The Standard · Pillar 5 working pack

Culture is what happens when performance pressure arrives.

Five indicators and twenty cumulative requirements test whether honesty is safe, dignity is protected, demands are sustainable, transitions retain belonging and difficult evidence changes the system.

Working architecture approved; certification wording still under expert review.

The founder has approved the five-indicator Pillar 5 structure for the working architecture. This is governance approval to pilot and review—not clinical, safeguarding, equality, employment, legal, measurement or final certification approval.

Read the decision method

Pillar 5 tests whether the everyday sporting environment supports mental wellbeing: how people are treated, whether honesty is safe, whether demands are managed responsibly, whether transitions retain dignity and support, and whether protected feedback changes the system.

Human promise

I can be honest about how I am doing, seek help and raise concerns without humiliation or disadvantage. The demands placed on me are managed responsibly, major transitions are supported, and the organisation listens and changes when its culture causes harm.

approved working indicators

cumulative stage requirements

cross-cutting rules

routed addenda

Assessment precondition

AP-01 · Culture, demands and transition map

Before culture can be assessed, the organisation must define the people, teams, sites, activities and power relationships in scope; map material cultural and psychosocial risks; identify high-demand periods and major transitions; and record which contexts require routed requirements.

Minimum evidence

Assessed-scope statement
people and power map
annual training, competition and travel calendar
workforce and athlete groups
transition map
known high-risk contexts
named owners
exclusions with rationale

Not sufficient

Headquarters or flagship-team evidence presented as the whole organisation
a calendar without power, demand or transition analysis
omitting temporary, remote, injured, deselected or lower-power groups
an exclusion based only on inconvenience or cost

Proposed consequence: Major where the map materially omits populations, power relationships, high-demand periods or transition points. Deliberate concealment of serious current cultural risk may be critical.

CR-01

People before performance

Mental wellbeing, dignity and safety are intrinsic responsibilities, not valuable only when they improve results.

CR-02

Demanding is not degrading

High expectations, feedback, selection and accountability may be legitimate; humiliation, coercion, discrimination, retaliation and avoidable harm are not.

CR-03

No retaliation or performance disadvantage

Good-faith help-seeking, reporting, feedback or use of support must not secretly affect selection, contracts, funding, playing time or employment outside a lawful, transparent and justified process.

CR-04

Voluntary participation and no compelled disclosure

Check-ins, climate surveys, peer stories and wellbeing activities must not force people to reveal symptoms, diagnoses, trauma or personal experiences.

CR-05

Dignity, inclusion and reasonable adjustment

Systems and behaviours must account for disability, language, age, culture, identity, religion, socioeconomic circumstances and other material access or discrimination risks.

CR-06

Power-aware design

The organisation must consider who controls selection, contracts, housing, medical access, education, travel and references, and provide alternatives where those powers make speaking unsafe.

CR-07

Whole-person and whole-workforce scope

Athletes are central, but relevant coaches, staff, volunteers and contractors are also exposed to organisational demands and cultural harm.

CR-08

Privacy-protective measurement

Culture and wellbeing information must be minimised, aggregated safely, protected from re-identification and separated from individual performance decisions.

CR-09

Prevention and response remain connected

Pillar 5 must reduce risk and change conditions; concerns indicating harm still route immediately to Pillar 4, clinical or legal processes as applicable.

CR-10

Controlled not applicable

A requirement may be routed out only through verified scope facts and a recorded rationale, not because a topic is uncomfortable, difficult to measure or expensive to address.

P5.1

Approved working indicator

Psychological safety, openness and non-retaliation

I can admit that I am struggling, ask for help, question a decision or raise a concern without being mocked, isolated or disadvantaged in my sporting or working future.

Construct

Psychological safety, help-seeking climate, leader behaviour, stigma reduction and protection from retaliation or performance disadvantage.

Core obligation

The organisation shall create and maintain conditions in which people can seek help, express uncertainty, raise concerns and contribute protected feedback without humiliation, retaliation or unjustified performance, selection, contract or employment disadvantage, and shall require leaders to model and enforce those conditions.

Boundary

P5.1 owns the everyday speaking-up and help-seeking climate. P4.2 owns protected reporting and case handling. P1.5 owns confidentiality and health-information separation. P3.4 owns formal athlete and workforce participation in governance.

Bronze

P5.1-BR

Speaking up and help-seeking are explicitly protected

People are told that honesty and support use cannot be punished or treated as weakness.

Universal foundationMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll organisations and all people in the assessed scope.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall publish and communicate a clear commitment that good-faith help-seeking, admission of difficulty, protected feedback and raising a concern will not result in retaliation, humiliation or unjustified performance disadvantage. It shall define leader and coach behaviour expectations, identify at least one conflict-safe route for concerns and explain the limits of confidentiality honestly.

Intent: To establish a credible cultural floor before asking people to speak, seek help or participate in MindsMelt evidence collection.

Minimum acceptable evidence

athlete/staff-facing statement
non-retaliation and selection-protection wording
leader code
communication and induction records
alternative route
examples of prohibited responses
owner and review date

Evidence that is not sufficient

a wellbeing campaign that never names selection or contract fear
“our door is always open”
only a whistleblowing policy hidden on an intranet
leaders publicly endorsing help-seeking while mocking it privately

Audit methods

Review public and internal wording · walk the route from a lower-power participant perspective · interview leaders on prohibited responses · sample induction and team communication · check alignment with P4.2 and P1.5.

Evidence validity

Current season/programme and reviewed at least annually and after a retaliation concern, major leadership change or material policy change.

Proposed failure

Major if protection or a usable conflict-safe route is absent. Critical for substantiated retaliation, intimidation, deliberate isolation or serious punitive use of help-seeking.

CAPA and decision

Major closed before any badge through revised protection, communication, route testing and demonstrated leader understanding; a campaign alone is insufficient.

Expert review

Lived-experience, safeguarding, employment/legal, clinical and communications review required.

Sources and status

[S01, S02, S03, S04, S05, S10, S20] · Draft direction · Not started

Silver

P5.1-SI

Psychological safety expectations operate in daily practice

Leaders respond safely, teams have usable routines and harmful reactions are corrected.

Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; daily methods proportionate to organisation and context.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall operationalise the speaking-up and help-seeking commitment through role expectations, leader and team routines, voluntary check-ins, safe discussion methods and documented follow-through when a concern, request for support or cultural barrier is raised. It shall correct stigmatising, dismissive or retaliatory responses and provide an alternative route when the usual leader is part of the concern.

Intent: To move from a statement of safety to consistent behaviour and visible follow-through.

Minimum acceptable evidence

leader briefings and role expectations
voluntary check-in guidance
team agreements
redacted concern/follow-up records
alternative-route use or test
corrective action
support or adjustment examples
supervision/consultation records

Evidence that is not sufficient

mandatory wellbeing disclosure
leaders asking for diagnoses
positive slogans without action
a concern passed back to the person complained about
one ambassador story used as proof of safety

Audit methods

Sample a concern or tested scenario · interview leaders and lower-power roles · review how voluntary participation and confidentiality are explained · test the alternative route · inspect corrective follow-through.

Evidence validity

Current operating cycle; implementation sample normally previous 12 months or all relevant instances where fewer.

Proposed failure

Major for systemic dismissive response, unavailable alternative route or failure to address known barriers. Critical for retaliation, coercion, interference or deliberate harmful disclosure.

CAPA and decision

Major closed through behaviour, route and supervision changes plus evidence of safe application; policy reissue alone is insufficient.

Expert review

Lived-experience, safeguarding, workforce, clinical and audit review required.

Sources and status

[S01, S02, S04, S05, S10, S13, S14] · Draft direction · Not started

Gold

P5.1-GO

Trust, stigma and retaliation risk are monitored and improved

The organisation looks for silence and power effects, not only formal complaints.

Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold/Diamond; methods proportionate and privacy-protective.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall monitor psychological safety, help-seeking confidence, stigma, route trust, leader behaviour and retaliation indicators using protected and representative evidence. It shall analyse differences by team, site, role and relevant population, investigate material barriers, assign system corrective action and verify whether trust and safety improve.

Intent: To identify hidden cultural barriers that cannot be inferred from low complaint numbers or high campaign participation.

Minimum acceptable evidence

protected climate data
subgroup and non-response analysis
exit/transition themes
concern and adjustment patterns
leadership review
corrective action
repeat measurement
evidence of changed routines, roles or decisions

Evidence that is not sufficient

one global average
high survey response presented as proof
raw comments shared with coaches
low help-seeking interpreted as low need
no action where lower-power groups report fear

Audit methods

Review methodology, privacy and representativeness · triangulate surveys, interviews, route use and exits · trace one material finding to corrective action and repeat evidence · test leadership response.

Evidence validity

At least annual review and after material retaliation, leadership, scope or organisational change.

Proposed failure

Major for known material trust or retaliation barriers left unaddressed, unsafe measurement or misleading claims. Critical for concealment, retaliation or re-identification used to punish participants.

CAPA and decision

Major closed through verified system change and repeat evidence, not only awareness activity.

Expert review

Measurement, lived-experience, privacy, governance and safeguarding review required.

Sources and status

[S01, S02, S04, S05, S13, S14, S16] · Draft direction · Not started

Diamond

P5.1-DI

Psychological safety is independently corroborated

People with less power can speak honestly without management controlling the evidence.

Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; sampling includes lower-power, non-permanent and transitioning groups where applicable.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall demonstrate through independent review and protected participant evidence that people across the assessed scope can seek help, admit limits, question practice and raise concerns without inappropriate influence or disadvantage. Auditors shall test leader behaviour, alternative routes, negative as well as positive evidence, recent transitions and the closure of any material retaliation or trust findings.

Intent: To substantiate the trust claim implicit in Diamond rather than relying on management-selected testimonials or polished messaging.

Minimum acceptable evidence

independent sampling plan
protected interviews
unaided route test
review of negative and positive evidence
transition/exit sample
leader and lower-power comparison
independently closed findings
verified corrective action

Evidence that is not sufficient

organisation-selected ambassadors only
interviews in management presence
prepared talking points
no contractor, injured, deselected or lower-status sample
unresolved retaliation concern

Audit methods

Independent protected interviews, route testing, cross-site and power-level sampling, document/behaviour comparison and corrective-action verification.

Evidence validity

Current certification cycle with evidence of sustained operation across previous 12-24 months.

Proposed failure

Major for inconsistent, inaccessible or untrusted protection. Critical for retaliation, witness interference, evidence manipulation, concealment or current grave harm.

CAPA and decision

Independent closure and, where necessary, repeat corroboration before certification.

Expert review

Independent lived-experience/safeguarding assessor, privacy and procedural-fairness review required.

Sources and status

[S04, S05, S07, S08, S13, S14, S19] · Draft direction · Not started

P5.2

Approved working indicator

Dignity, inclusion and protection from harmful practices

I can be challenged and held accountable without being humiliated, coerced, discriminated against, body-shamed, isolated or exposed to practices that treat harm as normal sport culture.

Construct

Behavioural standards, inclusion, power-aware prevention of psychological abuse, harassment, discrimination, coercion, hazing, neglect and degrading practice.

Core obligation

The organisation shall define, communicate and enforce standards of dignity and inclusion that prohibit degrading, coercive, discriminatory and abusive practices; identify environments and power relationships where such practices are more likely; and change conditions, supervision and behaviour before harm becomes normalised.

Boundary

P5.2 owns prevention and everyday conduct. P4.2 owns protected reporting, case control and safeguarding response. P3 owns accountability for standards. Pillar 2 owns competence to recognise and respond.

Bronze

P5.2-BR

Dignity and behavioural standards are explicit

People know which practices are unacceptable and where prevention connects to reporting.

Universal foundationMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll organisations; detail routed by population, activity and jurisdiction.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall maintain clear athlete- and workforce-readable behavioural standards that apply to leaders, coaches, staff, volunteers, contractors and participants. The standards shall prohibit psychological, physical and sexual abuse, neglect, harassment, hazing, degrading or humiliating treatment, coercion, discrimination, body-shaming and retaliation; explain legitimate feedback and discipline boundaries; and connect breaches to protected reporting and response routes.

Intent: To make prevention concrete and remove the defence that harmful behaviour is normal, motivational or culturally accepted within the sport.

Minimum acceptable evidence

behaviour/code standards with examples
scope and applicability
communication/induction
contracts or membership terms
protected reporting link
consequence and escalation summary
accessible/age-appropriate versions

Evidence that is not sufficient

generic “respect” value
safeguarding policy limited to sexual abuse or minors
standards applying to athletes but not coaches
“toughness” language that permits humiliation
no route or consequence

Audit methods

Review wording and scope · compare to contracts, codes and induction · interview participants on boundaries · test whether psychological abuse, coercion and discrimination are understood · cross-check P4.2.

Evidence validity

Current and reviewed at least annually and after serious incident, legal change, new population or material programme change.

Proposed failure

Major if material harmful practices or populations are omitted or standards are inaccessible. Critical for known deliberate abuse, retaliation, discriminatory exclusion or serious harmful conduct tolerated by leadership.

CAPA and decision

Major closed before any badge through revised standards, communication and demonstrated understanding; active serious concerns route immediately to P4.

Expert review

Safeguarding, equality/human-rights, lived-experience, legal and operational review required.

Sources and status

[S06, S07, S08, S09, S15, S16, S18, S19] · Draft direction · Not started

Silver

P5.2-SI

Harmful-practice risks are actively controlled

The organisation supervises high-risk settings and intervenes before misconduct becomes normal.

Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; controls routed by activity, population and power.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall identify settings, practices and power relationships with elevated risk of humiliation, coercion, discrimination, hazing, neglect or abuse; define supervision and intervention expectations; provide accessible rights information; and record how observed or reported harmful behaviour is stopped, referred, corrected and followed up without blaming the affected person.

Intent: To demonstrate that the standards influence daily environments and are not left for individuals to enforce against powerful people.

Minimum acceptable evidence

cultural/safeguarding risk assessment
supervision plans
initiation, weigh-in, changing-room, travel, online and residential rules where relevant
bystander/intervention guidance
redacted response examples
corrective action
accessible rights information

Evidence that is not sufficient

telling people to be resilient
no supervision in known high-risk settings
harmful initiation described as tradition
one diversity training session
affected person moved while alleged behaviour continues unchanged

Audit methods

Walk through high-risk contexts · sample supervision and intervention · interview lower-power participants · review one tested or real response · assess accessibility and equality adjustments.

Evidence validity

Current operating cycle and after serious incident, new activity, facility, technology or population change.

Proposed failure

Major for uncontrolled high-risk setting, repeated harmful practice or ineffective intervention. Critical for deliberate abuse, retaliation, concealment or grave discriminatory/coercive harm.

CAPA and decision

Major requires control, behaviour change and effectiveness evidence; training alone does not close an environmental or leadership failure.

Expert review

Safeguarding, equality, lived-experience, operations and legal review required.

Sources and status

[S06, S07, S08, S09, S15, S18, S19] · Draft direction · Not started

Gold

P5.2-GO

Inclusion and harmful-practice patterns are monitored and changed

Leadership looks for unequal exposure, repeat behaviour and the conditions that enable harm.

Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold/Diamond; analysis proportionate and privacy-protective.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall monitor cultural and safeguarding indicators relevant to dignity and inclusion, including repeated conduct, unequal exposure, route avoidance, accessibility barriers, identity-based harm and supervision failures. It shall analyse contributing organisational factors, involve affected groups safely, assign corrective action and verify changes in behaviour, environment and leadership practice.

Intent: To prevent isolated-case handling from obscuring repeated or structurally enabled harm.

Minimum acceptable evidence

aggregate incident and culture themes
subgroup/access analysis
environmental and role reviews
survivor- or participant-informed improvement process
leadership action
revised supervision or selection/training practices
repeat evidence

Evidence that is not sufficient

raw case counts
publishing identifiable details
one disciplinary case treated as culture reform
no analysis of who is absent or silent
action limited to messaging

Audit methods

Triangulate culture, case and operational data · test a repeated pattern or risk area · review affected-group participation protections · inspect leadership and system changes and repeat evidence.

Evidence validity

At least annual review and after serious or repeated concern, major leadership change or scope expansion.

Proposed failure

Major for repeated or unequal harm left unaddressed, unsafe participation or misleading inclusion claims. Critical for leadership interference, retaliation, concealment or grave ongoing harm.

CAPA and decision

Major closed through verified environmental, behavioural and governance change plus repeat evidence.

Expert review

Safeguarding, equality/human-rights, lived-experience, measurement, privacy and governance review required.

Sources and status

[S06, S07, S08, S09, S16, S18, S19] · Draft direction · Not started

Diamond

P5.2-DI

Dignity and inclusion are independently corroborated

Daily behaviour matches public standards across teams, identities and power levels.

Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; sample includes relevant high-risk, under-represented and lower-power contexts.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall demonstrate through independent review, protected participant evidence and risk-based observation or reconstruction that behavioural standards are applied consistently and that people are protected from degrading, coercive, discriminatory and abusive practice across the assessed scope. The review shall test negative evidence, repeat patterns, high-risk settings, conflict handling and closure of all major or critical P5.2 findings.

Intent: To ensure that Diamond does not certify a polished code while harmful daily practices remain hidden in particular teams or populations.

Minimum acceptable evidence

independent sample and rationale
protected interviews
high-risk-context observation/reconstruction
aggregate case and culture review
equality/access sample
leadership and CAPA evidence
independently closed findings

Evidence that is not sufficient

headquarters policy review only
interviews chosen by management
flagship team evidence
no under-represented or temporary population
unresolved serious conduct pattern

Audit methods

Independent protected interviews, targeted observation, cross-site/team sampling, case-governance comparison and corrective-action verification.

Evidence validity

Current certification cycle and evidence of sustained implementation across previous 12-24 months.

Proposed failure

Major for inconsistent or untrusted protection. Critical for ongoing abuse, retaliation, discriminatory exclusion, manipulation of evidence or serious leadership concealment.

CAPA and decision

Independent closure and, where necessary, repeat participant corroboration before certification.

Expert review

Independent safeguarding, equality, lived-experience and assurance review required.

Sources and status

[S06, S07, S08, S09, S18, S19] · Draft direction · Not started

P5.3

Approved working indicator

Workload, recovery and whole-person balance

The combined demands on my time, body, attention and life are planned responsibly, and I can raise overload or request adjustment without being labelled weak or uncommitted.

Construct

Psychosocial risk, workload and schedule coordination, recovery opportunity, whole-person demands, reasonable adjustment and escalation of overload.

Core obligation

The organisation shall identify, coordinate and manage the combined training, competition, travel, recovery, education, employment, media, commercial, administrative and digital demands it controls or materially influences, provide a safe route to raise overload and make proportionate adjustments where avoidable harm or exclusion is identified.

Boundary

P5.3 does not prescribe sport-science training load or replace qualified medical decisions. It owns organisational coordination, psychosocial demands and the ability to raise overload. P1 owns support access; P3 owns resources and accountability.

Bronze

P5.3-BR

Material demands and high-risk periods are mapped

The organisation knows what it asks of people and who coordinates competing demands.

Universal foundationMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll organisations; depth proportionate to schedule, employment and performance context.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall map the material training, competition, travel, recovery, education, employment, media, commercial, administrative and digital-contact demands within its control; identify foreseeable high-risk periods; assign responsibility for coordination; define basic rest, communication and escalation expectations; and provide a route through which people can raise overload or access needs without retaliation.

Intent: To prevent fragmented departments and calendars from creating avoidable cumulative burden that nobody owns.

Minimum acceptable evidence

annual/season calendar
demand and high-risk-period map
named coordinator/decision forum
rest/contact expectations
dual-career or employment interfaces
overload route
communication to athletes/staff
known exclusions

Evidence that is not sufficient

training plan alone
“elite sport is demanding”
responsibility spread across departments with no coordination
no education/work/travel view
private messages expected at all hours
route controlled only by selector

Audit methods

Compare calendars and actual obligations · interview planning owners and affected people · test a high-demand period · review communication and escalation route · assess whether staff/coaches are included where relevant.

Evidence validity

Current season/operating year and updated after major schedule, travel, competition, staffing or commercial change.

Proposed failure

Major for no material demand map, no coordination or no safe route to raise overload. Critical where known grave danger or coercive overload is deliberately maintained.

CAPA and decision

Major closed before any badge through mapping, ownership, communication and viable immediate controls; future planning alone is insufficient for a current risk.

Expert review

Sport operations, clinical/occupational health, athlete and workforce lived-experience, equality and employment review required.

Sources and status

[S01, S02, S03, S10, S11, S12, S15, S17] · Draft direction · Not started

Silver

P5.3-SI

Demand coordination and adjustment operate in practice

Scheduling conflicts and overload concerns result in documented decisions and support.

Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; individual health data minimised and protected.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall operate a process for coordinating material demands, reviewing foreseeable conflicts and responding to overload or access concerns. It shall involve relevant people in planning, define who can authorise adjustments, record decisions and rationale at a proportionate level, protect confidential information and escalate where ordinary planning cannot resolve a material wellbeing or safety risk.

Intent: To show that the map influences real schedules and that people can obtain a considered response rather than being told to cope privately.

Minimum acceptable evidence

planning and coordination records
conflict/adjustment log
examples involving travel, education, work, media or recovery
accessible request route
privacy controls
escalation and follow-up
temporary arrangements

Evidence that is not sufficient

wellbeing app data without decision rules
adjustments available only to star athletes
diagnosis required for every request
no follow-up
coach alone decides concerns about their own schedule

Audit methods

Trace one planned high-demand period and one adjustment request or scenario · inspect privacy and decision authority · interview athletes/staff across status · compare with actual schedules and travel.

Evidence validity

Current operating cycle; sample normally previous 12 months and current major events/periods.

Proposed failure

Major for systemic failure to coordinate, inaccessible adjustment, discriminatory application or repeated ignored overload. Critical for coercion, retaliation or deliberate maintenance of immediate serious risk.

CAPA and decision

Major closed through operational coordination, decisions and evidence of changed conditions; a new form alone is insufficient.

Expert review

Operational, clinical/occupational, equality, privacy and lived-experience review required.

Sources and status

[S01, S02, S03, S10, S11, S12, S17] · Draft direction · Not started

Gold

P5.3-GO

Psychosocial demand patterns are monitored and reduced

The organisation learns where its system produces repeated overload or unequal burden.

Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold/Diamond; analysis proportionate and does not diagnose individuals.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall monitor system-level indicators of unmanaged demands and insufficient recovery, including schedule compression, travel burden, digital contact, adjustment requests, absence, turnover, injury or illness interfaces, failed dual-career arrangements and protected feedback. It shall analyse differences across groups and periods, change organisational conditions and verify whether the intervention reduces the identified risk.

Intent: To move from reacting to individual distress toward preventing repeated organisational causes.

Minimum acceptable evidence

demand and recovery indicators
protected feedback
adjustment and exception trends
schedule/travel analysis
staff/coach burden where relevant
subgroup analysis
organisational intervention
repeat evidence and leadership review

Evidence that is not sufficient

individual wellness scores used for selection
one burnout workshop
data collected without action
high absence blamed only on resilience
no analysis of cumulative or unequal demands

Audit methods

Review indicator definitions and privacy · triangulate schedules, adjustments, feedback and outcomes · trace one organisational intervention to repeat evidence · test lower-power groups and high-risk periods.

Evidence validity

At least annual review and after major event cycle, repeated overload, material schedule change or serious wellbeing incident.

Proposed failure

Major for known systemic overload or inequitable burden left unaddressed, unsafe monitoring or misleading claims. Critical where coercive demands knowingly create grave danger or retaliation follows a request for protection.

CAPA and decision

Major closed through verified organisational change and repeat evidence, not only individual coping support.

Expert review

Measurement, operations, clinical/occupational health, privacy, equality and lived-experience review required.

Sources and status

[S01, S02, S03, S11, S12, S15, S17] · Draft direction · Not started

Diamond

P5.3-DI

Sustainable demand management is independently corroborated

People can influence harmful demands and evidence shows decisions change across the scope.

Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; sample includes high-demand, travel, lower-power and dual-career contexts where applicable.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall demonstrate through independent review and protected participant evidence that material demands are understood, coordinated and adjusted consistently across the assessed scope; that people can raise overload without disadvantage; and that leadership has changed schedules, resourcing, communication or expectations when evidence shows avoidable harm. No open major or critical P5.3 finding may remain.

Intent: To verify that sustainable practice survives performance pressure and is not limited to policy or privileged individuals.

Minimum acceptable evidence

independent calendar and demand review
protected interviews
sampled adjustment decisions
high-risk-period analysis
cross-team/site comparison
leadership changes
repeat evidence
independently closed findings

Evidence that is not sufficient

self-reported wellbeing average only
interviews with selected senior athletes
no evidence from travel, education or temporary staff
adjustments granted only after public crisis
unresolved repeated overload

Audit methods

Independent protected interviews, schedule and decision sampling, high-risk-context review, privacy assessment and CAPA verification.

Evidence validity

Current certification cycle and evidence across previous 12-24 months or at least one full operating cycle.

Proposed failure

Major for inconsistent or inaccessible demand management. Critical for retaliation, coercion, deliberate unsafe overload, evidence manipulation or current grave risk.

CAPA and decision

Independent closure and demonstrated effectiveness required before certification.

Expert review

Independent operations, occupational/clinical, lived-experience, equality and assurance review required.

Sources and status

[S01, S02, S03, S11, S12, S15, S17] · Draft direction · Not started

P5.4

Approved working indicator

Transitions, injury and continuity of belonging

When my role, health, team or career changes, I receive timely information, humane treatment and a clear route to continuing support rather than being abruptly abandoned.

Construct

Preparation, communication, autonomy, support continuity and organisational responsibility during sporting and life transitions.

Core obligation

The organisation shall identify foreseeable transitions within the assessed scope, communicate and manage them with dignity, define support and continuity boundaries, and provide proportionate preparation, handoff and follow-up for people affected by entry, relocation, injury, illness, selection change, deselection, contract change, transfer, retirement or other major change.

Boundary

P5.4 does not determine selection or contract outcomes. It owns how foreseeable transitions are prepared, communicated and supported. P1 owns access to professional support; P3 owns resources and policy; clinical teams own healthcare decisions.

Bronze

P5.4-BR

Foreseeable transitions and minimum support are defined

People know what changes when status changes and who remains responsible for the handoff.

Universal foundationMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll organisations; transition types routed by scope.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall identify the foreseeable transitions within its assessed scope; assign responsibility for preparation and communication; define minimum information, support-navigation, confidentiality and continuity expectations; and communicate clearly what support continues, changes or ends during injury, relocation, selection change, deselection, contract or scholarship change, transfer and retirement where applicable.

Intent: To prevent people losing belonging, information and support at the exact moment their sporting status becomes uncertain or ends.

Minimum acceptable evidence

transition map
owner and backup
athlete/staff-facing guidance
decision-communication standards
support and referral boundaries
injury/relocation/deselection/retirement information
consent/privacy rules
external resources

Evidence that is not sufficient

retirement leaflet only
transition support available only after long service
no deselection process
support described as discretionary
clinical care ends without handoff because selection ended

Audit methods

Review mapped transitions and actual scope · walk through one common and one high-risk transition · interview owners · assess communication, confidentiality and support boundaries.

Evidence validity

Current and reviewed at least annually and after material programme, contract, funding, education or healthcare change.

Proposed failure

Major for omitted material transitions, no owner or abrupt foreseeable loss of essential support without handoff. Critical for retaliation, coercion, discriminatory exclusion or deliberate abandonment during current serious risk.

CAPA and decision

Major closed before any badge through defined responsibilities, communication and viable continuity arrangements; a future programme plan is insufficient for current affected people.

Expert review

Lived-experience, athlete-career/transition, clinical, equality, employment/contract and operational review required.

Sources and status

[S03, S10, S11, S12, S13, S15, S21] · Draft direction · Not started

Silver

P5.4-SI

Transitions are managed through humane and practical processes

People receive timely communication, a supported handoff and reasonable follow-up.

Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; individual planning proportionate and voluntary.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall operate transition processes that provide timely and respectful communication, allow reasonable questions, identify immediate wellbeing or practical needs, offer relevant education/career and support navigation, arrange safe handoff where services or responsibilities change and provide proportionate follow-up. The person shall not be required to disclose unnecessary health information or publicly endorse the organisation to receive support.

Intent: To turn transition policy into a humane process that protects autonomy and continuity while remaining clear about organisational boundaries.

Minimum acceptable evidence

transition checklists and role aids
redacted plans or case samples
communication timing and records
support/referral handoff
education/career resources
follow-up
complaint/alternative route
privacy and consent evidence

Evidence that is not sufficient

automated email only
decision communicated publicly before the person
support conditional on social-media silence
coach gives clinical advice
no handoff after relocation or funding loss

Audit methods

Sample a recent or simulated transition · compare planned and actual communication · interview people who manage and have experienced transitions · review handoff, follow-up and privacy.

Evidence validity

Current operating cycle; sample normally previous 12 months or all transitions where fewer.

Proposed failure

Major for systemic abrupt or disrespectful process, unsafe discontinuity or unequal access. Critical for coercion, retaliation, deliberate public exposure or abandonment during grave risk.

CAPA and decision

Major closed through corrected process, support and evidence from subsequent or reconstructed application; apology alone may not prove system change.

Expert review

Lived-experience, transition/career, clinical, employment/contract, privacy and audit review required.

Sources and status

[S03, S10, S11, S12, S13, S21] · Draft direction · Not started

Gold

P5.4-GO

Transition experiences and outcomes drive improvement

The organisation identifies who is abandoned or disadvantaged and changes the system.

Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold/Diamond; follow-up and analysis proportionate to relationship and privacy.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall monitor transition experience, support access, failed handoffs, education/employment continuity, involuntary transition risk, complaints and protected feedback without requiring unnecessary personal disclosure. It shall identify unequal outcomes or recurring barriers, involve affected people safely and improve communication, preparation, support and programme design with effectiveness evidence.

Intent: To prevent the organisation from judging transition quality only by whether the administrative decision was completed.

Minimum acceptable evidence

aggregate transition register
protected exit/alumni feedback
handoff failures
subgroup and involuntary-transition analysis
education/career outcomes where appropriate
programme changes
leadership review
repeat evidence

Evidence that is not sufficient

only successful alumni stories
no contact with deselected people
raw health outcomes used for performance analysis
low uptake interpreted as no need
feedback collected by the selector alone

Audit methods

Review methodology and privacy · sample involuntary and voluntary transitions · trace one finding to system change and repeat evidence · test whether lower-status and short-tenure people are included.

Evidence validity

At least annual review and after material funding, programme, provider or contract model change.

Proposed failure

Major for known transition abandonment, inequity or repeated failed continuity left uncorrected. Critical for retaliation, coercion, discriminatory exclusion, deliberate harmful disclosure or concealment.

CAPA and decision

Major closed through verified system and transition changes plus repeat evidence.

Expert review

Measurement, lived-experience, transition/career, clinical, equality, privacy and governance review required.

Sources and status

[S03, S10, S11, S12, S13, S15, S21] · Draft direction · Not started

Diamond

P5.4-DI

Transition support is independently corroborated

Recent entry, injury, deselection and retirement experiences match the stated process.

Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; sample includes relevant recent involuntary and lower-power transitions.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall demonstrate through independent review and protected evidence from recent transitions that preparation, communication, support boundaries, continuity and follow-up are implemented consistently across the assessed scope. The sample shall include involuntary or difficult transitions where present and confirm that support is not conditioned on silence, image protection or continued selection status beyond clearly stated boundaries.

Intent: To verify transition quality through the experiences most likely to reveal abandonment, power imbalance or misleading claims.

Minimum acceptable evidence

independent transition sample
protected interviews
case/handoff review
timing and communication records
involuntary-transition evidence
support-boundary clarity
programme improvements
independently closed findings

Evidence that is not sufficient

current athlete testimonials only
successful retirees selected by communications staff
no deselection or short-tenure sample
interview invitation sent through selector
unresolved unsafe discontinuity

Audit methods

Independent protected interviews, case and communication sampling, cross-transition comparison, external route verification and CAPA review.

Evidence validity

Current certification cycle and evidence across previous 12-24 months or sufficient recent transition volume.

Proposed failure

Major for inconsistent, inaccessible or misleading transition support. Critical for retaliation, coercion, deliberate abandonment in grave risk, evidence manipulation or harmful disclosure.

CAPA and decision

Independent closure and, where needed, repeat transition sampling before certification.

Expert review

Independent transition/lived-experience, clinical, privacy and assurance review required.

Sources and status

[S03, S10, S11, S12, S13, S15, S21] · Draft direction · Not started

P5.5

Approved working indicator

Climate assessment, feedback and continuous improvement

The organisation asks how the environment actually feels, protects people who answer, hears from those with less power and shows what changed as a result.

Construct

Safe culture measurement, representation, response bias, protected feedback, triangulation, action and transparent system-level learning.

Core obligation

The organisation shall assess cultural and psychosocial conditions through proportionate, accessible and privacy-protective methods; seek representative evidence including lower-power and under-represented voices; triangulate findings; act on material risks; and communicate system-level learning without exposing individuals.

Boundary

P5.5 owns climate assessment and cultural improvement. P3.4 owns formal governance participation and co-design. P4 owns complaints and safeguarding cases. Individual clinical screening is governed by Pillar 1 and routed clinical requirements.

Bronze

P5.5-BR

A safe culture-feedback route exists

People can describe the environment without being forced to disclose personal health information.

Universal foundationMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll organisations; method proportionate to size and privacy risk.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall provide at least one accessible method for people in the assessed scope to give protected feedback about culture, psychological safety, demands, inclusion and transitions. It shall explain purpose, voluntariness, confidentiality or anonymity limits, data access, how findings are escalated and how participants will hear what the organisation did in response.

Intent: To create a credible evidence route without turning culture assessment into compulsory screening or surveillance.

Minimum acceptable evidence

feedback method and questions/topics
privacy notice
voluntary-participation wording
access controls
escalation/action process
communication
alternative format
owner and review date
small-group protection rules

Evidence that is not sufficient

annual satisfaction survey only
mandatory mental-health questionnaire
coach receives individual answers
no action process
anonymous promise that cannot be kept in a team of five
no feedback to participants

Audit methods

Review method and privacy · test the participant journey · inspect access and small-group rules · interview owner · assess whether topics cover power, retaliation and demands rather than only satisfaction.

Evidence validity

Current and reviewed before each cycle and after material data, scope, technology or legal change.

Proposed failure

Major if no safe route exists, participation is compulsory or data access is materially unsafe. Critical for deliberate re-identification, retaliation, harmful disclosure or use in individual performance decisions.

CAPA and decision

Major closed before any badge through safe redesign, communication and access testing; previously collected unsafe data must be contained and handled lawfully.

Expert review

Measurement, privacy/legal, lived-experience, accessibility and safeguarding review required.

Sources and status

[S01, S02, S04, S07, S08, S13, S16, S20] · Draft direction · Not started

Silver

P5.5-SI

The feedback cycle operates and produces action

The organisation collects evidence, identifies material findings and closes the loop.

Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; frequency proportionate to operating cycle and risk.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall operate a regular culture-feedback cycle using accessible methods, monitor participation and material gaps, distinguish urgent or safeguarding disclosures from aggregate feedback, document findings and owners, take proportionate action and communicate system-level responses to participants. Non-participation shall not create disadvantage.

Intent: To move from a survey tool to a functioning listening and improvement process.

Minimum acceptable evidence

completed feedback cycle
participation and missing-group review
urgent-disclosure route
anonymised findings
action plan, owners and dates
communication back
alternative listening methods
evidence of voluntary participation

Evidence that is not sufficient

response rate only
no plan for concerning comments
leaders see raw identity-linked data
repeated survey with no action
non-responders chased by coaches
results communicated only as positive highlights

Audit methods

Review one full cycle from design to response · sample material findings and action · test urgent-routing and access · interview participants on safety and whether feedback was acknowledged.

Evidence validity

Current operating cycle; normally at least one completed cycle within previous 12 months for Silver and above, subject to pilot review.

Proposed failure

Major for unsafe administration, no action on material findings, exclusion of key populations or misleading reporting. Critical for retaliation, re-identification or concealment of grave harm.

CAPA and decision

Major closed through safe cycle completion and evidence of action and participant feedback; commissioning another survey alone is insufficient.

Expert review

Measurement, privacy, lived-experience, operations and audit review required.

Sources and status

[S01, S02, S04, S07, S08, S13, S16] · Draft direction · Not started

Gold

P5.5-GO

Climate evidence is triangulated and improvement is verified

The organisation tests what the data misses and whether action changes the environment.

Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold/Diamond; analysis proportionate to size and re-identification risk.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall triangulate culture feedback with protected interviews, route use, transition and exit themes, demand data, accessibility findings, turnover and relevant safeguarding or complaint patterns. It shall examine response bias, silence, subgroup and site differences; prioritise material risks; implement system changes; and repeat appropriate evidence to assess effectiveness.

Intent: To prevent false reassurance from one survey score and ensure that lower response or silence is treated as evidence to investigate rather than ignore.

Minimum acceptable evidence

multi-source climate review
response-bias and subgroup analysis
small-number controls
protected interview themes
risk prioritisation
leadership action
repeated measures or qualitative verification
transparent system-level report

Evidence that is not sufficient

benchmark score without local context
combining tiny groups that expose identities
no examination of non-response
action chosen only for easy wins
public report that hides material limitations

Audit methods

Review methods, triangulation and privacy · trace one priority risk through action and repeat evidence · compare sites/groups · inspect leadership decisions and communications.

Evidence validity

At least annual integrated review and after serious cultural, safeguarding, leadership or organisational change.

Proposed failure

Major for invalid or unsafe measurement, ignored material risk, lack of action or misleading transparency. Critical for deliberate manipulation, retaliation, concealment or harmful re-identification.

CAPA and decision

Major closed through corrected method, verified action and repeat evidence.

Expert review

Measurement, privacy, lived-experience, safeguarding, governance and communications review required.

Sources and status

[S01, S02, S04, S07, S08, S13, S16, S19] · Draft direction · Not started

Diamond

P5.5-DI

Culture evidence and improvement are independently verified

Independent assurance confirms that the organisation hears difficult evidence and changes.

Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; sampling selected independently and protected from management influence.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall demonstrate through independent methodological review, protected interviews and evidence sampling that its climate assessment is credible, inclusive, privacy-protective and capable of surfacing difficult or negative evidence; that leadership acts on material findings; and that communicated learning is accurate about progress and limitations. No open major or critical P5.5 finding may remain.

Intent: To ensure that Diamond culture claims are supported by independent evidence rather than organisation-controlled surveys and narratives.

Minimum acceptable evidence

independent method review
sampling rationale
protected interviews
access/privacy test
negative and positive evidence
action and effectiveness sample
public/internal learning report
independently closed findings

Evidence that is not sufficient

consultant report commissioned and edited by management without method transparency
only high-scoring teams sampled
raw data unnecessarily shared
no evidence of difficult findings
unresolved manipulation concern

Audit methods

Independent method and privacy review, protected participant sampling, cross-source triangulation, leadership-action verification and communications accuracy review.

Evidence validity

Current certification cycle with evidence across previous 12-24 months and at least one complete improvement cycle.

Proposed failure

Major for unreliable, unrepresentative or ineffective climate assurance. Critical for retaliation, deliberate data manipulation, concealment, evidence interference or harmful re-identification.

CAPA and decision

Independent closure and, where necessary, repeated protected evidence before certification.

Expert review

Independent measurement, privacy, lived-experience, safeguarding and assurance review required.

Sources and status

[S01, S02, S04, S07, S08, S13, S16, S19] · Draft direction · Not started

Evidence and protected participation

Culture cannot be certified from management interviews and a survey score.

Confirm the scope, power relationships, high-demand periods, transitions and populations with less power or elevated risk.

Review standards, calendars, transition arrangements, feedback methods and evidence of implementation.

Select protected samples independently and include lower-power, injured, transitioning, non-permanent and under-represented groups where applicable.

Use neutral questions, voluntary participation and privacy protections; management must not attend, coach answers or identify contributors.

Triangulate participant evidence with schedules, adjustments, transitions, route use, turnover and leadership actions.

Follow immediate clinical, safeguarding or legal duties when current danger or serious harm is disclosed.

The source register contains 21 records. Sources inform the working architecture; they do not automatically become legal duties or final certification rules.

Controlled routing

The cultural floor is universal; the implementation follows the real context.

Small and volunteer-led organisation

Activates when: Small workforce, close relationships or combined roles.

External conflict-safe feedback, federation support, simple demand/transition mapping, privacy in tiny groups and realistic volunteer workload controls.

Minors and development pathways

Activates when: Children, young people, academies or talent pathways.

Developmentally appropriate rights, guardian boundaries, education balance, growth/body-image risk, non-coercive consent and age-safe feedback.

Professional and high-performance environments

Activates when: Selection, contracts, scholarships, funding or major performance power.

Explicit selection/contract protection, dual-role controls, public/media pressure, high-demand cycles, injured/deselected samples and independent cultural evidence.

Education, employment and dual career

Activates when: Athletes combine sport with study, work or caring responsibilities.

Coordinated calendars, protected study/work commitments, institutional interfaces, reasonable adjustments and long-term development.

Injury, illness and return to sport

Activates when: Medical restriction, rehabilitation or prolonged absence occurs.

Belonging during absence, clinical independence, communication choices, workload/return boundaries and protection from pressure or stigma.

Deselection, contract change, transfer and retirement

Activates when: Status, funding, team or career ends or changes.

Advance information where possible, humane communication, support handoff, career/education navigation, alumni options and no silence conditions.

Residential, travel, camps and events

Activates when: Overnight stays, host settings, isolated locations or temporary events.

Rest and contact expectations, room/travel dignity, local cultural risks, temporary leadership, reduced-supervision feedback and post-event learning.

Inclusion and under-represented groups

Activates when: Material identity, disability, language, migration, religion, gender or socioeconomic factors affect experience.

Accessible methods, reasonable adjustment, identity-based risk analysis, representative samples and involvement of affected groups without tokenism.

Digital, media, commercial and public exposure

Activates when: Social media, betting, sponsorship, media duties or online contact create pressure.

Contact boundaries, online abuse support, consent for personal stories, commercial-demand coordination and protection from compulsory disclosure or branding.

A10

Federation, league and multi-site systems

Activates when: Central body relies on members, regions, franchises or sites.

Minimum cultural standards, local data protection, central support, risk-based sampling, escalation, member improvement and no headquarters-only assurance.

Question-bank boundary

Twenty requirements are ready. The scored instrument is not.

Translate requirements into separate instruments. An applicant response can route and score evidence, but it cannot replace document review, protected participation, audit sampling or independent judgement.

Important: The final 100–150-item cross-pillar bank is not contained in this source pack. Pillar 5 supplies twenty controlled requirement records and example Diamond prompts; formal scored items still require expert authoring, bias review, translation, cognitive testing and pilot calibration.

Applicant-scored items

Short, routed and evidence-linked

Measures whether a claimed control exists and how it operates without inviting unnecessary personal disclosure.

Context selectors

Unscored routing

Activates addenda for minors, residential settings, high-performance power, transitions, digital exposure and other relevant contexts.

Evidence requests

Requirement-linked

Collects the records needed to test implementation, validity, scope and corrective action.

Auditor prompts

Unscored assurance

Tests difficult cases, negative evidence, decision trails and cross-site consistency.

Protected corroboration

Voluntary and non-marketing

Tests whether lower-power participants experience the culture described by the organisation.

Open expert decisions

01
Confirm clinical, safeguarding, equality, employment, legal and privacy boundaries for every requirement.
02
Set the minimum Bronze evidence without reducing culture to a policy or forcing small organisations to run unsafe surveys.
03
Define retaliation, performance disadvantage and critical-finding thresholds across jurisdictions.
04
Agree privacy rules for small groups, non-response, subgroup analysis and protected interviews.
05
Calibrate demand-management evidence without turning MindsMelt into a sport-science load standard.
06
Define transition-support duration and organisational boundaries after deselection, contract loss or retirement.
07
Test Diamond sampling, evidential weight and inter-rater consistency during the pilot.

What is connected now

Public requirement model

All five indicators and twenty requirement records are inspectable on this page.

Controlled database

Working framework v1.2 records the 25-indicator architecture and all 100 stage requirements while preserving published v1.0.

Question bank

The current 35-item starter bank remains explicitly legacy. New items will be linked to requirements and promoted only after expert and pilot review.

All five pillar packs are now structurally complete.

The next phase is controlled instrument development: expert disposition, cross-pillar deduplication, question authoring, translation, cognitive interviews, scoring calibration and a monitored pilot.

Help review the model All requirements