility barriers, turnover, role changes, new activities and changes in evidence or guidance. It shall identify material competence risks, assign corrective action and verify that changes improve coverage and role readiness.
Intent: To ensure the competence framework changes with the organisation rather than becoming a static course catalogue.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- annual competence-needs review
- incident/feedback inputs
- role-risk analysis
- turnover and contractor trends
- accessibility review
- revised curriculum or requirements
- CAPA and effectiveness checks
- leadership reporting
Evidence that is not sufficient
- annual refresh created only by changing dates
- no analysis of missing roles or failed handoffs
- training increased after an incident without identifying the competence gap
- data limited to completion rates
Audit methods
Trace at least one operational signal to a changed competence requirement and verified outcome · compare high-risk role coverage · review omitted or underrepresented groups · interview technical owner and operations lead.
Evidence validity
At least annual evaluation and after serious incident, repeated failure, major expansion, new jurisdiction or significant turnover.
Proposed failure
Major for repeated or material competence gaps left unaddressed, inaccurate coverage reporting or failure to adapt after known risk. Critical where known unqualified practice is deliberately allowed and creates grave danger.
CAPA and decision
Major closed through revised requirements, completed implementation and an effectiveness check; policy revision alone is insufficient.
Expert review
Measurement, learning, operations, safeguarding and lived-experience review required.
Sources
[S01, S02, S04, S10, S12, S13]
DiamondP2.1-DI
Role coverage is independently verified across the scope
The competence framework works beyond headquarters and the best-prepared team.
P2.1-DI
Role coverage is independently verified across the scope
The competence framework works beyond headquarters and the best-prepared team.
Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; sample selected independently and proportional to risk.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall demonstrate through independent review that role-based competence requirements, induction, coverage and gap controls are consistently implemented across the assessed scope. Sampling shall include relevant sites, teams, shifts, volunteers, contractors, temporary or seasonal roles and at least one group with lower organisational power or reduced supervision where applicable. No open major or critical P2.1 finding may remain.
Intent: To substantiate that coverage claims reflect the real workforce rather than a central spreadsheet or showcase programme.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- independent sampling plan
- reconciled workforce and learning data
- selected personnel interviews
- new-starter and contractor samples
- gap-control records
- cross-site findings
- independently closed corrective actions
Evidence that is not sufficient
- organisation-selected participants only
- headquarters sample
- no comparison with actual rosters
- high completion rate with excluded populations
- open systemic gaps covered by future plans
Audit methods
Independent data reconciliation, protected role interviews and cross-site sampling · test one unannounced or recently changed role · review gap controls and correction effectiveness.
Evidence validity
Evidence normally covers previous 12–24 months and current personnel at decision date.
Proposed failure
Major for inconsistent or unreliable coverage, material exclusions or ineffective controls. Critical for falsification, concealment or knowingly assigning unqualified people to dangerous responsibilities.
CAPA and decision
Independent closure and evidence of sustained implementation required before certification.
Expert review
Independent competence/audit, safeguarding, clinical and workforce-data review required.
Sources
[S04, S10, S12, S13]
P2.2
Retained · remappedRecognition and safe first response
When someone notices that I may be struggling, they approach me respectfully, listen without judgement, protect my dignity and help me reach the right next step rather than ignoring, interrogating or labelling me.
Construct
Recognition of possible concern, compassionate communication, immediate support and route activation.
Core obligation
The organisation shall ensure that relevant personnel can recognise possible signs of distress or changed functioning, initiate a respectful and proportionate conversation, listen and respond without judgement, identify when immediate safety or safeguarding action may be required and activate the appropriate organisational route without non-clinical diagnosis or false reassurance.
Boundary
P2.2 owns the human first response. P2.3 owns role boundaries and handoff competence. P4 owns emergency and safeguarding procedures. Qualified clinical assessment remains outside this indicator.
BronzeP2.2-BR
Relevant roles can recognise concern and respond safely
The first human response protects dignity and opens the correct route.
P2.2-BR
Relevant roles can recognise concern and respond safely
The first human response protects dignity and opens the correct route.
Universal foundationMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll relevant athlete-facing and supervisory roles; depth depends on likely contact and responsibility.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall provide relevant personnel with role-appropriate guidance on recognising possible distress, significant changes in behaviour or functioning, safeguarding indicators and requests for help; approaching the person privately and respectfully; listening without judgement; avoiding diagnosis, blame, minimisation or interrogation; explaining confidentiality limits honestly; and activating the correct routine, urgent, emergency or safeguarding route.
Intent: To make the first interaction supportive and safe while preventing non-clinical staff from overreaching.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- role guidance
- learning objectives and materials
- concise conversation/route aid
- induction records
- accessible versions
- approved examples and scenarios
- links to current organisational routes
Evidence that is not sufficient
- a list of diagnoses and symptoms with no response guidance
- “tell your manager” as the only instruction
- scripts that force disclosure
- language implying staff can determine whether someone is truly at risk
Audit methods
Review content with clinical/safeguarding expert · ask sampled roles to describe how they would approach a concerning change · verify that answers connect to current routes and confidentiality rules.
Evidence validity
Content reviewed at least annually and after route, law, serious incident or material guidance change. Personnel receive it before relevant unsupervised duty.
Proposed failure
Major where material roles have no safe-response guidance or content encourages harmful overreach, secrecy or non-response. Minor for isolated wording or distribution gaps with safe alternatives.
CAPA and decision
Major corrected before any badge through revised content, delivery and demonstrated understanding.
Expert review
Clinical, safeguarding, lived-experience, accessibility and communications review required.
Sources
[S01, S02, S03, S04, S05, S06, S16]
SilverP2.2-SI
Safe first-response skills are practised
People demonstrate how they would respond, not only what they remember.
P2.2-SI
Safe first-response skills are practised
People demonstrate how they would respond, not only what they remember.
Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; scenarios selected by role and risk.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall provide practical learning in which relevant personnel apply safe first-response skills to realistic role-based scenarios, including uncertainty, reluctance to disclose, cultural or communication differences and situations requiring routine, urgent or safeguarding escalation. Competence shall be checked through facilitated discussion, observed practice or another defensible method, and material gaps shall be remediated before unsupervised responsibility continues.
Intent: To verify that people can apply respectful communication and route decisions in realistic situations.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- scenario curriculum
- facilitator competence
- participation records
- observation or assessment criteria
- anonymised results
- remediation
- duty restrictions or supervision where needed
- safe debrief arrangements
Evidence that is not sufficient
- video completion only
- rehearsed script with the “right answer” supplied
- scenarios unrelated to actual role
- no response to failed competence check
- participants pressured to disclose personal experience
Audit methods
Observe or review scenario delivery · sample assessment and remediation · ask how scenarios are adapted for role, power and accessibility · interview participant and facilitator samples.
Evidence validity
Practice evidence within current operating year; safety-critical and new roles before independent duty; repeated after material failure or role change.
Proposed failure
Major for systemic inability to provide a safe first response or no remediation after failure. Minor for isolated documentation weakness where competence is otherwise evidenced.
CAPA and decision
Major requires repeat learning and demonstrated competence, not attendance alone.
Expert review
Clinical/safeguarding scenario design, adult learning and lived-experience review required.
Sources
[S03, S04, S05, S08, S09, S14]
GoldP2.2-GO
First-response quality is evaluated and improved
The organisation checks whether responses are respectful, equitable and effective.
P2.2-GO
First-response quality is evaluated and improved
The organisation checks whether responses are respectful, equitable and effective.
Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold/Diamond; evaluation proportionate to scale and exposure.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall evaluate the quality and consistency of first responses using protected athlete and workforce feedback, scenario findings, incident and near-miss reviews, referral or safeguarding failures and accessibility or bias analysis. It shall identify differences across roles, sites, identities, languages and contract status; revise learning or supervision; and verify that corrective action improves practice.
Intent: To detect where apparently trained people still respond in ways that discourage disclosure, reinforce stigma or fail to activate support.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- protected feedback
- scenario trends
- incident/near-miss learning
- disparity or accessibility analysis
- revised content
- coaching/supervision
- CAPA and re-test
- leadership or technical review
Evidence that is not sufficient
- confidence survey only
- satisfaction data from people selected by management
- low report numbers treated as proof of good response
- no analysis of who avoids staff or why
Audit methods
Trace at least one response-quality signal to a change and re-test · compare role/site groups · review how negative or dissenting feedback is protected · interview technical owner and selected participants.
Evidence validity
At least annual evaluation and after serious response failure, repeated complaints, material population change or significant new context.
Proposed failure
Major for known harmful or inequitable response patterns left uncorrected, misleading evaluation or repeated failure to activate routes. Critical where deliberate intimidation, humiliation or withholding of urgent action creates grave danger.
CAPA and decision
Major closed through revised practice, supervision and verified improvement.
Expert review
Lived-experience, clinical, safeguarding, measurement and equity/accessibility review required.
Sources
[S01, S02, S04, S05, S11, S13]
DiamondP2.2-DI
Safe first response is independently observed and corroborated
The way people respond is trusted in practice across different roles and settings.
P2.2-DI
Safe first response is independently observed and corroborated
The way people respond is trusted in practice across different roles and settings.
Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; independent sample across roles and operating contexts.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall demonstrate through independent observation or controlled scenarios and protected athlete and workforce evidence that relevant personnel recognise possible concern, respond respectfully, state their limits and activate appropriate routes consistently across the assessed scope. Sampling shall include lower-power participants and non-permanent roles where applicable, and no open major or critical P2.2 finding may remain.
Intent: To verify that compassionate and safe first response is embedded rather than performed only during internal training.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- independent scenario plan
- protected interviews
- unaided role responses
- cross-site/role findings
- negative and positive evidence
- corrective action and repeat assessment
Evidence that is not sufficient
- senior staff demonstration only
- prepared answers
- management present during interviews
- testimonials chosen by the organisation
- no testing of difficult or ambiguous situations
Audit methods
Independent scenario or structured interview, protected participant sampling and comparison with incidents/referrals · test accessibility and power dynamics.
Evidence validity
Current certification cycle with evidence of sustained operation across previous 12–24 months.
Proposed failure
Major for inconsistent, untrusted or unsafe responses. Critical for retaliation, interference, evidence manipulation or serious deliberate harm.
CAPA and decision
Independent closure and, where needed, repeat observation before certification.
Expert review
Independent clinical/safeguarding assessor and protected-interview review required.
Sources
[S03, S04, S05, S13, S14]
P2.3
Retained · remappedRole boundaries, referral and escalation competence
The person I approach knows what they may do, what they must not do, where my information can go and how to connect me to appropriate support without taking control of my care or sporting future.
Construct
Role boundaries, confidentiality limits, referral decisions, handoff and escalation competence.
Core obligation
The organisation shall define and maintain clear mental-health, safeguarding, confidentiality and referral boundaries for relevant roles and ensure that personnel can apply those boundaries when supporting, referring or escalating a concern, including where roles overlap with coaching, selection, employment, clinical care or safeguarding.
Boundary
P1 owns the availability and quality of support services. P2.3 owns staff understanding and use of routes. P4 owns urgent and safeguarding protocols. Professional clinical scope remains governed by law and relevant professional standards.
BronzeP2.3-BR
Role boundaries and routes are explicit
People know their authority, limits and the correct next step.
P2.3-BR
Role boundaries and routes are explicit
People know their authority, limits and the correct next step.
Universal foundationMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll relevant roles; professional and jurisdictional detail routed.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall define in clear role-specific language what relevant personnel may provide, what requires qualified professional input, what information they may access or share, when confidentiality cannot be maintained, how consent and emergency exceptions are handled and which routine, urgent, emergency and safeguarding routes apply. Non-clinical personnel shall not diagnose, provide treatment, use a score to withhold escalation or promise absolute secrecy.
Intent: To prevent well-intentioned support from becoming unsafe clinical practice, coercion, informal information sharing or failed escalation.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- role-boundary statements
- referral/escalation decision aids
- confidentiality guidance
- consent and emergency-exception rules
- professional scope references
- induction/communication evidence
Evidence that is not sufficient
- a generic code of conduct
- “use common sense”
- a coach described as the team therapist without qualification
- confidentiality guidance that omits selectors or informal messaging
- a checklist used to label a person low risk
Audit methods
Review role guidance · compare to actual job descriptions and routes · ask sampled personnel how they would handle routine, urgent, safeguarding and confidentiality scenarios · verify professional claims.
Evidence validity
Current and reviewed at least annually and after legal, route, provider, role or serious-incident change.
Proposed failure
Major for undefined or materially unsafe boundaries, dead routes or routine inappropriate access. Critical for unqualified treatment, intentional withholding of urgent escalation or deliberate harmful disclosure.
CAPA and decision
Major corrected before any badge through revised boundaries, communication and demonstrated understanding; a new document alone is insufficient.
Expert review
Clinical, safeguarding, privacy/legal, professional-scope and lived-experience review required.
Sources
[S02, S04, S05, S06, S07, S16]
SilverP2.3-SI
Referral and escalation competence is demonstrated
People can make a safe handoff without abandoning the person or demanding unnecessary information.
P2.3-SI
Referral and escalation competence is demonstrated
People can make a safe handoff without abandoning the person or demanding unnecessary information.
Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; routes appropriate to role and scope.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall require relevant personnel to demonstrate how they initiate a routine referral, activate urgent or safeguarding escalation, support the person until responsibility is transferred, share only necessary information, record required actions and respond when the intended route is unavailable. Learning shall address dual roles, selection or employment power and the limits of follow-up questions after referral.
Intent: To ensure that the boundary and route are usable in practice and protect the person during handoff.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- referral/handoff scenarios
- observed competence
- minimum-information guidance
- unavailable-provider scenario
- route aids
- redacted referral or escalation sample where available
- remediation and supervision records
Evidence that is not sufficient
- giving a phone number and ending responsibility
- staff seeking diagnosis details “for planning”
- one successful referral used as universal evidence
- no backup route
- no plan for a concern about the person receiving the referral
Audit methods
Observe or reconstruct a referral · test an unavailable route · review privacy and consent reasoning · interview coach, manager, medical and safeguarding role samples · compare with Pillar 1 and 4 systems.
Evidence validity
Current operating year; repeated after material route/provider change or identified boundary failure.
Proposed failure
Major for systemic failed handoff, abandonment, inappropriate information sharing or inability to distinguish routes. Critical where deliberate delay, coercion or disclosure creates grave harm.
CAPA and decision
Major requires demonstrated safe handoff and closure of route or boundary weaknesses before stage verification.
Expert review
Clinical handoff, safeguarding, privacy, operational and lived-experience review required.
Sources
[S04, S05, S06, S07, S16]
GoldP2.3-GO
Boundary and referral failures are monitored and corrected
The organisation learns where power, dual roles and system gaps cause unsafe practice.
P2.3-GO
Boundary and referral failures are monitored and corrected
The organisation learns where power, dual roles and system gaps cause unsafe practice.
Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold/Diamond; monitoring proportionate and privacy-protective.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall monitor and review boundary questions, inappropriate disclosure, failed or delayed referrals, role confusion, repeated requests for clinical information, conflicts involving coaching or selection power and concerns about unqualified practice. It shall provide consultation or supervision, correct the underlying role or system causes and verify that changes reduce recurrence without exposing personal health information.
Intent: To identify hidden boundary failures that course-completion data will not reveal.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- protected incident/consultation themes
- failed-referral review
- access or disclosure findings
- dual-role risk analysis
- supervision themes
- corrective action
- revised role design or routes
- effectiveness evidence
Evidence that is not sufficient
- no recorded boundary breaches treated as proof
- individual blamed without system review
- raw clinical files sent to management
- repeated confusion addressed only with another email
Audit methods
Sample protected themes and corrective actions · trace a difficult boundary case · review role conflicts and access controls · interview technical, clinical/safeguarding and operational owners.
Evidence validity
At least annual review and after serious breach, repeated failed referral, new dual-role arrangement or provider change.
Proposed failure
Major for repeated or known boundary/referral failures left uncorrected. Critical for deliberate misuse of health information, unlicensed practice, retaliation or concealment.
CAPA and decision
Major closed through role/system correction, supervision and effectiveness verification.
Expert review
Clinical governance, privacy, safeguarding, role design and audit review required.
Sources
[S01, S04, S05, S07, S10, S13]
DiamondP2.3-DI
Boundaries and referral practice are independently corroborated
Powerful roles cannot quietly override confidentiality, clinical judgement or safe handoff.
P2.3-DI
Boundaries and referral practice are independently corroborated
Powerful roles cannot quietly override confidentiality, clinical judgement or safe handoff.
Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; sample includes roles with coaching, selection, employment or clinical power.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall demonstrate through independent review, protected interviews and relevant evidence sampling that role boundaries, confidentiality limits, professional independence, referral and escalation competence operate consistently across the assessed scope. The audit shall test dual-role and conflict scenarios and confirm that athletes and staff can seek or receive support without inappropriate clinical overreach, information demand or performance disadvantage. No open major or critical P2.3 finding may remain.
Intent: To substantiate that written boundaries survive real hierarchy, commercial pressure and multidisciplinary work.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- independent role and access review
- protected athlete/staff interviews
- referral and boundary samples
- conflict/recusal evidence
- professional verification
- corrective-action closure
Evidence that is not sufficient
- policy review only
- senior leadership assurances
- interviews in management presence
- no sampling of selection or employment roles
- athlete care dependent on sharing diagnosis details
Audit methods
Independent protected interviews, role scenarios, access and referral sampling, conflict review and cross-scope comparison.
Evidence validity
Previous 12–24 months and current role arrangements at decision date.
Proposed failure
Major for unreliable boundaries, role conflict or unsafe handoff. Critical for coercion, retaliation, evidence manipulation, deliberate harmful disclosure or unqualified clinical practice.
CAPA and decision
Independent closure and demonstrated sustained practice required before certification.
Expert review
Independent clinical, safeguarding, privacy and assurance review required.
Sources
[S04, S05, S07, S13]
P2.4
Retained · remappedLearning quality, practice and competence assurance
The learning given to people around me is accurate, relevant and practised. The organisation checks whether they can use it safely instead of counting certificates.
Construct
Learning design, provider competence, practice, assessment, transfer and evaluation.
Core obligation
The organisation shall design, select, deliver and evaluate mental-health and safeguarding learning using defined role-based objectives, competent content owners or providers, accessible and psychologically safe methods, practical application and proportionate competence assurance, with corrective action where learning does not transfer into safe practice.
Boundary
P2.4 owns the quality and assurance of learning. P2.1 owns who must receive it. P2.2 and P2.3 define the response and boundary competencies being taught. P3 owns procurement and resource accountability.
BronzeP2.4-BR
Learning is relevant, current and responsibly designed
The organisation knows what each learning activity is meant to change.
P2.4-BR
Learning is relevant, current and responsibly designed
The organisation knows what each learning activity is meant to change.
Universal foundationMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll required learning; depth proportional to role and risk.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall define role-based learning objectives, select or develop content with appropriate clinical, safeguarding, legal and lived-experience input, verify the competence and scope of internal or external providers, connect learning to current organisational routes and role aids, provide accessible delivery and use a proportionate method to confirm basic understanding. Learning shall not rely on graphic, coercive or personal disclosure-based methods.
Intent: To prevent generic, outdated or potentially harmful training from being treated as evidence of competence.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- learning specification
- objectives
- content review record
- provider/trainer competence
- local route integration
- accessibility plan
- understanding check
- version/date
- participant safety and debrief rules
Evidence that is not sufficient
- provider marketing page
- course title alone
- content never reviewed against local routes
- quiz answers shared in advance
- trainer qualified clinically but not to teach the role
- scenarios requiring personal disclosure
Audit methods
Review objectives, content and provider competence · compare learning to role matrix and routes · sample accessibility and understanding checks · interview content owner and participants.
Evidence validity
Content and provider approval current; reviewed at least annually and after route, evidence, law or serious-incident change.
Proposed failure
Major for materially inaccurate, harmful, irrelevant or inaccessible learning; no content ownership; or no credible understanding check. Minor for isolated administrative weakness.
CAPA and decision
Major corrected before any badge through content review, delivery and evidence of understanding.
Expert review
Clinical, safeguarding, learning design, accessibility and lived-experience review required.
Sources
[S01, S02, S03, S04, S08, S10, S11]
SilverP2.4-SI
Learning includes practice, assessment and remediation
The organisation checks application and corrects gaps.
P2.4-SI
Learning includes practice, assessment and remediation
The organisation checks application and corrects gaps.
Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; practical assurance targeted to role risk.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall incorporate practical application into learning for roles that may receive disclosures, activate referrals, manage confidential information or respond to urgent and safeguarding situations. It shall use defined competence criteria, record results proportionately, provide feedback and remediation and prevent or supervise relevant duty where a material gap remains.
Intent: To establish that learning changes usable skill rather than only short-term recall.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- practice plan
- assessment criteria
- assessor/facilitator guidance
- anonymised competence results
- remediation
- reassessment
- supervision or duty-control records
- participant feedback and safety review
Evidence that is not sufficient
- attendance plus satisfaction form
- multiple-choice quiz as the only test for a complex role
- no assessor consistency
- failure recorded but no action
- unsafe role-play or public ranking
Audit methods
Observe or review practice and assessment · sample failed/low results and remediation · test assessor consistency · interview participants about psychological safety and relevance.
Evidence validity
Current operating year; reassessment after material failure or significant role change.
Proposed failure
Major for no competence assurance in safety-critical roles, invalid assessment or uncorrected failure. Minor for isolated record gap with competence evidenced elsewhere.
CAPA and decision
Major closed through remediation, reassessment and safe duty control.
Expert review
Learning assessment, clinical/safeguarding and operational review required.
Sources
[S03, S04, S10, S12, S14]
GoldP2.4-GO
Learning transfer and provider quality are evaluated
The organisation checks whether learning changes behaviour and remains fit for purpose.
P2.4-GO
Learning transfer and provider quality are evaluated
The organisation checks whether learning changes behaviour and remains fit for purpose.
Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold/Diamond; methods proportionate to scale and available evidence.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall evaluate whether learning transfers into role behaviour and system performance using competence trends, observation, referral and reporting quality, incidents, feedback, accessibility, confidence and support-seeking data. It shall evaluate internal trainers and external providers, control train-the-trainer arrangements, identify unintended effects or bias, revise learning and verify improvement.
Intent: To avoid repeating popular learning that does not improve practice or may create overconfidence and role overreach.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- evaluation plan
- transfer indicators
- observation or scenario trends
- incident/referral inputs
- provider review
- trainer calibration
- accessibility and bias findings
- revised content
- effectiveness check
Evidence that is not sufficient
- participant satisfaction as the only outcome
- knowledge gain measured immediately with no application evidence
- provider renewed solely because completion was high
- confidence increase treated as competence
Audit methods
Trace evaluation findings to content/provider change and re-test · review negative evidence · compare different trainers/sites · examine whether training created role overconfidence or unnecessary escalation.
Evidence validity
At least annual programme evaluation and after serious failure, major provider change or repeated competence concerns.
Proposed failure
Major for unreliable assurance, known ineffective or harmful learning, unqualified providers or misleading evaluation. Critical for deliberate falsification or training people to undertake dangerous unqualified practice.
CAPA and decision
Major requires changed learning/provider controls and verified transfer improvement.
Expert review
Measurement, adult learning, clinical/safeguarding, accessibility and lived-experience review required.
Sources
[S01, S02, S10, S11, S12, S13]
DiamondP2.4-DI
Learning and competence assurance are independently validated
Independent evidence confirms that the programme produces reliable role competence.
P2.4-DI
Learning and competence assurance are independently validated
Independent evidence confirms that the programme produces reliable role competence.
Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; sampling across modules, trainers, roles and sites.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall demonstrate through independent review that learning objectives, content governance, provider competence, accessibility, practice, assessment, remediation and evaluation are consistently implemented and produce credible role competence across the assessed scope. The review shall sample more than one trainer, site or delivery mode where applicable and confirm that no open major or critical P2.4 finding remains.
Intent: To verify that the competence system is reliable and not dependent on one strong facilitator, one course or self-reported confidence.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- independent curriculum and provider review
- observed delivery/practice
- assessment sample
- trainer calibration
- participant evidence
- transfer analysis
- corrective-action closure
- cross-site consistency
Evidence that is not sufficient
- external accreditation or brand name accepted without reviewing delivery
- showcase session only
- organisation chooses all participants
- no examination of failed or remediated learners
- no transfer evidence
Audit methods
Independent document review, observed learning or scenario, assessor/trainer sampling, protected participant interviews and transfer-evidence challenge.
Evidence validity
Current certification cycle and sustained evidence across previous 12–24 months.
Proposed failure
Major for inconsistent, invalid or ineffective learning/assessment. Critical for manipulation, falsification, unsafe methods or deliberate authorisation of unqualified practice.
CAPA and decision
Independent closure and evidence of sustained correction required before certification.
Expert review
Independent learning-assurance, clinical/safeguarding and accessibility review required.
Sources
[S04, S10, S12, S13]
P2.5
Approved working indicatorCompetence leadership, supervision and workforce support
The people supporting me have someone competent to consult, are not left alone with difficult responsibility and can obtain support for their own wellbeing without shame or performance disadvantage.
Construct
Technical ownership, supervision, consultation, backup, workforce support and succession.
Core obligation
The organisation shall maintain competent technical ownership and accessible consultation, supervision, backup and workforce-support arrangements for the mental-health and safeguarding competence system, so that personnel can acknowledge uncertainty, obtain advice, transfer responsibility, learn from difficult situations and access support for their own wellbeing without replacing qualified clinical care or concentrating the system in one individual.
Boundary
P3.2 owns executive and governing-body accountability. P2.5 owns technical competence leadership and operational consultation. Pillar 1 owns access to care; P2.5 ensures staff and responders can use it and are supported.
BronzeP2.5-BR
Technical competence ownership and advice are available
No person is expected to improvise or carry the system alone.
P2.5-BR
Technical competence ownership and advice are available
No person is expected to improvise or carry the system alone.
Universal foundationMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll organisations; owner may be internal or external and may hold another role where competence, capacity and conflicts are controlled.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall designate a named competent person or external technical adviser to maintain the role-competence framework and learning content, coordinate with clinical and safeguarding expertise, answer role-boundary and referral questions and review material learning needs. A backup arrangement shall exist, and personnel shall be told how to obtain timely advice and personal support. The role shall not be represented as clinical care unless the person is appropriately qualified and acting within professional scope.
Intent: To provide a reliable competence owner and advice route without creating an unqualified “mental-health lead” who substitutes for services or governance.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- appointment/contract
- role description
- competence and scope evidence
- time/capacity
- clinical/safeguarding links
- backup
- consultation route
- staff support information
- communication record
Evidence that is not sufficient
- a volunteer named with no time, training or backup
- clinician assumed to own all workforce learning without agreement
- “mental health champion” presented as therapist
- advice route available only through a line manager
Audit methods
Interview owner and backup · test advice route · review competence and conflicts · ask sampled personnel where they go with uncertainty or personal impact · compare to P3 accountability.
Evidence validity
Appointment, competence and support routes current; reviewed at least annually and after departure or material scope change.
Proposed failure
Major for no viable owner/adviser, no backup or misleading clinical representation. Minor for isolated communication gap where advice remains accessible.
CAPA and decision
Major corrected before any badge through competent appointment, capacity, communication and backup.
Expert review
Clinical, safeguarding, learning, workforce wellbeing and governance-boundary review required.
Sources
[S01, S02, S04, S05, S14, S15]
SilverP2.5-SI
Consultation, supervision and responder support operate
People can ask for help before, during and after difficult situations.
P2.5-SI
Consultation, supervision and responder support operate
People can ask for help before, during and after difficult situations.
Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; supervision type appropriate to role and professional status.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall operate accessible consultation and supervision arrangements for relevant personnel, including advice on uncertainty, boundaries and route use; structured support after difficult disclosures, incidents or repeated exposure; and confidential routes through which coaches, staff and volunteers can seek support for their own mental health. Participation in support shall not require unnecessary disclosure to managers or selectors, and supervision shall not be confused with clinical treatment.
Intent: To reduce unsafe isolation, overconfidence, emotional overload and avoidance after difficult experiences.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- consultation/supervision procedure
- rota or availability
- anonymised utilisation themes
- post-incident support offers
- confidential staff support route
- supervision competence
- escalation/backup
- communication and access records
Evidence that is not sufficient
- informal “door always open”
- mandatory group debrief requiring personal disclosure
- line manager is the only support route
- supervision available to clinicians but not coaches/safeguarding staff
- no after-hours or travel alternative where needed
Audit methods
Walk through a difficult disclosure or incident from the responder perspective · sample support offers and consultation · review confidentiality · interview personnel across roles and contract types.
Evidence validity
Current operating cycle; support information continuously available; supervision/consultation frequency based on role and exposure.
Proposed failure
Major for no viable consultation or support in material roles, coercive debriefing or unsafe confidentiality. Critical where retaliation or deliberate denial of support contributes to grave harm.
CAPA and decision
Major closed through operating arrangements and demonstrated access, not a future provider agreement alone.
Expert review
Workforce mental health, clinical/safeguarding supervision, privacy and lived-experience review required.
Sources
[S01, S02, S04, S05, S15]
GoldP2.5-GO
Technical leadership and workforce support are evaluated
The organisation monitors whether the people operating the system remain capable and supported.
P2.5-GO
Technical leadership and workforce support are evaluated
The organisation monitors whether the people operating the system remain capable and supported.
Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold/Diamond; protected system-level evaluation.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall evaluate the effectiveness and resilience of technical ownership, consultation, supervision and workforce support. It shall consider workload, repeated exposure, confidence, help-seeking barriers, turnover, absence, single-person dependency, supervision quality, role conflict and succession; protect personal information; allocate corrective resources and verify that changes improve capacity and access.
Intent: To prevent the competence system from weakening through burnout, turnover, under-resourcing or dependence on one committed individual.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- protected workforce feedback
- workload/capacity review
- supervision-quality review
- turnover and succession plan
- single-point-of-failure analysis
- access barriers
- resource action
- effectiveness check
- technical/governance reporting
Evidence that is not sufficient
- support utilisation low therefore need is low
- wellbeing survey without role or exposure analysis
- technical lead praised while workload is unsustainable
- replacement plan exists only after resignation
Audit methods
Review protected trends and actions · test backup and succession · compare role groups and sites · interview technical owner, supervisors and lower-power personnel · verify data minimisation.
Evidence validity
At least annual evaluation and after serious incident, technical-lead departure, repeated absence, major restructure or evidence of workforce harm.
Proposed failure
Major for known unsustainable dependency, ineffective supervision, unaddressed support barriers or misleading reporting. Critical for retaliation, coercion or concealment of serious workforce harm.
CAPA and decision
Major closed through capacity, supervision or support changes and effectiveness verification.
Expert review
Workforce wellbeing, governance, clinical/safeguarding supervision, measurement and privacy review required.
Sources
[S01, S02, S04, S11, S13, S15]
DiamondP2.5-DI
Competence leadership and workforce support are independently corroborated
People trust the advice and support system, and it remains resilient when pressure or turnover occurs.
P2.5-DI
Competence leadership and workforce support are independently corroborated
People trust the advice and support system, and it remains resilient when pressure or turnover occurs.
Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; protected sample includes technical owner, frontline roles and non-permanent personnel where applicable.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall demonstrate through independent review and protected participant evidence that technical competence leadership, consultation, supervision, backup and workforce-support arrangements are accessible, competent, confidential, conflict-safe and resilient across the assessed scope. The review shall test succession and reduced-supervision contexts and confirm that no open major or critical P2.5 finding remains.
Intent: To verify that the people operating the wellbeing system can safely acknowledge uncertainty, obtain support and maintain competence without fear or over-dependence on one individual.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- independent competence/capacity review
- protected interviews
- consultation and supervision sample
- confidentiality controls
- backup/succession test
- support accessibility
- corrective-action closure
Evidence that is not sufficient
- technical lead testimony only
- utilisation totals without trust or accessibility evidence
- management-selected interviewees
- no contractor/volunteer sample
- no test of absence or turnover
Audit methods
Independent protected interviews, consultation-route test, supervision and succession review, cross-site sampling and corrective-action verification.
Evidence validity
Current certification cycle and evidence of sustained operation across previous 12–24 months.
Proposed failure
Major for inaccessible, conflicted, unreliable or fragile support/leadership arrangements. Critical for retaliation, deliberate confidentiality breach, evidence manipulation or grave unsupported harm.
CAPA and decision
Independent closure and demonstrated resilience required before certification.
Expert review
Independent workforce wellbeing, clinical/safeguarding supervision and assurance review required.
Sources
[S01, S02, S04, S13, S15]
Evidence and assurance
Certificates show attendance. The audit tests competent behaviour.
Role and competence matrix
Reviewed at least annually and after material role, activity, provider, jurisdiction or workforce change.
Induction
Completed before unsupervised relevant or safety-critical duty.
Core learning content
Reviewed at least annually and after serious incident, route change, legal change or material evidence update.
Training/learning refresh
Risk- and role-based; proposed maximum periods require expert review rather than one universal interval.
Practical scenario/competence check
Normally within the current operating year for safety-critical roles and after material failure or role change.
Coverage and exception data
Current at assessment; normally sampled over previous 12 months.
Gold evaluation
At least annual and after serious or repeated competence failure.
Diamond evidence
Normally previous 12–24 months plus current role holders at decision date.
Scope reconciliation
Confirm the assessed scope and reconcile the role map with actual rosters, contracts, teams, sites and operating contexts.
Learning-system review
Review a risk-based sample of curricula, role aids, providers, trainers, induction and competence criteria.
Scenario observation
Observe or reconstruct practical scenarios where material, without using humiliating, graphic or coercive methods.
Independent role sampling
Interview a sample across role, power, contract status, site, language and permanence, selected independently for Diamond.
Route-understanding test
Test routine, urgent, emergency and safeguarding route understanding without asking staff to diagnose fictional people.
Gap and remediation review
Review competence gaps, restrictions, supervision, remediation and effectiveness rather than only completed learning.
Protected corroboration
Use protected athlete and workforce evidence to challenge whether staff responses, confidentiality and boundaries are trusted.
Minimum-data and safety response
Minimise personal information and immediately follow safety or safeguarding duties if current danger is disclosed.
Protected participation questions
- Athletes / participants: If you approached a coach or staff member, would they know what to do? Have you experienced pressure to disclose more than you wanted? Are support and reporting routes understood?
- Coaches / frontline staff: What would you do first? Where does your role end? Who do you consult? What changes if the concern is urgent or safeguarding-related?
- Volunteers / contractors: What induction did you receive? What route would you use? Who covers when your usual contact is unavailable?
- Clinical / safeguarding roles: Where do you see recurring role confusion? How are staff supervised and how are boundary breaches corrected?
- Technical owner / leadership: How are role requirements set, gaps managed, learning evaluated, support resourced and difficult evidence escalated?
Evidence validity
Competence evidence expires when the role, route or risk changes.
Role and competence matrix
Reviewed at least annually and after material role, activity, provider, jurisdiction or workforce change.
Induction
Completed before unsupervised relevant or safety-critical duty.
Core learning content
Reviewed at least annually and after serious incident, route change, legal change or material evidence update.
Training/learning refresh
Risk- and role-based; proposed maximum periods require expert review rather than one universal interval.
Practical scenario/competence check
Normally within the current operating year for safety-critical roles and after material failure or role change.
Coverage and exception data
Current at assessment; normally sampled over previous 12 months.
Gold evaluation
At least annual and after serious or repeated competence failure.
Diamond evidence
Normally previous 12–24 months plus current role holders at decision date.
Finding classification
Consequences follow the actual competence and safety risk.
Observation
A credible improvement opportunity where the requirement is met.
Typical consequence: Does not block recognition.
Minor
An isolated, limited gap that does not materially undermine competence or immediate safety.
Typical consequence: Prompt correction; open-at-award rule remains a scheme decision.
Major
A material role group is untrained, competence is not demonstrated, boundaries are unsafe, learning is ineffective or support/supervision is unreliable.
Typical consequence: Blocks the relevant stage until independently verified closure where required.
Critical
Current grave danger, deliberate unqualified practice, retaliation, concealment, falsification, harmful disclosure or intentional interference with protected evidence.
Typical consequence: Stops or suspends the process and activates safety, safeguarding or legal escalation as applicable.
Controlled routing
One competence floor, learning proportionate to role and context.
A1
Small and volunteer-led organisation
Activates when: Small workforce, combined roles or limited internal expertise. Additional expectations: External technical support, simple role aids, affordable federation pathways, conflict-safe alternatives, backup and proportionate evidence.
A2
Minors and adults at risk
Activates when: The scope includes children, young people or adults at risk. Additional expectations: Jurisdictional safeguarding duties, age-appropriate communication, consent/assent, guardian limits, online contact, grooming/coercion indicators and reporting competence.
A3
High-performance or professional environment
Activates when: Selection, contracts, scholarships, employment or major performance power. Additional expectations: Dual-role boundaries, confidentiality, selection disadvantage, multidisciplinary work, injury/deselection contexts and power-aware response.
A4
Federation, league or multi-site system
Activates when: Central requirements are delivered through members, regions or sites. Additional expectations: Minimum role standards, trainer quality, local implementation, central monitoring, escalation, sampling and support for weaker members.
A5
Events and temporary workforce
Activates when: Short programmes, competitions or large temporary staffing. Additional expectations: Pre-duty induction, concise role aids, venue and host routes, temporary safeguarding contacts, shift coverage and rapid competence checks.
A6
Clinical and medical services
Activates when: The organisation provides or commissions clinical care. Additional expectations: Professional scope, clinical supervision, documentation, multidisciplinary confidentiality, emergency skills and separation from non-clinical learning.
A7
Remote and digital work
Activates when: Support, supervision, training or contact occurs online. Additional expectations: Location-aware escalation, digital privacy, online disclosure, accessibility, remote scenario practice and platform competence.
A8
Travel, camps and residential programmes
Activates when: People travel, stay overnight or operate away from normal systems. Additional expectations: After-hours responsibility, host-country routes, isolated settings, room/travel boundaries, handover and fatigue-aware staffing.
A9
Language, disability, culture and neurodiversity
Activates when: The population or workforce has differing access or communication needs. Additional expectations: Alternative formats, interpretation boundaries, culturally safe examples, communication adjustments and testing with affected users.
A10
Outsourced, seasonal and high-turnover workforce
Activates when: Learning or delivery relies on providers or frequent personnel change. Additional expectations: Contract clauses, evidence portability, trainer approval, rapid induction, continuity, exit handover and verification after provider change.
Proportional organisation models
Small community club
Simple role map; approved federation learning; named external adviser; brief induction; clear referral/safeguarding cards; annual scenario; volunteer support and backup.
Would still fail: One coach completed a course; no volunteer induction; no backup; staff told to call the president for everything.
Professional club or academy
Role-specific curricula; clinical/safeguarding input; coaches, medical, operations and residential staff assessed; dual-role rules; supervision; protected feedback; travel and youth modules.
Would still fail: Sophisticated e-learning but no scenario practice; clinical staff expected to train everyone without time; selectors access personal support information.
National federation
Central competence standards; approved trainer/provider system; member-body support; role and course mapping; regional sampling; escalation and technical supervision; minimum data and improvement reporting.
Would still fail: Publishing a toolkit and assuming clubs implement it; counting certificates sent; no local sampling or support for smaller members.
International federation or Olympic body
Multi-jurisdiction framework; adaptable modules; trainer calibration; athlete-entourage coverage; language/accessibility; national-body assurance; independent sampling and technical governance.
Would still fail: Headquarters course treated as global competence; legal and cultural differences ignored; member bodies choose whether essential roles participate.
Event organiser or short programme
Pre-event role map; micro-induction; venue and host routes; trained welfare/safeguarding leads; shift role cards; temporary staff check; post-event lessons and responder support.
Would still fail: Emailing a policy; assuming venue security owns mental health; no induction for volunteers; no coverage after normal hours.
What is connected today
01 · Implemented now
Public requirement model
This page and its version-controlled source now expose the complete Pillar 2 working proposal.
02 · Connected architecture
Controlled framework and portal
P2.5 and all twenty requirements are recorded in working framework v1.2. The portal still labels the 35 existing questions as a legacy starter bank until controlled items are authored.
03 · Next controlled step
Requirement-linked question register
After taxonomy and expert approval, each retained requirement will generate separate applicant, evidence, auditor and protected-corroboration records for pilot testing.
Questionnaire blueprint
The applicant form is not the audit.
Requirements define the obligation. Applicant questions locate and describe the claim. Evidence requests, auditor tests and protected corroboration determine whether it is true. A training certificate is evidence input, not an automatic score.
Working range: Approximately 28–36 Pillar 2 applicant-bank items, with a typical routed sitting of roughly 20–26. This is an authoring hypothesis for the controlled approximately 100–150-item master bank, not a quota or validated instrument.
1
Scope and role mapping
4–6 unscored selectors
Establish workforce groups, power, employment status, risk contexts, services, jurisdictions, minors, travel, events and outsourced delivery.
2
Core role and response claims
12–16 focused prompts
Test coverage, safe first response, role boundaries, referral, learning quality and access to competent advice.
3
Evidence, gaps and exceptions
6–8 prompts
Locate competence records, scenario evidence, overdue roles, interim controls, remediation, supervision and controlled not-applicable rationales.
4
Routed risk modules
6–10 conditional prompts
Activate youth, high-performance, multi-site, event, clinical, remote, travel, accessibility and high-turnover addenda only when relevant.
01 · Applicant questions linked to one approved requirement and one primary construct.
02 · Evidence requests distinguishing acceptable evidence from attendance-only or otherwise insufficient proof.
03 · Auditor prompts, scenario tests and sampling instructions kept separate from applicant answer keys.
04 · Protected athlete and workforce corroboration with consent, independence, anti-retaliation and minimum-data safeguards.
Required review
Clinical and suicide-prevention review
safe first-response wording, non-clinical boundaries, referral, escalation and avoidance of harmful risk prediction.
Safeguarding review
role coverage, minors/adults at risk, reporting duties, case roles, temporary personnel and scenario safety.
Athlete and lived-experience review
trust, power, confidentiality, selection fear, language, accessibility and whether staff responses feel safe in practice.
Learning and competence review
taxonomy, learning objectives, provider competence, adult-learning methods, assessment validity, remediation and transfer.
Operational and workforce review
small-club feasibility, volunteer burden, induction timing, turnover, supervision, travel and event delivery.
Privacy and legal review
training records, disclosure during learning, role access, professional scope, employment/volunteer duties and jurisdictional addenda.
Measurement and audit review
competence constructs, sampling, evidence validity, inter-rater consistency, severity and Diamond corroboration.
Cognitive walkthrough
Cognitive walkthrough with 3–5 different organisations before loading a formal framework version.
Open design decisions
- 01
Final five-indicator taxonomy
- 02
Minimum Bronze competence checks
- 03
Training and refresh intervals
- 04
Required practical rehearsal
- 05
Trainer/provider approval
- 06
Use of mental-health first-aid programmes
- 07
Designated technical lead competence
- 08
Supervision and staff-support model
- 09
Diamond scenario and interview protocol
- 10
Severity calibration
Readiness checklist
Can the organisation prove people apply learning safely?
20 source records support this working model. Their use still requires the review flags recorded against each requirement.
- We can identify every role that may receive a disclosure, observe concern, refer, escalate, control information or influence wellbeing.
- Volunteers, contractors, temporary/event personnel, board members and backups are included where relevant.
- Each material role has defined competence, boundaries, induction, refresh and supervision expectations.
- Essential induction occurs before unsupervised relevant duty and completion data reconcile with actual rosters.
- Overdue or incomplete competence results in supervision, restricted duty, reassignment or another documented control.
- Relevant personnel can describe how they would approach, listen and respond without diagnosing, blaming or forcing disclosure.
- People can distinguish routine support, urgent concern, immediate emergency and safeguarding routes.
- Role guidance explains confidentiality limits, information sharing, consent, emergency exceptions and selection/employment boundaries.
- Staff know how to refer and support a person until safe handoff without demanding diagnosis details.
- Learning has role-based objectives, competent content ownership, current routes, accessible delivery and a credible understanding check.
- Safety-critical roles practise realistic scenarios and failed competence checks lead to remediation and reassessment.
- We evaluate behaviour and transfer, not only attendance, satisfaction or confidence.
- A named competent technical owner or external adviser and backup maintain the system and can be consulted.
- Personnel can obtain supervision or advice when uncertain and confidential support after difficult situations.
- The competence system does not depend on one unavailable or overloaded person.
- Incidents, referral failures, boundary concerns, athlete feedback, turnover and accessibility findings change learning and support.
- Corrective action includes reassessment and evidence that practice improved.
- Independent reviewers could sample competence beyond headquarters and include volunteers, contractors or lower-power roles.
- Protected athletes and staff could describe responses and boundaries as respectful, safe and trustworthy.
- There are no open major or critical Pillar 2 findings.
Pillar 2 is now structurally complete.
P2.5 is approved for the working architecture and all twenty requirements are connected to framework v1.2. Next comes named expert review, controlled question writing and pilot testing.