1
assessment precondition
Standard Pilot v0.9 · Pillar 3
Governance is what happens after the policy is approved.
I can see who is responsible, know that the commitments are resourced, have a safe way to influence decisions, and trust that leadership checks whether the system works and acts when it does not.
Complete working proposal — not yet an approved certification standard.
The requirements need governance, athlete, finance, clinical, safeguarding, privacy, legal, measurement and operational review. P3.5 remains a controlled taxonomy proposal.
9
cross-cutting rules
5
working indicators
20
cumulative stage requirements
10
risk-routed addenda
Purpose
Policy, Governance and Accountability
Mental health and wellbeing are governed as real organisational responsibilities with clear owners, decision rights, resources, participation, oversight and corrective action.
Architecture decision still open
P3.5 is a proposed fifth Pillar 3 indicator. It is not loaded into the controlled framework until governance and measurement review confirms that it is distinct from P5.4 and approves the taxonomy change.
Assessment precondition
AP-01 · Governance scope, legal authority and accountability map
Before MindsMelt can assess governance, the organisation must show exactly what it governs, who has legal and practical authority, where responsibility is delegated, who can make decisions, what is resourced and how leadership receives protected evidence.
Minimum evidence
- Scope statement
- constitution or authority basis
- organisation and committee charts
- responsibility and decision-rights matrix
- delegation terms
- reporting calendar
- conflict and recusal process
- finance and resource ownership
- update record
Not sufficient
- An organisation chart without decision rights
- a list of committees
- “the board is responsible” without a named owner
- a group-wide claim where subsidiaries or member bodies are not controlled
Proposed consequence: Major where authority, scope or accountability is materially unclear. Critical where deliberate misrepresentation, concealment or conflicted control creates serious current risk.
CR-01
Purpose, scope and decision rights
Every policy, report and public claim must relate to a defined scope, owner and decision authority.
CR-02
Accountability cannot be delegated away
The governing body and executive leadership may delegate tasks, but remain accountable for ensuring the system functions.
CR-03
Proportionality by function
Small organisations may combine roles or use external support; essential ownership, oversight, participation and continuity functions still apply.
CR-04
Independence and conflict control
Commercial, coaching, selection, employment, political or provider interests must not improperly control clinical, safeguarding, complaints, audit or athlete-voice decisions.
CR-05
Participation without tokenism or retaliation
Athlete and workforce participation must be voluntary, accessible, representative enough for the purpose and connected to decisions and feedback.
CR-06
Protected information for governance
Leadership receives the minimum system-level information needed to govern. Raw clinical, case or identity data are not routine governance material.
CR-07
Evidence over policy; action over reporting
Documents, dashboards and meetings do not demonstrate conformity unless responsibilities, decisions and improvements are visible in practice.
CR-08
Credible resource commitments
The organisation must match commitments to realistic people, time, finance, systems and backup; lack of resources is not proof that a responsibility is inapplicable.
CR-09
Controlled “not applicable”
A requirement may be routed out only through verified scope facts and a recorded rationale, not organisational preference or convenience.
P3.1
Retained · remappedWellbeing policy and operating framework
The organisation’s promises are clear, current and connected to real responsibilities, routes and actions — not left as a generic statement of good intentions.
Construct
Policy quality, operating coherence, implementation ownership and change control.
Core obligation
The organisation shall maintain and implement a current mental-health and wellbeing policy and operating framework for the assessed scope, defining commitments, responsibilities, boundaries, connections to other systems, communication, implementation and review.
Boundary
P3.1 owns the governing framework and its implementation connection. Pillars 1, 2, 4 and 5 own the substantive support, competence, safety and culture controls. P3.5 owns performance oversight and corrective action.
BronzeP3.1-BR
Bronze — Current, accessible policy and operating framework
Operating governance baseline
P3.1-BR
Bronze — Current, accessible policy and operating framework
Operating governance baseline
Universal foundationMandatory operating-baseline requirementAll organisations; content and form are proportionate to scope, risk and jurisdiction.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall maintain an approved, current and accessible mental-health and wellbeing policy and operating framework for the assessed scope. It shall define purpose, populations and activities covered, principles, responsibilities and decision rights, routine support and crisis/safeguarding connections, confidentiality and information boundaries, provider and contractor responsibilities, communication, approval, review triggers and routes for raising concerns or proposing improvement.
Intent: To ensure that people and leaders can understand what the organisation has committed to, who owns each part and how the policy connects to usable systems.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- approved policy and operating framework
- exact scope and exclusions
- responsibility matrix
- links to support, training, crisis, safeguarding, privacy and culture procedures
- accessible athlete/staff versions
- approval and version history
- communication evidence
Evidence that is not sufficient
- a generic wellbeing statement
- a copied policy with another organisation’s language
- policy covering employees but not athletes
- old names and contacts
- a document stored only in a board folder
- values without decision rights or operating links
Audit methods
Document review · compare policy with AP-01 and operational procedures · route-finding test with staff/athletes · verify approval and named owners · check that public descriptions match the framework.
Evidence validity
Policy and framework reviewed within the previous 12 months as a pilot default and after a serious incident, material legal/clinical change, leadership change or scope change.
Proposed failure
Major if absent, materially incomplete, inaccessible or inconsistent with the assessed scope. Critical where the organisation deliberately misrepresents the framework or the policy authorises or conceals serious harmful practice.
CAPA and decision
Major corrected before any badge. Closure requires approved wording, current ownership, communication and operating links — not only a newly drafted document.
Expert review
Governance, clinical/safeguarding boundary, legal/privacy, operational, accessibility and lived-experience review.
Sources
[S01–S04, S07–S12, S17, S18]
SilverP3.1-SI
Silver — Implemented framework with owners, plans and records
Implementation records exist
P3.1-SI
Silver — Implemented framework with owners, plans and records
Implementation records exist
Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; implementation detail scales with organisational complexity.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall implement the policy through a controlled plan that assigns accountable and responsible owners, actions, resources, deadlines, communication, dependencies and evidence of completion. The framework shall be integrated into onboarding, provider and partner arrangements, operational planning and relevant decision processes, with version control and a defined method for managing exceptions and overdue actions.
Intent: To demonstrate that the policy drives organised work rather than relying on informal enthusiasm or one individual’s memory.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- implementation plan
- RACI or responsibility matrix
- action and dependency tracker
- onboarding and communication records
- procedure/contract updates
- exception and overdue-action log
- meeting decisions
- implementation evidence from multiple parts of scope
Evidence that is not sufficient
- a launch presentation
- a list of aspirations without owners or dates
- every action assigned to one wellbeing lead
- plans not reflected in provider contracts or team operations
- actions marked complete without evidence
Audit methods
Sample implementation actions from policy to evidence · interview accountable and responsible owners · test an overdue action and exception · compare sites or teams · verify that changes reached affected people.
Evidence validity
Current operating cycle; plan updated after material decisions and reviewed at a defined cadence, normally at least quarterly for active implementation during the pilot.
Proposed failure
Major for systemic non-implementation, unclear ownership, unmanaged overdue safety actions or framework/operation contradiction. Minor for isolated record gaps where implementation is otherwise demonstrated.
CAPA and decision
Major closed before Silver/Gold/Diamond. Closure requires completed or safely re-planned implementation with evidence and leadership acceptance of residual risk.
Expert review
Governance, operations/programme management, clinical/safeguarding, procurement/contract and audit review.
Sources
[S01–S06, S09–S12]
GoldP3.1-GO
Gold — Evidence-led policy review and controlled improvement
The framework is monitored and improved
P3.1-GO
Gold — Evidence-led policy review and controlled improvement
The framework is monitored and improved
Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold or Diamond; review must cover the full assessed scope and routed contexts.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall review and improve its policy and operating framework using protected evidence from implementation, access, competence, incidents, complaints, athlete/workforce participation, culture findings, provider performance, audits and legal or professional changes. It shall record the rationale for changes, assess unintended effects, control versions and verify that revised requirements are implemented across the assessed scope.
Intent: To ensure that the framework changes when evidence shows it is incomplete, inaccessible, conflicting or ineffective.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- formal policy review
- evidence and stakeholder inputs
- change log and decision rationale
- legal/clinical review where needed
- impact and accessibility assessment
- implementation plan for revisions
- withdrawal of superseded versions
- cross-site verification
Evidence that is not sufficient
- reapproving the same policy with a new date
- changing wording without investigating the underlying failure
- consultation with only senior staff
- version history without proof that old practice stopped
- reacting only after reputational pressure
Audit methods
Trace at least one material finding through review, decision, policy change, communication and implementation · compare versions · sample affected groups/sites · assess whether unintended effects and conflicts were considered.
Evidence validity
At least annual evidence-led review and after serious incidents, repeated findings, major service or scope change, new jurisdiction or material legal/professional development.
Proposed failure
Major for repeated evidence ignored, obsolete framework retained, material inconsistency across scope or changes not implemented. Critical for deliberate concealment or policy manipulation intended to protect reputation or powerful individuals over safety.
CAPA and decision
Major requires evidence-led review, approved changes, implementation and effectiveness checking before Gold/Diamond.
Expert review
Governance, measurement, legal/privacy, clinical/safeguarding, accessibility, lived-experience and audit review.
Sources
[S01–S06, S09–S12, S16–S18]
DiamondP3.1-DI
Diamond — Independently verified policy-to-practice coherence
Embedded and independently corroborated
P3.1-DI
Diamond — Independently verified policy-to-practice coherence
Embedded and independently corroborated
Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; sampling proportionate to size, structure, jurisdictions and delegated delivery.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall demonstrate through independent audit that the wellbeing policy and operating framework are consistently implemented across the certified scope, understood by relevant people, connected to operational systems and updated in response to evidence. The review shall sample governance decisions, implementation, provider and member-body arrangements, protected athlete/workforce experience and the closure of material policy gaps. No open major or critical finding may remain.
Intent: To substantiate that Diamond governance is more than sophisticated documentation and that the same framework operates beyond the headquarters or flagship programme.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- independent cross-scope sample
- protected athlete/staff interviews
- decision and version records
- implementation evidence
- member/provider samples
- material-change and corrective-action trail
- independent closure of major findings
Evidence that is not sufficient
- auditor reliance on policy review alone
- interviews selected or observed by management
- sampling only the best-resourced team
- no testing of delegated bodies
- perfect documents contradicted by people who cannot explain the framework
Audit methods
Independent document and implementation sampling · protected interviews · trace policy-to-practice across sites/roles · test a material change · review controls over delegated and outsourced delivery.
Evidence validity
Normally previous 12–24 months, adjusted for operating history and change volume; framework, appointments and material arrangements current at decision date.
Proposed failure
Major for inconsistent implementation, inaccessible framework or unreliable change control. Critical for falsification, obstruction, retaliation or deliberate concealment of material governance failure.
CAPA and decision
All major and critical findings independently closed before certification; effectiveness must be demonstrated across the relevant scope.
Expert review
Independent governance/audit reviewer, lived-experience reviewer, clinical/safeguarding and legal/privacy expertise as routed.
Sources
[S01–S06, S07–S12, S16–S18]
P3.3
Retained · remappedAdequate resources, capacity and delivery resilience
The organisation has made realistic commitments. The people, time, finance, systems and backup needed to deliver them are available — not dependent on one exhausted person or temporary enthusiasm.
Construct
Resource adequacy, workforce capacity, operational resilience, equitable allocation and continuity.
Core obligation
The organisation shall assess and provide the financial, human, technical, contractual and time capacity required to deliver its wellbeing commitments across the assessed scope, monitor material gaps and maintain continuity when people, providers, funding or conditions change.
Boundary
P3.3 owns whether delivery capacity exists and is governed. Pillar 1 tests support access; Pillar 2 tests competence; Pillar 4 tests safety readiness; P5 tests workload and environmental impact.
BronzeP3.3-BR
Bronze — Minimum resource and capacity assessment
Operating governance baseline
P3.3-BR
Bronze — Minimum resource and capacity assessment
Operating governance baseline
Universal foundationMandatory operating-baseline requirementAll organisations; no fixed budget percentage or staffing model is required.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall identify the minimum people, competence, time, finance, technology, facilities, providers and backup required to meet its Pillar 1–5 and Minimum Safety Foundation commitments across the assessed scope. It shall record current capacity, known gaps, ownership, immediate priorities and how essential functions continue during absence, turnover, travel, funding interruption or provider failure.
Intent: To prevent organisations from making commitments that no one has the time, authority or practical means to deliver.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- resource/capacity assessment
- role time allocations
- budget or equivalent resource decisions
- provider and system costs
- critical-function backup
- vacancy/absence plan
- gap and priority record
- governing approval
Evidence that is not sufficient
- a total “wellbeing spend” without link to commitments
- unpaid labour assumed indefinitely
- a grant application treated as secured capacity
- one clinician or safeguarding lead with no backup
- budget approved but inaccessible to owners
Audit methods
Compare commitments to capacity · interview responsible owners · inspect time, finance and provider access · test a key-person absence scenario · assess unresourced gaps and leadership decisions.
Evidence validity
Current operating year and updated after material scope, funding, workforce or provider change; key-person and provider continuity current at decision date.
Proposed failure
Major where essential commitments are materially unfunded, unstaffed or dependent on an unavailable person. Critical where leadership knowingly leaves a live safety function without viable capacity or conceals the gap.
CAPA and decision
Major corrected before any badge through real allocation, a proportionate external arrangement or a reduced and accurately described scope — not only future fundraising intent.
Expert review
Finance/operations, workforce, clinical/safeguarding, small-organisation and lived-experience review.
Sources
[S01–S05, S07–S12, S17, S18]
SilverP3.3-SI
Silver — Operational resourcing plan, workload and continuity
Resources are managed through the operating cycle
P3.3-SI
Silver — Operational resourcing plan, workload and continuity
Resources are managed through the operating cycle
Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; includes paid staff, volunteers, contractors and delegated delivery.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall operate a resourcing and continuity plan linked to the assessed scope, implementation plan and risk profile. It shall define budget or equivalent resources, workload and role capacity, procurement and provider arrangements, systems and facilities, backups, vacancy and leave coverage, escalation for unmet demand and responsibility for monitoring delivery gaps. Material overload or capacity failure shall trigger action rather than informal absorption.
Intent: To demonstrate that capacity is actively managed and that continuity does not rely on personal sacrifice or undisclosed waiting and failure.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- approved resourcing plan
- budget/resource ledger
- workload and role-capacity review
- provider/service-level arrangements
- rota/backup
- vacancy and leave coverage
- demand/capacity records
- escalation and decisions
- continuity test
Evidence that is not sufficient
- annual budget alone
- overtime or volunteer goodwill as the continuity model
- repeated waiting or missed actions with no escalation
- provider contract with no capacity commitment
- responsibility distributed without time allocation
Audit methods
Sample resource decisions and delivery records · compare workload/demand to capacity · test leave or provider failure · review procurement and backups · interview role holders about actual time and authority.
Evidence validity
Current operating cycle; resource and continuity review normally at least twice yearly and after material failure or change during the pilot.
Proposed failure
Major for systemic overload, no viable continuity, repeated capacity failure or hidden scope inequality. Minor for isolated documentation gaps where capacity and backup remain demonstrated.
CAPA and decision
Major closed before Silver/Gold/Diamond through capacity, scope, provider or workflow change and evidence that the route now operates.
Expert review
Finance, workforce, operations, procurement, clinical/safeguarding and audit review.
Sources
[S01–S05, S09–S12]
GoldP3.3-GO
Gold — Demand, equity, resilience and resource improvement
Capacity is monitored and improved across the scope
P3.3-GO
Gold — Demand, equity, resilience and resource improvement
Capacity is monitored and improved across the scope
Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold or Diamond; analysis must address differences between teams, roles, sites and participant groups.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall evaluate whether resources and delivery capacity remain adequate, equitable and resilient by analysing demand, waiting, workload, turnover, provider failure, accessibility, utilisation boundaries, serious incidents, unmet need, site or programme variation and future risk. Leadership shall reallocate resources, redesign delivery or limit scope where evidence shows commitments cannot be met, and shall verify whether the action improved access, safety and reliability.
Intent: To ensure that resources follow real need and risk rather than organisational prestige, historical allocation or the loudest team.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- annual capacity and equity review
- demand/waiting and workload data
- provider failure/continuity trends
- cross-site comparison
- future-demand forecast
- resource reallocations
- business-continuity testing
- effectiveness review
Evidence that is not sufficient
- spend increasing without service improvement
- comparing only utilisation
- flagship-team provision masking other gaps
- no analysis of volunteer burnout
- carrying unfunded commitments year after year
- reducing access without transparent scope change
Audit methods
Review analysis and allocation decisions · compare groups/sites · trace a capacity failure to corrective action · interview finance/operations and affected roles · test whether reduced or changed scope was communicated honestly.
Evidence validity
At least annual capacity/resilience review and after major funding, provider, workforce, scope or demand change; trend evidence normally previous 12 months.
Proposed failure
Major for persistent inequity, ignored overload, repeated continuity failure or knowingly unrealistic commitments. Critical where deliberate resource withdrawal or conflict creates grave danger or retaliation.
CAPA and decision
Major requires verified resource, delivery or scope correction and an effectiveness check before Gold/Diamond.
Expert review
Finance/operations, workforce wellbeing, accessibility/equity, clinical/safeguarding, risk and lived-experience review.
Sources
[S01–S06, S09–S12, S16–S18]
DiamondP3.3-DI
Diamond — Independently verified adequacy and delivery resilience
Embedded and independently corroborated
P3.3-DI
Diamond — Independently verified adequacy and delivery resilience
Embedded and independently corroborated
Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; sampling reflects scale, operating model, funding and risk.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall demonstrate through independent audit that wellbeing commitments across the certified scope are matched by adequate and resilient people, time, finance, systems, providers and backups; that resource decisions respond to evidence and do not create unjustified inequality or performance-based disadvantage; and that continuity arrangements work during realistic disruption. Protected role-holder and athlete evidence shall be included. No open major or critical resource finding may remain.
Intent: To verify that Diamond commitments remain usable when funding, personnel, provider or operational pressure changes.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- independent capacity/resource sample
- protected interviews with role holders and users
- finance and workload decisions
- continuity exercise
- provider and site comparison
- allocation rationale
- independent closure and effectiveness evidence
Evidence that is not sufficient
- high total expenditure
- budget labels without access to funds
- auditor reviews only central functions
- no evidence from overloaded roles or lower-status squads
- resilience assumed because no disruption occurred
Audit methods
Independent financial/operational and cross-scope sampling · continuity scenario · compare commitments to delivery · protected interviews · examine difficult allocation decisions and resource changes.
Evidence validity
Normally previous 12–24 months, including at least one current resource cycle; critical arrangements current at certification decision.
Proposed failure
Major for material inadequacy, inequity or unreliable continuity. Critical for concealment, falsification, retaliation or knowing operation without essential safety capacity.
CAPA and decision
All major and critical findings independently closed before certification; adequacy and resilience must be demonstrated in operation.
Expert review
Independent governance/finance/operations reviewer, workforce and lived-experience input, clinical/safeguarding expertise as routed.
Sources
[S01–S06, S07–S12, S16–S18]
P3.4
Retained · remappedAthlete and workforce voice, participation and co-design
People affected by the system can influence it without being hand-picked, exposed or punished — and the organisation explains what changed, what did not and why.
Construct
Safe and meaningful stakeholder participation, representation, co-design, feedback closure and protection from tokenism or retaliation.
Core obligation
The organisation shall provide accessible, voluntary and conflict-safe ways for athletes and relevant workforce groups to participate in the design, implementation and review of wellbeing policy and systems, ensure representation is appropriate to the decision, protect participants and record leadership response.
Boundary
P3.4 owns participation in governance and design. P5.4 owns culture/climate assessment; P4 owns protected reporting; scheme rules own protected MindsMelt audit participation.
BronzeP3.4-BR
Bronze — Safe and accessible participation route
Operating governance baseline
P3.4-BR
Bronze — Safe and accessible participation route
Operating governance baseline
Universal foundationMandatory operating-baseline requirementAll organisations; methods must fit age, language, disability, status, scale and power dynamics.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall provide at least one accessible and voluntary route through which athletes and relevant staff or volunteers can contribute to the design or review of mental-health and wellbeing policy and systems. It shall explain the purpose, decision boundary, confidentiality and anonymity limits, how views will be used, how retaliation or performance disadvantage is prohibited and how participants will receive feedback.
Intent: To ensure that people affected by the system can influence it without having to make a complaint or rely on personal access to senior leaders.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- participation route and guidance
- invitation/communication
- accessibility and conflict-safe alternatives
- non-retaliation statement
- purpose and decision boundary
- feedback method
- record of at least one current engagement or credible scheduled cycle
Evidence that is not sufficient
- a generic contact email
- only coaches invited to speak for athletes
- a survey with no feedback
- representative appointed solely by management
- mandatory “wellbeing feedback”
- consultation linked to selection meetings
Audit methods
Walk through the route from athlete/staff perspective · review invitations and protections · interview organiser and participants where safe · verify feedback · assess whether powerful or excluded groups can participate.
Evidence validity
Route current and continuously available or scheduled within the current operating year; refreshed after material change and communicated to new participants.
Proposed failure
Major where no safe participation route exists or participation is materially inaccessible or controlled by conflicted leadership. Critical for retaliation, intimidation, compelled participation or deliberate exposure of participants.
CAPA and decision
Major corrected before any badge through a functioning route, clear protections and evidence of use or a tested planned cycle.
Expert review
Athlete/lived-experience, safeguarding, accessibility, governance and privacy review.
Sources
[S01–S04, S07, S09–S15, S17, S20]
SilverP3.4-SI
Silver — Planned consultation, co-design and feedback closure
Participation influences real work
P3.4-SI
Silver — Planned consultation, co-design and feedback closure
Participation influences real work
Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; engagement plan proportionate to scope and decision significance.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall operate a stakeholder participation plan that identifies when athlete and workforce input is required, which groups are affected, how participants are selected or recruited, what support or compensation may be appropriate, how minority and dissenting views are protected, who receives findings and how leadership records decisions and closes the feedback loop. Participation shall occur early enough to influence material design and review.
Intent: To move participation from occasional listening to a predictable part of policy and service decisions.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- engagement plan
- stakeholder map
- selection/recruitment method
- agendas/materials
- consent and protection information
- accessible formats
- records of views and leadership response
- “you said / we did / we did not” feedback
- support/compensation decisions
Evidence that is not sufficient
- consultation after the decision is already made
- only senior or medal-winning athletes
- edited minutes that remove disagreement
- participation counted by attendance only
- no response where advice was rejected
Audit methods
Trace a material policy/service decision through participation, leadership consideration and feedback · review representation and dissent · interview participants separately · assess timing, support and confidentiality.
Evidence validity
Current participation plan and evidence from the previous 12 months or current operating cycle; material decisions since last review must show participation rationale.
Proposed failure
Major for systematic tokenism, exclusion, unsafe recruitment or failure to respond. Critical for retaliation, coercion, witness manipulation or using participation to identify critics.
CAPA and decision
Major closed before Silver/Gold/Diamond through repeated or re-opened participation where necessary and documented leadership response.
Expert review
Lived-experience/athlete representation, governance, safeguarding, accessibility, youth participation and audit review.
Sources
[S01, S07, S09–S15, S17, S20]
GoldP3.4-GO
Gold — Representative participation with reach and influence reviewed
The organisation tests who is heard and what changes
P3.4-GO
Gold — Representative participation with reach and influence reviewed
The organisation tests who is heard and what changes
Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold or Diamond; representation analysis is proportionate and does not require disclosure of unnecessary sensitive characteristics.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall evaluate whether athlete and workforce participation is representative enough for its decisions, reaches lower-power and underrepresented groups, is trusted and accessible, and influences outcomes. It shall identify participation gaps, power or retaliation concerns, repeated unresolved themes and decision areas lacking input; take corrective action; and verify whether participation and feedback improved.
Intent: To prevent highly visible consultation mechanisms from masking silence, exclusion or lack of influence.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- participation reach and barrier review
- protected demographic or role analysis where lawful
- feedback on safety and influence
- themes and dissent log
- corrective actions
- leadership decisions changed or explained
- independent/alternative routes for senior-conflict issues
Evidence that is not sufficient
- high response rate without checking who could not respond
- publishing identifiable comments
- assuming low criticism means trust
- counting an athlete commission that has no access to decisions
- no analysis of repeated rejected recommendations
Audit methods
Review participation data and protections · compare groups/teams/sites · sample a dissenting recommendation · protected interviews · verify corrective action and leadership feedback · test independent route.
Evidence validity
At least annual participation-effectiveness review and after material controversy, leadership change, serious complaint or major policy redesign.
Proposed failure
Major for persistent exclusion, untrusted mechanisms, ignored systemic themes or ineffective alternatives. Critical for retaliation, surveillance, manipulation or deliberate silencing.
CAPA and decision
Major requires redesigned participation, protected re-engagement and evidence of improved reach or influence before Gold/Diamond.
Expert review
Lived-experience, representation/inclusion, safeguarding, privacy/measurement and governance review.
Sources
[S01, S06–S15, S17, S20]
DiamondP3.4-DI
Diamond — Independently corroborated athlete voice integrated into governance
Embedded and independently verified
P3.4-DI
Diamond — Independently corroborated athlete voice integrated into governance
Embedded and independently verified
Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; age-appropriate and conflict-safe models permitted, including external or federation-level mechanisms for small organisations.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall demonstrate through independent audit that athlete voice is meaningfully integrated into governance through a representative mechanism with defined access, information, support, confidentiality and retaliation protection; that leadership responds to recommendations; and that protected athletes and workforce participants confirm they can raise differing views and influence decisions without performance or employment disadvantage. No unresolved major or critical participation finding may remain.
Intent: To substantiate that Diamond organisations share governance power sufficiently for affected people to shape the systems intended to protect them.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- athlete/workforce mechanism terms
- election or selection method
- rights and access
- support/compensation
- protected interview sample
- recommendations and leadership response
- conflict/recusal
- evidence of changed decisions
- independent closure
Evidence that is not sufficient
- organisation-selected testimonials
- representative dependent on coach approval
- management present in interviews
- athlete commission with no wellbeing remit or decision access
- only successful recommendations sampled
Audit methods
Independent protected interviews · review representation and mechanism independence · trace recommendations · test access to governing body · assess retaliation protection and alternative routes · sample excluded or lower-power groups.
Evidence validity
Normally previous 12–24 months; mechanism, representation and protections current at certification decision.
Proposed failure
Major for hollow, unrepresentative or unsafe participation. Critical for retaliation, manipulation, interference with interviews or deliberate exposure of participants.
CAPA and decision
All major and critical findings independently closed before certification; effective participation must be corroborated, not merely redesigned on paper.
Expert review
Independent lived-experience/athlete-governance reviewer, safeguarding, youth participation, accessibility and assurance expertise.
Sources
[S01, S07–S15, S17, S20]
P3.5
Proposed new indicatorOversight, risk, corrective action and transparency
Leadership does not wait for a crisis or a public scandal. It knows where the system is weak, acts on evidence and explains progress and limitations without exposing people.
Construct
Implementation oversight, psychosocial and organisational risk governance, performance evaluation, corrective action, effectiveness and transparent reporting.
Core obligation
The organisation shall monitor and evaluate the implementation, risks and effectiveness of its mental-health and wellbeing system; maintain accountable corrective action; escalate material findings; and communicate appropriate scope, progress, limitations and learning without exposing personal or protected information.
Boundary
P3.5 owns the governance process that receives and acts on evidence. P5.4 owns culture/climate measurement; P4 owns incident review; each pillar owns its operational performance. Scheme rules control MindsMelt public award claims.
BronzeP3.5-BR
Bronze — Implementation, risk and action oversight
Operating governance baseline
P3.5-BR
Bronze — Implementation, risk and action oversight
Operating governance baseline
Universal foundationMandatory operating-baseline requirementAll organisations; format is proportionate to scale but must cover the assessed scope.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall maintain a current implementation, risk and action overview for its mental-health and wellbeing commitments. It shall identify material obligations, owners, status, known risks and gaps, serious dependencies, complaints or findings requiring governance attention, corrective actions, deadlines and escalation. Leadership shall review the overview at a defined cadence using protected system-level information.
Intent: To ensure that leadership can see whether commitments are on track and where action is overdue or risk is increasing.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- implementation/action register
- wellbeing or psychosocial risk entries
- owners and deadlines
- protected governance report
- review schedule
- overdue/escalation record
- evidence of leadership decisions
- links to incidents, complaints and audits without unnecessary identities
Evidence that is not sufficient
- traffic-light dashboard with no definitions
- “all green” based on self-report
- risk register that omits wellbeing
- raw case details
- actions without owners or due dates
- issues repeatedly carried forward as “noted”
Audit methods
Review register quality and governance use · sample an overdue or material risk · compare with known incidents/findings · interview owner and leader · check data minimisation and escalation.
Evidence validity
Current and updated at defined intervals; normally reviewed at least quarterly during the pilot and promptly after serious incident or material finding.
Proposed failure
Major if no meaningful oversight exists, material known risks are absent or overdue safety actions are unmanaged. Critical for deliberate concealment, falsification or suppression of serious information.
CAPA and decision
Major corrected before any badge through a functioning register, governance review and action on material gaps.
Expert review
Governance, risk, measurement, privacy, clinical/safeguarding and audit review.
Sources
[S01–S06, S07–S12, S16–S18]
SilverP3.5-SI
Silver — Operating measurement, reporting and corrective-action cycle
Leadership tests implementation and closes findings
P3.5-SI
Silver — Operating measurement, reporting and corrective-action cycle
Leadership tests implementation and closes findings
Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; indicators and reporting burden proportionate to scope and risk.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall operate a defined monitoring, measurement and corrective-action cycle. It shall use relevant leading and lagging indicators to test implementation and access, document data definitions and limitations, analyse material exceptions, assign root and contributing-factor review where needed, approve corrective action, verify closure and report unresolved major risks to the governing body. Measures shall avoid unnecessary personal or clinical data and shall not treat low complaint or service-use numbers as proof of safety.
Intent: To distinguish genuine performance evaluation from activity counting and ensure that findings are independently challenged and closed.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- indicator definitions
- monitoring plan
- protected reports
- data-quality checks
- exception analysis
- finding/CAPA records
- contributing-factor review
- closure/effectiveness evidence
- governing escalation
- privacy/minimisation decisions
Evidence that is not sufficient
- training completion and utilisation as the whole dashboard
- no denominator or scope
- closing actions because a new policy exists
- low complaint numbers presented as success
- unverified self-reported closure
- collecting diagnoses for board reporting
Audit methods
Sample indicators and source evidence · trace finding to contributing factors, action and closure · review data limitations · compare report with operational evidence · interview leadership and action owners.
Evidence validity
Current reporting cycle; evidence normally previous 12 months; open actions current and overdue status visible.
Proposed failure
Major for unreliable reporting, ineffective CAPA, repeated overdue major actions or misleading indicators. Critical for falsification, evidence destruction, concealment or deliberate manipulation of findings.
CAPA and decision
Major closed before Silver/Gold/Diamond through corrected measurement, independently verified action and effectiveness evidence.
Expert review
Measurement, audit/CAPA, governance, privacy and clinical/safeguarding review.
Sources
[S01–S06, S09–S12, S16–S18]
GoldP3.5-GO
Gold — System evaluation, trend analysis and transparent improvement
Leadership evaluates effectiveness and communicates learning
P3.5-GO
Gold — System evaluation, trend analysis and transparent improvement
Leadership evaluates effectiveness and communicates learning
Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold or Diamond; analysis must cover relevant groups, sites, providers and time periods.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall evaluate whether its wellbeing governance and systems achieve intended results by combining implementation, access, competence, culture, incident, complaint, participation, resource, provider and audit evidence; analysing trends, differences and unintended effects; testing corrective-action effectiveness; and reviewing emerging risks. It shall publish or communicate a proportionate system-level summary of scope, progress, material limitations and improvement without exposing personal, clinical, safeguarding or legally restricted information.
Intent: To create honest organisational learning and prevent dashboards from becoming internal reassurance or public marketing.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- annual or equivalent system evaluation
- triangulated evidence
- trend and disparity analysis
- emerging-risk review
- effectiveness testing
- leadership decisions
- protected stakeholder feedback
- public/participant summary
- limitations and future actions
Evidence that is not sufficient
- only positive metrics
- comparison without context
- public report that omits material limitations
- anonymisation too weak for small groups
- annual report produced by communications without governance challenge
- actions repeated without effectiveness review
Audit methods
Review evaluation design and evidence triangulation · sample a difficult or negative finding · compare public summary with internal evidence · test privacy and materiality decisions · assess leadership action and effectiveness.
Evidence validity
At least annual evaluation and after serious systemic failure or major scope change; trend period normally sufficient to detect change, often 12–24 months.
Proposed failure
Major for misleading evaluation, ignored patterns, ineffective repeated CAPA or material omission from stakeholder communication. Critical for deliberate public deception, concealment or exposure of protected individuals.
CAPA and decision
Major requires corrected evaluation, leadership decision, effective action and proportionate correction of misleading communication before Gold/Diamond.
Expert review
Measurement/evaluation, governance, communications, privacy/legal, lived-experience and audit review.
Sources
[S01–S06, S07–S12, S16–S19]
DiamondP3.5-DI
Diamond — Independently verified governance effectiveness and accountability
Embedded, transparent and independently corroborated
P3.5-DI
Diamond — Independently verified governance effectiveness and accountability
Embedded, transparent and independently corroborated
Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; sampling covers governance, evidence quality, corrective action, public transparency and affected people.
The organisation shall
The organisation shall demonstrate through independent audit that its oversight and evaluation system produces reliable, protected and decision-useful evidence; identifies material risk and inequality; results in effective corrective action; and supports accurate communication of scope, progress and limitations. Auditors shall test data definitions, governance challenge, difficult findings, closure effectiveness, stakeholder experience and public statements. No open major or critical governance finding may remain.
Intent: To substantiate that Diamond leadership can detect, admit and correct weaknesses — including those that are uncomfortable or reputationally difficult.
Minimum acceptable evidence
- independent performance/risk review
- data and indicator sample
- difficult finding and CAPA trace
- protected participant evidence
- public/internal consistency check
- governing-body challenge
- external or internal assurance results
- independent closure
Evidence that is not sufficient
- self-assessment only
- auditor tests only successful actions
- public profile written without evidence reconciliation
- no negative findings
- indicators chosen solely because they improve
- unresolved major actions hidden behind future plans
Audit methods
Independent evidence and data sampling · interview governing body, owners and protected participants · trace serious findings · compare public claims · test member/site consistency and corrective-action effectiveness.
Evidence validity
Normally previous 12–24 months and current decision information; public scope/status accurate at certification decision.
Proposed failure
Major for unreliable evaluation, ineffective governance action or misleading transparency. Critical for falsification, obstruction, retaliation, evidence manipulation or deliberate concealment of material harm.
CAPA and decision
All major and critical findings independently closed before certification; any misleading public information corrected and effectiveness verified.
Expert review
Independent governance/assurance and measurement reviewer, privacy/legal, communications, lived-experience and clinical/safeguarding expertise as routed.
Sources
[S01–S06, S07–S12, S16–S19]
Evidence and assurance
Board papers show intent. The audit traces decisions into practice.
Governance scope, authority and appointments
Current at decision date and updated promptly after leadership, legal-entity, delegation or scope change.
Wellbeing policy and operating framework
Reviewed within 12 months and after serious incident, material finding, legal/clinical change or major scope change.
Implementation plans and action registers
Current; active actions reviewed at a defined cadence, normally at least quarterly during the pilot.
Governing-body and executive oversight
Representative records from the previous 12 months, including difficult decisions and escalation where available.
Resource and capacity review
Current operating year and after material funding, workforce, provider or scope change.
Athlete/workforce participation
Current participation route plus evidence from the previous 12 months or current operating cycle.
Risk, performance and CAPA records
Current status visible; normally previous 12–24 months for Gold/Diamond trend and effectiveness review.
Public or stakeholder reporting
Most recent reporting cycle and corrected promptly after material change or identified inaccuracy.
Diamond corroboration
Normally covers 12–24 months, adjusted for organisational history, size, evidence volume and material change.
Document and decision review
Whether policies, terms, reports, minutes, resources and actions are coherent and attributable.
Trace test
Whether a commitment, risk, recommendation or finding led to an actual decision, implementation and effectiveness check.
Leadership and owner interviews
Whether accountability, authority, challenge, information boundaries and escalation work in practice.
Protected athlete/workforce interviews
Whether participation, non-retaliation, implementation and access to decision processes are trusted.
Cross-scope sampling
Whether member bodies, sites, squads, countries and lower-profile programmes receive the same applicable governance floor.
Resource and continuity test
Whether commitments remain deliverable during realistic absence, funding or provider disruption.
Public-claim reconciliation
Whether published scope, progress and limitations match internal evidence and pathway/certification status.
Protected participation principles
- Participants are invited through a route that does not depend solely on coaching, selection or line-management approval.
- The organisation does not choose every interviewee, receive raw answers or attend protected interviews.
- Participation is voluntary and people understand confidentiality limits, including immediate safety or legal exceptions.
- Sampling considers lower-power, temporary, development, injured, deselected, remote, volunteer and underrepresented groups where relevant.
- A single credible disclosure of current danger overrides numerical corroboration rules and activates the appropriate safeguarding or crisis route.
- Minors and young people require an expert-approved, age-appropriate consent, assent and safeguarding protocol.
- The audit records system-level findings and minimises identifiable personal information.
- Retaliation or attempts to identify, coach, influence or penalise participants are critical scheme-integrity concerns.
Evidence validity
Evidence expires when authority, scope or risk changes.
Governance scope, authority and appointments
Current at decision date and updated promptly after leadership, legal-entity, delegation or scope change.
Wellbeing policy and operating framework
Reviewed within 12 months and after serious incident, material finding, legal/clinical change or major scope change.
Implementation plans and action registers
Current; active actions reviewed at a defined cadence, normally at least quarterly during the pilot.
Governing-body and executive oversight
Representative records from the previous 12 months, including difficult decisions and escalation where available.
Resource and capacity review
Current operating year and after material funding, workforce, provider or scope change.
Athlete/workforce participation
Current participation route plus evidence from the previous 12 months or current operating cycle.
Risk, performance and CAPA records
Current status visible; normally previous 12–24 months for Gold/Diamond trend and effectiveness review.
Public or stakeholder reporting
Most recent reporting cycle and corrected promptly after material change or identified inaccuracy.
Diamond corroboration
Normally covers 12–24 months, adjusted for organisational history, size, evidence volume and material change.
Finding classification
Consequences match actual governance risk.
Observation
The requirement is met, but a credible improvement opportunity exists.
Typical consequence: Does not block the stage.
Minor
An isolated or limited governance lapse that does not materially undermine accountability or create immediate risk.
Typical consequence: Time-bound correction or monitoring under approved scheme rules.
Major
A missing or ineffective governance control, systemic non-implementation, significant capacity or participation failure, unmanaged conflict or unreliable oversight.
Typical consequence: Blocks the relevant stage until independently closed where required.
Critical
Current serious danger, retaliation, deliberate concealment, evidence falsification, witness interference, unlawful harmful disclosure or leadership-controlled obstruction.
Typical consequence: Immediate safety/scheme action; normally refuse, suspend or revoke pending approved process.
Controlled routing
One accountability floor, evidence proportionate to context.
RA-01
Small and volunteer-led organisations
May combine roles and use external expertise, but must demonstrate governing access, realistic workload, conflict-safe alternatives, continuity and an exact scope. A one-page policy may be acceptable; absent authority or capacity is not.
RA-02
Federations, member bodies, franchises and multiple sites
Must define which entity controls what, minimum delegated requirements, local accountability, central monitoring, escalation, corrective action and public scope. Membership alone does not prove control.
RA-03
Public bodies, Olympic committees and sport governing bodies
Must map statutory, ministerial, electoral, public-funding and sports-autonomy interfaces; protect operational and clinical decisions from improper political or commercial influence; and meet applicable transparency duties.
RA-04
Minors, youth academies and age-appropriate participation
Must provide meaningful youth participation with consent/assent and safeguarding protections, avoid adult tokenism, define guardian roles and preserve confidential alternatives appropriate to age and law.
RA-05
Outsourced providers, partners and joint delivery
Contracts must define responsibilities, governance information, qualifications, complaints, data, service levels, incidents, audit access, failure and termination. Outsourcing delivery does not outsource accountability.
RA-06
In-house or commissioned clinical services
Requires clinical-governance authority, professional independence, supervision, adverse-event oversight, data separation and clear limits on what governing bodies receive.
RA-07
Digital systems, athlete data and artificial intelligence
Requires athlete-centric data governance, purpose and lawful basis, DPIA or equivalent where appropriate, vendor/algorithm oversight, access and retention controls, bias review, human accountability and no covert selection use.
RA-08
Events, short programmes and temporary workforces
Requires a time-bounded governance map, host/partner responsibilities, temporary role induction, rapid escalation, current resources, incident and complaint transfer, and post-event review.
RA-09
Funding, sponsorship and commercial dependency
Must record restricted funds, continuity risk, sponsor/provider conflicts, influence over priorities and what happens when funding ends. Commercial support cannot control protected decisions or assurance.
RA-10
Material change, leadership turnover and organisational crisis
Requires a controlled review after merger, restructuring, leadership change, major funding loss, serious incident, litigation, provider failure or scope expansion; responsibilities and public claims must be updated promptly.
Proportional organisation models
Small community club
Committee-approved framework; one accountable trustee or committee member and one operational owner; documented external advice; realistic resource plan; member/athlete feedback route; simple risk/action register.
Would still fail: No named owner; only the coach receives concerns; policy copied but unused; one volunteer carries every duty; no backup or feedback route.
Professional team or academy
Board/executive accountability; clinical/safeguarding independence; defined budget and workload; player/staff participation; provider and data governance; regular protected reporting and CAPA.
Would still fail: Performance leadership controls care or complaints; academy players excluded from voice; resources depend on selection status; raw health information reaches executives.
National federation
Central minimum requirements; member-body delegation and monitoring; athlete commission or representation; risk and resource comparison across pathways; escalation and corrective powers.
Would still fail: Claims cover clubs it does not oversee; only national-team provision is assessed; member failures not escalated; athlete commission has no access or protection.
International federation or Olympic body
Multi-jurisdiction governance and addenda; independent representation; conflict and political/commercial controls; global resource and implementation oversight; transparent scope and limitations.
Would still fail: Headquarters policy assumed to operate globally; language and regional gaps ignored; decision-makers conflicted; public claims exceed sampled scope.
Event organiser or short programme
Defined temporary governance, owners, host/partner duties, budget, reporting, participant input, handover and post-event review.
Would still fail: Reliance on venue or federation without agreement; temporary workforce excluded; no ownership after the event; no review or transfer of open concerns.
Questionnaire blueprint
The applicant form is not the audit.
Questionnaire responses route evidence and audit work; they do not replace governance records, protected interviews or independent sampling.
Working range: 24–32 organisation-facing items for Pillar 3 within the controlled 120-item master bank, plus conditional routing and separate audit protocols.
1
Eligibility and scope
4–6 items
Confirm entity authority, assessed scope, delegation, accountable owners and material-change flags.
2
Core stage claims
10–12 items
Test the active-stage obligations across policy, authority, resources, participation and oversight.
3
Evidence and exceptions
5–7 items
Capture named records, validity dates, gaps, conflicts, overdue actions and controlled not-applicable rationales.
4
Risk routing
5–7 conditional items
Activate federation, youth, clinical, data/AI, outsourcing, funding, event or material-change addenda.
01 · Document request list
02 · Auditor trace-test plan
03 · Protected athlete/workforce interview protocol
04 · Finding and CAPA record
Required review
Governance and sport-governance
Indicator boundaries, governing-body duties, delegation, conflicts and proportionality.
Athlete and lived experience
Participation safety, representation, power, retaliation, feedback and real-world credibility.
Finance and operations
Resource adequacy, workload, continuity, small-organisation feasibility and provider governance.
Clinical, safeguarding and privacy
Information boundaries, independence, serious incidents, board reporting and routed clinical/data controls.
Measurement and audit
Indicators, evidence validity, performance evaluation, sampling, severity and corrective-action closure.
Legal and jurisdiction
Entity authority, public bodies, employment/volunteer duties, data, minors and local governance requirements.
Cognitive walkthrough
Test the model with 3–5 different organisations before loading it as a formal framework version.
Open design decisions
- 01
Approve, merge or reject proposed P3.5 after checking its boundary with P5.4.
- 02
Set a proportionate minimum governing-body reporting cadence.
- 03
Decide the Diamond athlete-representation model and acceptable small-organisation equivalent.
- 04
Define when participation time, expenses, training, accessibility and independent advice are funded.
- 05
Create a resource-adequacy judgement method without arbitrary budget percentages or staffing models.
- 06
Set conflict thresholds for disclosure, mitigation, recusal and structural separation.
- 07
Define public-transparency content and privacy/materiality boundaries.
- 08
Validate the proposed 12-month, quarterly and 12–24-month evidence periods.
- 09
Set federation/member-body scope and sampling controls.
- 10
Calibrate major and critical governance failures and same-application closure rules.
Readiness checklist
Can the organisation prove accountability reaches practice?
20 source records support this working model. Their use still requires the review flags recorded against each requirement.
- We can state exactly which entity, programmes, sites, countries and delegated bodies are included and excluded.
- Our wellbeing policy is current, accessible and connected to operational procedures and responsibilities.
- People can find the policy or a plain-language version and understand how it affects them.
- A named governing-body owner and executive owner have authority, backup and direct escalation routes.
- Conflicts involving leadership, selection, employment, providers, sponsors or reputation are declared and managed.
- Leadership receives protected system-level evidence and records decisions and follow-up.
- We have assessed the people, time, finance, systems, providers and backup needed for every stated commitment.
- Critical functions do not depend on one unavailable or overloaded person.
- Capacity and continuity are reviewed after material funding, workforce, provider or scope change.
- Athletes and relevant staff have a voluntary, accessible and conflict-safe way to influence policy and systems.
- We engage people early enough to influence decisions and explain what changed, what did not and why.
- We test whose voices are missing and protect lower-power, dissenting and underrepresented participants.
- We maintain a current implementation, risk and action overview with owners, dates and escalation.
- Our indicators test implementation and effectiveness, not only activity or low complaint numbers.
- Corrective actions address contributing factors, are independently challenged where needed and include effectiveness checks.
- Public statements match the assessed scope, pathway stage and actual evidence.
- We communicate material limitations and improvements without exposing personal or protected information.
- Independent reviewers could sample governance beyond headquarters or the flagship team.
- Protected athletes, staff and role holders could describe how accountability, participation and escalation work in practice.
- There are no open major or critical Pillar 3 findings.
Pillar 3 is now inspectable — and ready to be challenged.
Next: decide whether P3.5 is distinct from P5.4, complete named expert review and build equivalent packs for Pillars 2 and 5 before controlled questionnaire authoring.