10
contrôles de sécurité non compensables
Standard pilote v0.9 · Pilier 4
Le pire jour, personne ne doit improviser.
Le pire jour, l’organisation sait déjà quoi faire — et les personnes qui comptent sur elle savaient où aller avant d’en avoir besoin.
Proposition de travail complète — pas un standard de certification approuvé.
Des experts cliniques, protection, juridiques, vie privée, expérience vécue, opérationnels, mesure et gouvernance doivent la tester avant adoption.
Traduction experte encore requise
Les titres, résultats et explications de navigation sont traduits pour l’examen. Le texte normatif détaillé reste en anglais afin de ne pas présenter une traduction clinique et juridique non validée comme définitive.
5
indicateurs du pilier 4
20
exigences cumulatives par niveau
10
modules activés selon le risque
Objectif
Réponse à la crise et protection
Les organisations sportives savent reconnaître, escalader et traiter les urgences de santé mentale et de protection grâce à des systèmes clairs, légaux, testés et compréhensibles.
Décision d’architecture enregistrée
P4.5 a été approuvé le 15 juillet 2026. La version de travail 1.1 contient désormais cinq indicateurs pour le pilier 4 et vingt-et-un au total ; les exigences détaillées nécessitent encore une validation experte.
Socle minimal de sécurité
La sécurité est un plancher, pas un score.
Chaque contrôle applicable doit être présent avant d’envisager un badge de parcours ou la certification Diamond. Une force ailleurs ne compense pas une garantie manquante.
MSF-01Accountable leads and conflict-safe backup
There are named, competent people responsible for crisis response and safeguarding — and a route that still works if one of them is absent or implicated.
Accountable leads and conflict-safe backup
There are named, competent people responsible for crisis response and safeguarding — and a route that still works if one of them is absent or implicated.
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall appoint accountable safeguarding and crisis-response leads, define their authority and competence, provide conflict-safe backups, and maintain governing accountability.
Peut démontrer la pratique
- Current appointment records and role descriptions
- Competence records
- Backup and absence arrangements
- Reporting line and conflict route
Non suffisant
- Unnamed responsibility
- One person with no backup
- A route controlled by the person complained about
Conséquence proposée : Proposed major if absent or ineffective; potentially critical where conflict, retaliation, concealment or grave danger is involved.
MSF-02Clear crisis and safeguarding procedures
The organisation has connected but distinct routes for urgent mental-health concerns, immediate danger and safeguarding reports.
Clear crisis and safeguarding procedures
The organisation has connected but distinct routes for urgent mental-health concerns, immediate danger and safeguarding reports.
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall maintain current, accessible and operational procedures covering urgent mental-health and self-harm or suicide concerns, immediate danger, safeguarding disclosures, emergency action, confidentiality limits, records, external escalation, handoff and post-incident support.
Peut démontrer la pratique
- Controlled procedures and quick-reference role aids
- Approval and version history
- Local jurisdictional addenda
- Communication records
Non suffisant
- A generic physical emergency plan
- A hotline poster without roles
- One combined workflow that confuses clinical and safeguarding decisions
Conséquence proposée : Proposed major if absent or materially incomplete; potentially critical for deliberate non-activation during grave danger or concealment.
MSF-03Current urgent-help and emergency information
People know where to go, in the right country and language, and the information is still correct.
Current urgent-help and emergency information
People know where to go, in the right country and language, and the information is still correct.
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall provide and actively communicate current emergency, crisis, safeguarding and qualified-support information wherever people train, compete, travel, reside or use the organisation remotely, with a named owner and verification cycle.
Peut démontrer la pratique
- Controlled contact register and verification log
- Website, app, venue and travel materials
- Onboarding records
- Accessible alternative formats
Non suffisant
- A stale poster or dead link
- Information hidden behind a login
- A website page with no evidence people were informed
Conséquence proposée : Proposed major if no usable route exists or material coverage is stale; dangerously wrong information may be critical.
MSF-04Protected reporting and non-retaliation
People can report harm without being forced through the person involved, and speaking up cannot cost them selection, work or standing.
Protected reporting and non-retaliation
People can report harm without being forced through the person involved, and speaking up cannot cost them selection, work or standing.
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall operate visible confidential reporting routes, including a conflict-safe alternative; explain anonymity and confidentiality limits honestly; restrict access; prohibit retaliation and performance disadvantage; and define urgent escalation.
Peut démontrer la pratique
- Reporting channels and athlete-facing guidance
- Conflict-safe alternative route
- Anti-retaliation rule
- Access matrix and handling procedure
Non suffisant
- “Talk to your coach” as the only route
- A shared performance inbox
- Absolute secrecy promises
- A code of conduct with no reporting process
Conséquence proposée : Proposed major if inaccessible or conflict-prone; retaliation, intimidation, suppression or witness interference is proposed as critical.
MSF-05Role boundaries and access to qualified help
Coaches and staff support and refer; they do not diagnose, treat beyond competence or use a score to decide that help is unnecessary.
Role boundaries and access to qualified help
Coaches and staff support and refer; they do not diagnose, treat beyond competence or use a score to decide that help is unnecessary.
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall define role boundaries, prohibit unqualified clinical assessment or treatment, prohibit non-clinical risk scoring as a reason to withhold escalation, and maintain real routes to appropriately qualified professional and emergency help.
Peut démontrer la pratique
- Role-boundary statements and referral criteria
- Provider qualification checks
- Staff learning and supervision
- Current escalation routes
Non suffisant
- An unverified provider name
- A coach-administered “low-risk” checklist
- Uncommunicated referral boundaries
Conséquence proposée : Proposed major for systemic boundary failure; unsafe unqualified clinical practice or deliberate false reassurance may be critical.
MSF-06Immediate safety and emergency escalation
When serious danger may be present, the organisation protects immediate safety and calls the right emergency help rather than waiting for certainty.
Immediate safety and emergency escalation
When serious danger may be present, the organisation protects immediate safety and calls the right emergency help rather than waiting for certainty.
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall prioritise emergency services, immediate physical safety, compassionate supervision appropriate to the situation, safe transfer, continuity and proportionate protection from relevant hazards when immediate danger or serious medical compromise is suspected.
Peut démontrer la pratique
- Emergency algorithm and site/travel arrangements
- Relevant drills
- Incident and handoff records
- Routed hazard controls
Non suffisant
- Waiting for a non-clinical score
- Leaving a person alone during known immediate danger
- Punitive isolation or automatic long-term exclusion
Conséquence proposée : Ignoring known immediate danger, intentionally delaying emergency help or knowingly maintaining unsafe access may be critical.
MSF-07Sensitive-information protection
Mental-health, help-seeking and safeguarding information is only seen and used by people who genuinely need it — and is not quietly turned into a selection tool.
Sensitive-information protection
Mental-health, help-seeking and safeguarding information is only seen and used by people who genuinely need it — and is not quietly turned into a selection tool.
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall collect and share only necessary information; define lawful authority, consent and emergency exceptions; restrict access; separate protected information from performance, employment and selection decisions unless necessary, lawful and transparent; and define retention, deletion, rights and breach response.
Peut démontrer la pratique
- Privacy notice and record of processing
- Access matrix and logs
- Retention schedule and secure case system
- Redaction, breach and athlete-rights procedures
Non suffisant
- A generic privacy notice
- Health details in informal messages
- Unrestricted performance-staff access
- Treating consent as the answer to every power imbalance
Conséquence proposée : Proposed major for inadequate controls or unnecessary access; deliberate harmful disclosure, retaliation or systemic exposure may be critical.
MSF-08Serious-incident recording, escalation and case control
Serious events are recorded safely, the right people and authorities are told, conflicts are managed and there is an auditable decision trail.
Serious-incident recording, escalation and case control
Serious events are recorded safely, the right people and authorities are told, conflicts are managed and there is an auditable decision trail.
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall define serious incidents; record material facts, decisions and actions with restricted access; preserve evidence lawfully; manage conflicts; notify appropriate internal and external authorities within applicable timeframes; and maintain an auditable trail through closure.
Peut démontrer la pratique
- Serious-incident definition and restricted case register
- Escalation matrix and notification log
- Conflict declarations
- Access logs and closure rationale
Non suffisant
- Incidents scattered across personal inboxes
- The accused person controlling the case
- No record of safety decisions
- Claiming no process is needed because no incident was recorded
Conséquence proposée : Proposed major for material record or escalation failure; concealment, destruction, retaliation or failure of an urgent legal duty may be critical.
MSF-09Role-appropriate training and rehearsal
The people around athletes know what to notice, what to do, what not to do and who to contact — and they have demonstrated it, not just attended a course.
Role-appropriate training and rehearsal
The people around athletes know what to notice, what to do, what not to do and who to contact — and they have demonstrated it, not just attended a course.
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall provide induction and current role-specific learning for relevant staff, volunteers and contractors on recognition, boundaries, reporting, emergency action, confidentiality and non-retaliation; require safety-critical roles to rehearse relevant scenarios; and correct competence gaps.
Peut démontrer la pratique
- Role and competence matrix
- Training content and completion records
- Observed scenarios or knowledge checks
- Remediation and duty restrictions
Non suffisant
- One generic course for every role
- Attendance without competence checks
- Excluding volunteers
- No action after a failed scenario
Conséquence proposée : Proposed major for systemic lack of coverage or capability; known incompetence left in a safety-critical role may become critical.
MSF-10Post-incident support and system learning
The response does not end when the emergency or report is transferred. People are supported, the organisation learns without blaming them, and action is checked.
Post-incident support and system learning
The response does not end when the emergency or report is transferred. People are supported, the organisation learns without blaming them, and action is checked.
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall offer proportionate immediate and follow-up support to affected people, reporters, witnesses and responders; protect choice and privacy; separate welfare support from investigation; review serious incidents and near misses for contributing factors and system causes; assign corrective action; and verify effectiveness.
Peut démontrer la pratique
- Support procedure and offer records
- Separation of welfare and investigation roles
- Redacted system review and CAPA
- Implementation evidence and re-test
Non suffisant
- Compulsory group debriefs
- Coach-led questioning framed as support
- Blaming the affected person
- A new policy with no implementation
Conséquence proposée : Proposed major for absent support or review after a serious event; blame, coercion, retaliation, concealment or renewed danger may be critical.
Intégrité du dispositif
Non noté comme maturité. Toujours obligatoire pour la confiance.
SI-01
Cooperation and protected participation
The organisation shall provide truthful information and reasonable access for assessment, audit, complaints and protected corroboration; shall not coach, intimidate, identify or penalise participants; and shall declare relevant conflicts of interest.
Conséquence proposée : Obstruction, witness influence, retaliation or evidence manipulation is proposed as critical.
SI-02
Truthful disclosure and material-change notification
The organisation shall disclose required incidents, investigations, sanctions and material risks fairly and shall notify MindsMelt of defined material changes during the life of any public recognition.
Conséquence proposée : Knowing concealment or falsehood is proposed as critical; a late but good-faith notification may be major.
SI-03
Accurate pathway and certification claims
The organisation shall describe only the status, stage, assessed scope, dates and meaning it has actually earned. Bronze, Silver and Gold must never be described as certification.
Conséquence proposée : Persistent or deliberate misrepresentation may lead to removal, suspension or revocation.
P4.1
Réponse à la crise et sécurité immédiate
Lorsqu’une urgence de santé mentale ou un risque d’automutilation ou de suicide survient, l’organisation agit rapidement, avec compassion et dans les limites de chaque rôle afin de protéger la sécurité immédiate et mobiliser une aide qualifiée ou urgente.
Construit
The organisation’s rehearsed capability to respond safely to acute mental-health concerns and immediate danger.
Obligation centrale
Maintain and operate a country- and context-appropriate crisis-response system defining recognition triggers, immediate safety actions, emergency activation, roles and backups, qualified handoff, confidentiality limits, records, after-hours and travel arrangements and follow-up — without requiring non-clinical diagnosis or risk scoring.
Limite
P4.1 owns acute response, preparedness and immediate safety. Routine access belongs mainly in Pillar 1; training-system governance in Pillar 2; post-incident learning in P4.5.
MSF-02MSF-03MSF-05MSF-06
BronzeP4.1-BR
Current crisis and immediate-safety response protocol
Operating safety baseline
P4.1-BR
Current crisis and immediate-safety response protocol
Operating safety baseline
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall maintain and communicate a current, accessible and country-appropriate protocol for urgent mental-health concerns, possible self-harm or suicide, recent attempts and immediate danger. The protocol shall define recognition triggers, immediate safety actions, emergency-service activation, responsible roles and backups, qualified handoff, confidentiality limits, minimum records, after-hours and travel arrangements, and post-incident follow-up. Non-clinical personnel shall not diagnose or use a risk score to decide that escalation is unnecessary.
Preuves minimales acceptables
- Approved protocol and one-page role aid
- Jurisdiction-specific emergency and crisis contacts
- Named owner and backup
- Athlete-readable version and communication evidence
- Version and scope history
Preuves non suffisantes
- Generic physical emergency plan
- Hotline poster without roles
- Copied template with wrong local services
- Coach-used “low-risk” checklist
- Policy that assumes self-referral
Comment MindsMelt le testerait
Document review · Owner walkthrough · Frontline scenario interview · Contact verification
Validité des preuves
Protocol reviewed within 12 months and after a serious incident or material change; contacts verified within three months and before new travel or event contexts.
Niveau d’écart proposé
Major if absent or materially incomplete. Potentially critical if known immediate danger is ignored, emergency action intentionally delayed or non-clinical scoring withholds escalation.
Revue experte requise
Clinical, suicide-prevention, safeguarding, jurisdictional legal, lived-experience and operational review. · S01–S08, S14; I01–I03
ArgentP4.1-SI
Operational activation and rehearsal of the crisis protocol
Operational and recorded
P4.1-SI
Operational activation and rehearsal of the crisis protocol
Operational and recorded
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall operationalise the crisis protocol through current role assignments, accessible role aids, verified contact routes, defined availability and handoff arrangements, recorded induction and at least one relevant rehearsal or structured scenario exercise during the operating year. Activations, exercises and identified failures shall be recorded and assigned corrective action.
Preuves minimales acceptables
- Role and availability rota
- Completed exercise record
- Training and induction records
- Redacted activation or near-miss records
- Corrective action and re-test
Preuves non suffisantes
- Attendance-only training
- Exercise with no findings
- Untested contact list
- Reliance on one unavailable person
- Claims that staff simply know what to do
Comment MindsMelt le testerait
Observe or review a scenario · Sample role coverage · Check contact activation · Review remediation · Interview frontline roles
Validité des preuves
Current operating cycle; exercise normally within the previous 12 months and after a material protocol failure or change.
Niveau d’écart proposé
Major for systemic lack of readiness or no viable backup; minor for an isolated documentation gap where competence and the route remain demonstrable.
Revue experte requise
Clinical, safeguarding and operational exercise-design review. · S04, S06, S08, S09, S14
OrP4.1-GO
Risk-based crisis planning and context-specific prevention
Systematic and improving
P4.1-GO
Risk-based crisis planning and context-specific prevention
Systematic and improving
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall maintain a risk-based crisis programme covering foreseeable scenarios across sites, travel, competition, residence, remote contact and relevant hazards; verify responder coverage and emergency handoff across those contexts; and maintain controlled addenda for high-risk environments. Where people may access firearms, medicines, vehicles, heights, water or other potentially lethal means, a lawful, proportionate and clinically reviewed safety addendum shall define immediate controls without automatic punishment or unnecessary disclosure.
Preuves minimales acceptables
- Scenario and context risk register
- Multi-site and travel addenda
- Means-safety addendum where routed
- Trend and governance review
- Retested corrective action
Preuves non suffisantes
- Generic risk register
- Automatic punitive exclusion
- Unsafe public operational detail
- Statistics with no action
- Review limited to procedural compliance
Comment MindsMelt le testerait
Risk-register review · Exercises across contexts · Redacted trend review · Leadership minutes · CAPA effectiveness check
Validité des preuves
Reviewed at least annually and after serious incident, major event, new jurisdiction or material change.
Niveau d’écart proposé
Major for a missing high-risk addendum or repeated uncorrected failures; potentially critical where known hazard access is deliberately unmanaged during immediate danger.
Revue experte requise
Clinical, means-safety or domain, legal, safeguarding and lived-experience review. · S01–S08, S14
DiamondP4.1-DI
Independently verified crisis-response reliability
Embedded and independently verified
P4.1-DI
Independently verified crisis-response reliability
Embedded and independently verified
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall demonstrate through independent review that its crisis-response system is consistently implemented across the assessed scope. Review shall include protected interviews, observation or reconstruction of at least one relevant exercise, sampling of redacted activations or near misses where available, verification of external routes, and evidence that leadership has addressed systemic weaknesses. No open critical or major crisis-response finding may remain.
Preuves minimales acceptables
- Independent audit and sampling rationale
- Observed or independently reviewed exercise
- Protected athlete and frontline corroboration
- Redacted case or near-miss sample
- Verified improvements
Preuves non suffisantes
- Selected testimonials only
- Policy-only audit
- Management present during interviews
- Unnecessary raw clinical notes
- No sampling outside the flagship team
Comment MindsMelt le testerait
Independent case sampling · Protected interviews · Observed scenario · External route verification · Cross-site consistency review
Validité des preuves
Normally the previous 12–24 months, adjusted for operating history and incident volume.
Niveau d’écart proposé
Major for inconsistent implementation, unreliable handoff or untrusted access; critical for concealment, retaliation, falsification or grave unaddressed danger.
Revue experte requise
Independent clinical and safeguarding auditor competence plus protected-interview protocol. · S04–S09, S13, S14
P4.2
Gouvernance de la protection, signalement protégé et maîtrise des dossiers
Les personnes peuvent signaler des faits de protection, d’abus, de coercition ou de conduite sans être exposées à un préjudice évitable, à des représailles ou au contrôle de la personne concernée.
Construit
A conflict-safe safeguarding system combining accountable roles, protected reporting, controlled triage, case governance, oversight and non-retaliation.
Obligation centrale
Operate a safeguarding system with competent accountable roles and backups, visible reporting and conflict routes, honest confidentiality limits, restricted records, fair triage and case control, external escalation where required, oversight and explicit protection from retaliation and performance disadvantage.
Limite
P4.2 owns operational reporting and case governance. Organisation-wide leadership accountability belongs mainly in Pillar 3; cultural prevention of abusive or coercive behaviour belongs mainly in Pillar 5.
MSF-01MSF-04MSF-07MSF-08
BronzeP4.2-BR
Safeguarding accountability and protected reporting
Operating safety baseline
P4.2-BR
Safeguarding accountability and protected reporting
Operating safety baseline
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall appoint a competent safeguarding-accountable officer and backup; provide visible reporting routes, including an alternative route where the primary officer or leadership may be implicated; explain confidentiality and anonymity limits; prohibit retaliation and performance disadvantage; define immediate-danger escalation; and restrict case information to authorised people.
Preuves minimales acceptables
- Role appointment and backup
- Athlete-facing reporting information
- Alternative conflict route
- Non-retaliation rule
- Restricted access and escalation procedure
Preuves non suffisantes
- Only a coach or manager can receive reports
- Performance-accessible inbox
- Absolute anonymity promises
- No leadership conflict route
- Code without a reporting process
Comment MindsMelt le testerait
Athlete-perspective walkthrough · Role and conflict interview · Access-control review · Communication sample
Validité des preuves
Appointments and routes current; communication evidence from the current season or programme.
Niveau d’écart proposé
Major if no usable or conflict-safe route exists; critical for retaliation, intimidation, suppression or exposure to grave harm.
Revue experte requise
Safeguarding, legal, privacy and lived-experience review. · S05, S09–S12, S14
ArgentP4.2-SI
Operational safeguarding triage and case management
Operational and recorded
P4.2-SI
Operational safeguarding triage and case management
Operational and recorded
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall operate a documented safeguarding triage and case-management process that records receipt, immediate safety decisions, conflict checks, acknowledgement, external referrals or notifications, investigation and disciplinary boundaries, updates, support, closure and retention. Case access and changes shall be auditable, and people handling cases shall have role-specific competence and supervision or specialist access.
Preuves minimales acceptables
- Case workflow and triage criteria
- Restricted case system
- Acknowledgement and status templates
- Conflict declarations
- Redacted case or scenario sample
- Specialist access
Preuves non suffisantes
- Personal email or message records
- No distinction from disciplinary investigation
- Accused person managing the complaint
- No safety-decision record
- No closure rationale
Comment MindsMelt le testerait
Redacted case or scenario sampling · Access-log review · Safeguarding-role interviews · External escalation and support review · Timeliness review
Validité des preuves
Current procedure; previous 12 months or every case if fewer; access controls current.
Niveau d’écart proposé
Major for systemic case-control, conflict or timeliness failure; critical for concealment, destruction, retaliation or knowingly unsafe allocation.
Revue experte requise
Safeguarding case management, legal fairness, privacy and audit review. · S05, S09–S12, S14
OrP4.2-GO
Safeguarding oversight, retaliation monitoring and route performance
Systematic and improving
P4.2-GO
Safeguarding oversight, retaliation monitoring and route performance
Systematic and improving
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall monitor safeguarding-system performance using protected aggregate information, including route use, response times, unresolved cases, conflicts, repeat concerns, retaliation indicators and accessibility barriers. Leadership shall receive proportionate reports, ensure corrective action and provide an independent escalation route for concerns involving senior leadership or the safeguarding function itself.
Preuves minimales acceptables
- Aggregate dashboard and definitions
- Governing or independent oversight
- Retaliation monitoring
- Independent escalation route
- Corrective-action feedback loop
Preuves non suffisantes
- Low complaint numbers treated as proof
- Identifiable case publication
- No analysis of non-use
- Unnecessary raw files to leadership
- No action on repeat concerns
Comment MindsMelt le testerait
Aggregate trend review · Leadership minutes · Protected feedback · Conflict scenario test · CAPA effectiveness review
Validité des preuves
At least annual system review, more frequently for active serious cases or high-risk programmes.
Niveau d’écart proposé
Major for absent oversight or repeated unaddressed patterns; critical for leadership interference, retaliation or concealment.
Revue experte requise
Safeguarding, governance, lived-experience, privacy and measurement review. · S05, S09, S10, S14
DiamondP4.2-DI
Conflict-safe and independently corroborated safeguarding system
Embedded and independently verified
P4.2-DI
Conflict-safe and independently corroborated safeguarding system
Embedded and independently verified
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall demonstrate through independent audit and protected participant evidence that safeguarding concerns can be raised and handled without inappropriate influence from coaching, selection, employment, commercial or senior leadership interests. Auditors shall sample case governance, access, conflict decisions, support and corrective action; test the alternative reporting route; and confirm that no unresolved major or critical safeguarding-system failure remains.
Preuves minimales acceptables
- Independent or externally overseen route
- Protected participant interviews
- Redacted case-governance sample
- Conflict and recusal records
- Independent closure of major findings
Preuves non suffisantes
- Conflicted internal hotline
- Management-selected or observed interviews
- No test of alternative route
- Only successful cases sampled
- Unresolved retaliation concerns
Comment MindsMelt le testerait
Independent case and access sampling · Protected interviews · Alternative-route test · Conflict and external-escalation review · Retaliation assessment
Validité des preuves
Normally the previous 12–24 months, adjusted for case volume and organisational history.
Niveau d’écart proposé
Major for unreliable independence, access or protection; critical for retaliation, witness manipulation, concealment or grave ongoing harm.
Revue experte requise
Independent safeguarding auditor, privacy and procedural-fairness review. · S05, S09–S12, S14
P4.3
Escalade externe, orientation et continuité
Lorsque l’organisation ne peut ou ne doit pas gérer la situation en interne, les personnes sont reliées en sécurité à une aide réelle, qualifiée, urgente ou statutaire, sans être abandonnées entre les services.
Construit
The reliability, qualification, accessibility and continuity of external and commissioned escalation routes.
Obligation centrale
Map, verify and operate external emergency, clinical, safeguarding, social-care and statutory routes; define activation, consent and minimum-information boundaries; support the person until handoff is complete; maintain backups for delay or failure; and monitor access and continuity across contexts.
Limite
P4.3 owns urgent, statutory, after-hours, travel and failed-handoff pathways. Routine support access and ordinary waiting-time management belong mainly in Pillar 1.
MSF-03MSF-05MSF-06MSF-07
BronzeP4.3-BR
Mapped external services and qualified escalation routes
Operating safety baseline
P4.3-BR
Mapped external services and qualified escalation routes
Operating safety baseline
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall maintain a current map of appropriate emergency, mental-health, safeguarding, social-care and other specialist services for the assessed scope; define when and how each route is activated; verify professional qualifications where services are represented as clinical; identify after-hours alternatives; and avoid claiming a formal partnership where only public contact details exist.
Preuves minimales acceptables
- Service and contact map
- Activation criteria and handoff role
- Qualification checks
- After-hours and backup routes
- Contact verification
- Accurate partnership claims
Preuves non suffisantes
- Saved search results
- One provider for every jurisdiction
- No after-hours option
- Wellbeing app called emergency care
- Partnership claim without agreement
Comment MindsMelt le testerait
Contact verification · Qualification sample · Jurisdiction walkthrough · After-hours review · Public-claim check
Validité des preuves
Contacts verified within three months and before new travel or events; provider status checked at engagement or renewal.
Niveau d’écart proposé
Major if no viable qualified or emergency route exists for material scope; minor for isolated stale information with safe backup.
Revue experte requise
Clinical, safeguarding, jurisdictional legal and accessibility review. · S04–S09, S13, S14
ArgentP4.3-SI
Tested handoff and continuity arrangements
Operational and recorded
P4.3-SI
Tested handoff and continuity arrangements
Operational and recorded
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall test or evidence its external handoff arrangements; define who contacts the service, what minimum information may be shared, how consent and emergency exceptions are handled, how the person is supported until responsibility is transferred, and how reasonable follow-up and continuity are maintained without demanding unnecessary clinical information.
Preuves minimales acceptables
- Handoff procedure and role allocation
- Test call or redacted referral sample
- Minimum-information guidance
- After-hours transfer plan
- Continuity record
- Failed-handoff route
Preuves non suffisantes
- Giving a phone number then closing the case
- Sending full files
- No acceptance confirmation
- No travel backup
- Coach requesting diagnosis details
Comment MindsMelt le testerait
Redacted handoff review · Unavailable-provider scenario · Privacy check · Referral-role interview · Continuity sample
Validité des preuves
Current operating cycle; at least one test or activation within 12 months and after material change.
Niveau d’écart proposé
Major for systemic failed handoff, abandonment or excessive disclosure; potentially critical where deliberate delay or disclosure creates grave harm.
Revue experte requise
Clinical handoff, privacy, safeguarding and operational review. · S04, S06, S08, S11–S14
OrP4.3-GO
Capacity, backup and cross-context continuity
Systematic and improving
P4.3-GO
Capacity, backup and cross-context continuity
Systematic and improving
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall monitor whether external and commissioned services are reachable, appropriately qualified, culturally and linguistically accessible, and capable of meeting expected demand. It shall maintain backup routes for service failure or delay, review waiting and escalation boundaries, define continuity across travel or transitions, and take corrective action where access barriers are identified.
Preuves minimales acceptables
- Capacity and waiting review
- Provider and backup matrix
- Language and accessibility plan
- Service confirmations
- Barrier and failure trends
- Corrective commissioning
Preuves non suffisantes
- Contract treated as proof of access
- No rejected-referral monitoring
- Single-language provision
- No continuity after travel or deselection
- Invoice-only provider review
Comment MindsMelt le testerait
Provider review · Aggregate access data · Athlete feedback · Travel scenario · CAPA verification
Validité des preuves
At least annual review and after repeated failure, major scope change or a new jurisdiction.
Niveau d’écart proposé
Major for persistent access failure, unqualified service or no backup; critical for knowingly referring to unsafe or unlawful care.
Revue experte requise
Clinical governance, procurement, accessibility, privacy and lived-experience review. · S04, S06–S09, S13, S14
DiamondP4.3-DI
Independently verified external-care and escalation system
Embedded and independently verified
P4.3-DI
Independently verified external-care and escalation system
Embedded and independently verified
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall demonstrate through independent verification that external and internal escalation arrangements are qualified, reachable, correctly represented and effective across the assessed scope. The audit shall sample qualifications, agreements or confirmed public routes, handoffs, failed referrals, continuity and privacy boundaries. Where the organisation commissions or controls clinical services, a qualified clinical-governance function shall oversee scope, independence, supervision, adverse events and escalation.
Preuves minimales acceptables
- Independent provider verification
- Redacted handoff and failure sample
- Clinical governance terms where routed
- Protected athlete feedback
- Service improvements
- Separation from selection
Preuves non suffisantes
- Provider marketing alone
- Unverified licensure
- No clinical governance
- Utilisation-only data
- Care dependent on selection
Comment MindsMelt le testerait
Independent qualification checks · Handoff and failure sampling · Clinical-governance interview · Protected corroboration · Cross-scope review
Validité des preuves
Previous 12–24 months adjusted for service history and volume; qualifications current at decision.
Niveau d’écart proposé
Major for unreliable access, governance or confidentiality; critical for unsafe or unlicensed practice, concealment or deliberate interference with care.
Revue experte requise
Qualified clinical, safeguarding, privacy and audit reviewers. · S04, S06–S09, S11–S14
P4.4
Communication, préparation des rôles et mise en situation
Les athlètes et le staff savent obtenir une aide urgente ou signaler un préjudice, tandis que les personnes chargées de répondre peuvent démontrer leur rôle dans des conditions réalistes.
Construit
The visibility, accessibility and demonstrated readiness of crisis and safeguarding routes across the workforce and participant population.
Obligation centrale
Communicate urgent-help, reporting and conflict routes at induction and through accessible ongoing channels; define concise role instructions; maintain role-based competence expectations; rehearse relevant scenarios; measure readiness; correct gaps; and independently verify awareness and activation at Diamond.
Limite
P4.4 tests readiness to activate Pillar 4 systems. The broader organisational learning and training programme belongs mainly in Pillar 2.
MSF-03MSF-09CR-01
BronzeP4.4-BR
Visible urgent-help information and role instructions
Operating safety baseline
P4.4-BR
Visible urgent-help information and role instructions
Operating safety baseline
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall communicate, at induction and through readily accessible ongoing channels, how to obtain urgent mental-health help, contact emergency services, report a safeguarding concern and use an alternative conflict route. Relevant personnel shall receive concise role instructions stating what to do, what not to do, who to contact and how to protect confidentiality.
Preuves minimales acceptables
- Induction material
- Website, app and venue signposting
- Role cards
- Translated and accessible versions
- Distribution records
- Digital quick-exit considerations
Preuves non suffisantes
- Policy archive only
- One old email
- Technical legal language
- No disability, language or private-access alternative
- Manager-only information
Comment MindsMelt le testerait
Athlete walkthrough · Induction and channel sampling · Accessibility review · Frontline interview · Contact accuracy check
Validité des preuves
Current season or programme; reissued after material change and continuously available.
Niveau d’écart proposé
Major if people cannot reasonably find or use the route; minor for an isolated format gap where safe alternatives exist.
Revue experte requise
Lived-experience, accessibility, safeguarding, clinical and communications review. · S04–S10, S14
ArgentP4.4-SI
Role-specific competence and scenario rehearsal
Operational and recorded
P4.4-SI
Role-specific competence and scenario rehearsal
Operational and recorded
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall maintain a role-based competence matrix and provide training and rehearsal proportionate to each role’s likelihood of receiving a disclosure, observing distress, controlling access to hazards or activating an emergency route. Competence shall be checked through knowledge, discussion or observed scenarios, and gaps shall result in supervision, restricted duty or remedial learning.
Preuves minimales acceptables
- Role and competence matrix
- Training content and provider competence
- Completion and induction records
- Scenario results
- Remediation and restrictions
- Volunteer coverage
Preuves non suffisantes
- One generic course
- Certificates without validity
- No competence check
- Volunteers excluded
- No response to a failed scenario
Comment MindsMelt le testerait
Training sample · Observed scenario · Role interviews · Coverage analysis · Remediation review
Validité des preuves
Induction before unsupervised duty; safety-critical scenario within the previous operating year.
Niveau d’écart proposé
Major for systemic lack of competence or coverage; minor for isolated overdue refresh with demonstrated competence and safe supervision.
Revue experte requise
Clinical and safeguarding content, adult-learning and operational review. · S04–S09, S14
OrP4.4-GO
Readiness measurement and corrective improvement
Systematic and improving
P4.4-GO
Readiness measurement and corrective improvement
Systematic and improving
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall measure crisis and safeguarding readiness using risk-based drills, knowledge or behavioural checks, coverage data and protected athlete feedback. It shall analyse differences across sites, roles, employment status, language and programme; correct identified gaps; and repeat testing to verify improvement.
Preuves minimales acceptables
- Readiness definitions
- Drill programme across contexts
- Coverage and competence analysis
- Protected athlete awareness results
- Remedial action and re-test
- Governance review
Preuves non suffisantes
- Completion percentages only
- One headquarters exercise
- No nights, travel or temporary-role testing
- Receipt-only athlete survey
- No re-test
Comment MindsMelt le testerait
Readiness-data sample · Observed exercise · Cross-site comparison · Protected feedback · Remediation verification
Validité des preuves
At least annual review and after serious incident, high turnover or major scope change.
Niveau d’écart proposé
Major for material uncorrected readiness gaps or misleading claims; potentially critical if known incompetence remains in a safety-critical role and creates grave danger.
Revue experte requise
Measurement, clinical, safeguarding, lived-experience and audit review. · S04–S09, S14
DiamondP4.4-DI
Independently observed and athlete-corroborated readiness
Embedded and independently verified
P4.4-DI
Independently observed and athlete-corroborated readiness
Embedded and independently verified
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall demonstrate through an independently observed or controlled scenario exercise and protected athlete and frontline corroboration that the crisis and safeguarding routes are understood and can be activated consistently across the assessed scope. The sample shall include relevant non-permanent roles and at least one context with reduced supervision, travel, event or after-hours risk where applicable.
Preuves minimales acceptables
- Independent exercise and observation
- Auditor-selected sample
- Protected interviews
- Cross-role and site findings
- Corrective actions and re-test
- Accessible alternatives
Preuves non suffisantes
- Senior-staff-only staged demo
- Answer script shared in advance
- Management in interviews
- No contractor or volunteer sample
- No relevant after-hours or travel test
Comment MindsMelt le testerait
Independent exercise · Protected interviews · Unaided route-finding test · Cross-scope sampling · CAPA verification
Validité des preuves
Within the certification audit cycle with sustained-operation evidence across the previous 12–24 months.
Niveau d’écart proposé
Major for inconsistent activation or untrusted routes; critical for interview interference, retaliation or evidence manipulation.
Revue experte requise
Independent exercise assessor, safeguarding, clinical and interview-protection review. · S04–S10, S14
P4.5
Soutien post-incident, apprentissage du système et prévention
Après un incident grave ou un quasi-incident, les personnes concernées sont traitées avec dignité et choix, tandis que l’organisation identifie les causes du système, agit et vérifie que le risque de récidive diminue.
Construit
The organisation’s capability to provide protected follow-up, conduct fair system review and convert learning into effective prevention.
Obligation centrale
Provide proportionate post-incident welfare support; separate support from investigation; review serious incidents and material near misses safely; identify contributing factors and system causes; assign and verify corrective action; analyse recurring risks and inequities; and independently demonstrate sustained improvement at Diamond.
Limite
P4.5 owns welfare follow-up, learning, corrective action and prevention. Immediate response remains in P4.1; case control in P4.2; external continuity in P4.3.
MSF-10All Pillar 4 controls
BronzeP4.5-BR
Immediate and post-incident welfare support
Operating safety baseline when triggered
P4.5-BR
Immediate and post-incident welfare support
Operating safety baseline when triggered
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall define how it offers immediate and follow-up support to the affected person, reporters, witnesses and responding personnel after a crisis or safeguarding incident. Support shall respect choice, privacy, cultural and accessibility needs; avoid forced disclosure; distinguish welfare support from investigation; and identify an owner for system review and corrective action.
Preuves minimales acceptables
- Post-incident support procedure
- Welfare and investigation role separation
- Minimum-data offer and follow-up record
- External support options
- Named review owner
- Return or re-entry considerations
Preuves non suffisantes
- Compulsory group debrief
- Coach-led questioning framed as support
- Support conditional on withdrawing a complaint
- No follow-up
- Treating the person as reputational harm
Comment MindsMelt le testerait
Procedure review · Redacted case or scenario · Support-role interviews · Consent and privacy check · Review-ownership check
Validité des preuves
Current procedure; every serious incident in the assessment period or a tested scenario if none occurred.
Niveau d’écart proposé
Major if no support or review route follows a serious incident; critical for coercion, blame, retaliation or renewed immediate danger.
Revue experte requise
Trauma-informed clinical and safeguarding, lived-experience, privacy and employment or legal review. · S06, S08–S10, S14
ArgentP4.5-SI
Structured review, system causes and corrective action
Operational and recorded
P4.5-SI
Structured review, system causes and corrective action
Operational and recorded
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall conduct a timely, proportionate and psychologically safe post-incident review that distinguishes individual clinical information from system learning; identifies immediate containment, contributing system factors and system causes; assigns corrective actions, owners and deadlines; and records follow-up support and safe return or re-entry arrangements where relevant.
Preuves minimales acceptables
- Review trigger and template
- Redacted completed review or exercise
- System-factor analysis
- CAPA with owners and deadlines
- Return or re-entry plan
- Safely offered affected-person input
Preuves non suffisantes
- Naming the distressed athlete as the cause
- Debrief with no action
- Review led solely by an implicated person
- Raw clinical detail to governance
- Closing action when only a policy was written
Comment MindsMelt le testerait
Redacted review sample · CAPA trace · Review-owner interview · Affected-person protection check · Implementation verification
Validité des preuves
Initiated promptly after safety stabilises; evidence covers the previous 12 months or every serious incident.
Niveau d’écart proposé
Major for no adequate review or ineffective CAPA; critical for blame, retaliation, concealment or evidence destruction.
Revue experte requise
Safeguarding and clinical, human factors, privacy, lived-experience and audit review. · S08, S09, S14
OrP4.5-GO
Trend learning and prevention programme
Systematic and improving
P4.5-GO
Trend learning and prevention programme
Systematic and improving
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall analyse serious incidents, near misses, failed referrals, exercise findings and retaliation or access concerns at system level; identify recurring risks and inequities; report proportionate findings to leadership; implement preventive actions; and verify effectiveness through re-test, monitoring or protected feedback.
Preuves minimales acceptables
- Aggregate trend framework
- Data-minimised dashboard
- Leadership risk review
- Preventive action programme
- Effectiveness measures and re-test
- Protected system-learning communication
Preuves non suffisantes
- Identifiable case publication
- Counting without analysis
- No near-miss route
- Deadline-only closure
- Raw health data to leadership
Comment MindsMelt le testerait
Trend and governance review · Prevention-action sample · Data-minimisation check · Protected feedback · Effectiveness verification
Validité des preuves
At least annual formal review and more frequently after serious or repeated patterns.
Niveau d’écart proposé
Major for repeated unaddressed patterns, ineffective CAPA or harmful disclosure; critical for concealment or knowingly allowing grave risk to persist.
Revue experte requise
Clinical and safeguarding, human factors, privacy, measurement and governance review. · S01, S05, S08–S10, S14
DiamondP4.5-DI
Independent learning assurance and sustained improvement
Embedded and independently verified
P4.5-DI
Independent learning assurance and sustained improvement
Embedded and independently verified
Texte normatif de travail — anglais
The organisation shall demonstrate through independent review that serious incidents and material near misses lead to fair, protected and effective system learning. The reviewer shall sample review quality, affected-person protections, corrective-action closure and sustained effectiveness; examine whether similar risks recur; and confirm that public or internal learning is communicated without exposing protected individuals. Where severity, conflict or systemic failure warrants it, an independent incident review shall be commissioned.
Preuves minimales acceptables
- Independent review and CAPA sample
- Sustained-effectiveness evidence
- Protected affected-person or representative input
- Independent-review triggers and terms
- Leadership response
- Safe aggregate communication
Preuves non suffisantes
- Self-certifying effectiveness
- No recurrence sampling
- Pressured endorsement
- Identifying public transparency
- Review controlled by implicated leadership
Comment MindsMelt le testerait
Independent review and CAPA sampling · Recurrence analysis · Protected interviews · Governance and communications review · Surveillance check
Validité des preuves
Previous 12–24 months and historical serious patterns relevant to current scope; effectiveness evidence current.
Niveau d’écart proposé
Major for weak independence, ineffective learning or recurrence; critical for concealment, retaliation, manipulation or grave unresolved systemic risk.
Revue experte requise
Independent safeguarding and clinical, human factors, privacy, governance and lived-experience review. · S05, S08–S10, S14
Routage contrôlé
La fonction de sécurité demeure. La preuve s’adapte.
Des obligations supplémentaires s’activent lorsqu’un contexte de risque matériel entre dans le périmètre. « Non applicable » exige une raison définie et vérifiable.
RA-01
Minors and adults at risk
Consent, assent, capacity, age-appropriate communication, reporting duties, safe recruitment and protected participation.
RA-02
Residential, boarding and overnight programmes
Twenty-four-hour responsibility, night response, private reporting, room and visitor boundaries, medicine and dangerous-item controls and continuity with home services.
RA-03
Travel, camps and cross-border activity
Local routes, language and time zones, care access, responsible adults, emergency consent, privacy across borders and follow-up after return.
RA-04
Major events and competitions
Event command, integration with venue teams, private support spaces, temporary-role limits, multilingual signposting, media risks and post-event continuity.
RA-05
In-house or commissioned clinical services
Professional registration, clinical independence, scope, supervision, consent, records, adverse events, emergency coverage and separation from selection.
RA-06
Outsourced providers, partners and member bodies
Due diligence, contractual safety and data duties, monitoring, subcontractors, delegated responsibility, escalation and termination.
RA-07
Remote and digital delivery
Location verification, secure communication, local emergency routes, crisis interruption, identity and age assurance, digital exclusion and quick exit.
RA-08
Access to potentially lethal means or high-risk environments
Lawful and proportionate temporary safety controls for firearms, medicines, vehicles, water, heights, isolated terrain and similar hazards, with qualified advice and privacy.
RA-09
Multiple sites, franchises and international federations
Central minimums, local addenda, delegation, member monitoring, conflict-safe escalation, independent sampling, language and scope control.
RA-10
Small or volunteer-led organisations
Proportionate documentation, shared or external routes, one-page aids and backups without weakening emergency, reporting, confidentiality or non-retaliation outcomes.
Plan du questionnaire
Ne transformons pas le document en 49 pages de oui/non.
Requirements define the obligation. Applicant questions locate and describe the claim. Evidence requests, auditor prompts and protected corroboration test whether the claim is true. These are separate instruments and must not be collapsed into one long self-report survey.
Fourchette de travail : Approximately 28–36 Pillar 4 applicant-bank items, of which a typical organisation may see roughly 20–28 after routing. The range is a design hypothesis, not a quota or validated burden.
1
Scope and routing
About 4–6 unscored selectors
Activate jurisdiction, minors, residence, travel, event, clinical, outsourced, digital, high-risk and multi-site addenda.
2
Minimum Safety Foundation
About 8–12 applicant prompts
Locate each control and owner; mandatory conformity is decided from evidence, not self-reported points.
3
Indicator maturity
About 15–18 scored prompts
Use roughly three or four focused prompts per proposed indicator to distinguish stated, operational, systematic and independently verified practice.
4
Scheme integrity
About 3 attestations
Truthful cooperation, material disclosure and accurate public claims. These are unscored participation conditions.
5
Routed modules
About 6–12 bank items
Only shown where a risk context exists; not every organisation answers every module.
01 · Applicant questions linked to one requirement and one primary construct.
02 · Evidence requests that state what may demonstrate practice and what is not sufficient.
03 · Auditor prompts and sampling instructions that are never exposed as answer keys.
04 · Protected athlete and staff corroboration prompts with consent, independence and anti-retaliation safeguards.
Revues requises
Un projet aussi sérieux exige des responsables nommés.
Clinical and suicide prevention
Urgent-concern wording, role boundaries, emergency escalation, rehearsal safety, means safety and post-incident support.
Safeguarding
Officer competence, conflict routes, triage, minors, retaliation, external notification and protected interviews.
Legal and privacy
Jurisdictional duties, confidentiality exceptions, data, retention, consent, selection use, complaints and disclosure.
Lived experience
Findability, trust, selection fear, accessibility, power, post-incident treatment and sport reality.
Operational and audit
Evidence burden, feasibility, sampling, exercises, service verification, nonconformity and CAPA closure.
Measurement
Construct boundaries, cross-pillar ownership, duplication, stage discrimination and scoring interaction.
Décisions pilotes ouvertes
L’implémentation est visible. L’adoption reste à gagner.
- 01
Confirm or reject the five-indicator Pillar 4 model and its cross-pillar boundaries.
- 02
Approve, amend or reject the ten Minimum Safety Foundation controls and their non-compensable status.
- 03
Approve final evidence-validity and role-based training-refresh periods.
- 04
Calibrate observation, minor, major and critical findings plus correction and reapplication rules.
- 05
Define protected athlete and staff corroboration, including youth-programme safeguards.
- 06
Approve the first pilot jurisdictions and controlled local legal and service addenda.
- 07
Decide how Bronze to Gold pathway verification operates and how Diamond independence is demonstrated.
- 08
Write final applicant questions, evidence requests, auditor prompts and protected-corroboration prompts only after the requirement model is stable.
Le pilier 4 est examinable. Son architecture est enregistrée ; ses exigences restent à valider.
P4.5 fait désormais partie du framework de travail v1.1. Viennent ensuite la revue experte nommée, la rédaction contrôlée des questions et le pilote. Les piliers 1 et 3 existent aussi comme dossiers de travail complets ; des dossiers équivalents restent nécessaires pour les piliers 2 et 5.