How the credentials are governed.

GOVBRM Academy certification architecture

Status: draft v0.1, GOVBRM original, not yet validated.

Purpose

This document is the canonical description of how GOVBRM Academy certifies people. Every other Academy document, the site pages at govbrm.com/academy/, /certifications/, /foundation/ and /verify/, the candidate and assessor handbooks, and the rubrics defer to it. Where the site or an older document says something looser, this document wins until the site is corrected.

Epistemic labels used throughout: Established (externally supported), Adapted (existing practice modified), GOVBRM original, Hypothesis (not yet validated).

Design principles

1. Say what a credential proves and nothing more. A certificate of completion proves completion. A practitioner credential proves assessed application of the method to a case. A master credential proves assessed practice across a whole line of work. (GOVBRM original.)
2. Assess on the candidate's own work. Practitioner and master assessment uses a real or realistic case from the candidate's own world, worked with the toolkit canvases. (Adapted from portfolio and case-based professional assessment.)
3. Publish the rubric before anyone is assessed. Candidates see the criteria they are marked against. (Established practice in criterion-referenced assessment.)
4. Two people agree a borderline. No fail and no borderline result is issued on one assessor's judgement. (Adapted from moderation practice in professional and vocational assessment.)
5. One free second chance. Every assessed submission carries one resubmission at no charge, with written feedback. (GOVBRM original.)
6. Credentials do not expire. Revalidation is by declaration of continuing professional development, not re-examination. (Adapted from professional body CPD models.)
7. Governance in proportion to what the credential claims. Foundation has almost none because it claims almost nothing. Master has the most. (GOVBRM original, applying the three-lane principle to assessment.)

Tiers

Tier 1: Foundation certificates of completion

Credentials: AI Demand Foundation (GBRM-ADF), AI Value Associate (GBRM-AVA), Responsible AI Practitioner (GBRM-RAP).

Tier 2: Practitioner credentials

Credentials: Certified AI Demand Strategist (GBRM-DS) and Certified AI Value Orchestrator (GBRM-VO).

Track canvases, meaning the toolkit canvases the case analysis must use:

Tier 3: Master AI Value Partner

Credential: Master AI Value Partner (GBRM-MP). Opens 2027.

Credential identity and status

Credential IDs follow the pattern GBRM, then the track code, then the syllabus year, then a serial. Example credential ID: GBRM-DS-2026-1234. The year is the syllabus year the candidate was assessed against, not an expiry year.

Credentials do not expire. Each registry entry carries one of these statuses:

Assessor roles

Moderation, appeals and resubmission in one view

Revalidation

Every three years from the issue date, the holder is invited to submit a continuing professional development declaration. The declaration is a short form: what the holder has done in AI demand or value work in the period, at least one item of reflection on the method, and a signed statement of accuracy. It is not assessed against a standard. Not declaring changes the registry status to "Revalidation due" and nothing else. The full design is in GOVBRM Academy credential revocation, revalidation and continuing professional development policy. (Adapted from professional body CPD models. Hypothesis: that a declaration without hours counting is enough to keep credentials meaningful. Not yet demonstrated.)

Revocation

Future changes

• Changes to a rubric take effect for the next cohort, never for a cohort already running, and are dated in the rubric's change log. The syllabus year in the credential ID records which version applied.
• A new tier or track is added by a dated revision of this document.
• The intended Method Council, once formed, becomes the body that approves rubric changes and hears final-stage appeals. Until then the Director of Studies does both, and every published document says so.
• Open Badges issuance, third-party accreditation and recognition by any professional body are aspirations, not commitments. None has been sought. Not yet demonstrated.

Summary table

GOVBRM Academy moderation, appeals and resubmission policy

Status: draft v0.1, GOVBRM original, not yet validated.

Scope

Practitioner case analyses, practitioner knowledge checks, master portfolios and master oral defences. Foundation certificates of completion are outside scope: the check may be retaken without limit, so there is nothing to moderate or appeal.

Part one: moderation

Purpose

Moderation exists so that two assessors would reach the same result on the same work, and so that no candidate fails on one person's judgement. (Adapted from moderation practice in professional and vocational assessment.)

What is moderated

How

1. The moderating assessor scores blind, without seeing the first score sheet, and lodges their sheet.
2. The two sheets are compared. Agreement means totals within ten points and the same outcome.
3. Where they agree, the result stands and the moderation is recorded as "agreed".
4. Where they disagree, the two assessors meet, criterion by criterion, with the rubric open, and try to agree a single score sheet with reasons. The agreed sheet replaces both.
5. Moderation outcomes are recorded on the cohort file. Patterns (one assessor consistently high or low on a criterion) are noted for calibration and never used to alter individual results retrospectively.

Timing

Moderation is complete before any candidate is told any result. Target: fourteen days from the submission deadline to feedback.

Part two: resubmission

Practitioner case analysis

• One resubmission, at no charge, within sixty days of the date the feedback was sent.
• The feedback names the criteria not met and what the resubmission must show. The candidate may revise the whole analysis or only the parts concerned.
• The resubmission is scored fresh against the same rubric version, by the same assessor where practical, and is always moderated.
• A candidate who misses the sixty-day window without a reason accepted by the Director of Studies is recorded as not yet passed. Illness, caring responsibilities and comparable circumstances extend the window on request.

Practitioner knowledge check

• Twenty questions, fourteen to pass. One further attempt after seven days, at no charge.
• A question disputed by a candidate is referred to the Director of Studies. A faulty question is voided for every candidate in the cohort and the pass mark is scaled to the nearest whole number that keeps the same proportion.

Master portfolio and oral defence

• One resubmission within ninety days of feedback, at no charge.
• The candidate may replace the whole portfolio or address only the criteria not met. Where only the written portfolio failed, the oral defence is repeated only if the assessors judge the revisions material; where only the defence failed, the defence is repeated on the same portfolio.
• Two assessors score the resubmission independently, as at first submission; where practical they are the original two.

Part three: appeals

Grounds

An appeal may be brought on one or more of these grounds only:

1. The published rubric was not applied, or the wrong version was applied.
2. The published process was not followed (for example, a borderline result was issued without moderation, or feedback did not name the criteria not met).
3. An assessor had a conflict of interest that was not declared.
4. An adjustment agreed before the cohort was not provided.

Disagreement with an assessor's academic judgement, where the rubric was applied and the process followed, is not a ground of appeal. The resubmission route exists for that.

Stage one: review

• The candidate writes to the Academy within twenty-one days of receiving the result, stating the ground and the facts.
• A person who did not score the submission reviews the score sheets, moderation record and process record against the ground stated. During the beta that person is the Director of Studies, unless the Director of Studies scored the submission, in which case it is the moderating assessor.
• Outcome within twenty-one days: appeal upheld (the submission is rescored by a fresh assessor, or the process step is repeated), or not upheld, with written reasons.

Stage two: final

• Within fourteen days of the stage one outcome, the candidate may ask for a final review.
• The Director of Studies decides, on the papers, and may consult one external adviser who has signed the conflict of interest declaration. Once a Method Council exists, this stage passes to a panel of two Council members who did not score or review the submission. Until then, every appeal outcome letter states that the final stage was decided by the Director of Studies alone.
• Outcome within twenty-one days, with written reasons. The decision is final within the Academy.

What an upheld appeal can and cannot do

• It can order a fresh scoring, a repeat of a process step, a repeat oral defence or a corrected record.
• It cannot itself change a score. Only an assessor scoring against the rubric can do that.

Record

Appeals and their outcomes are recorded on the cohort file and reported in aggregate (number brought, number upheld) in the Academy's annual note. No candidate is identifiable in the aggregate.

Part four: complaints that are not appeals

Timeline summary

Director of Studies, GOVBRM Academy

GOVBRM Academy assessor conflict of interest and independence policy

Status: draft v0.1, GOVBRM original, not yet validated.

Why this policy exists

GOVBRM Academy is run by one person. The same person writes the method, teaches the masterclasses, scores the work, moderates where a second assessor is not yet available, signs the certificates and hears the appeals. That is a structural conflict, not a hidden one. This policy names it, limits it where it can be limited now, and sets the conditions under which it goes away.

Epistemic label: GOVBRM original, adapted from conflict of interest practice in professional assessment and examining bodies. Not yet validated.

Definitions

An assessor is anyone who scores or moderates a practitioner case analysis, a knowledge check dispute, a master portfolio or an oral defence, or who reviews an appeal.

A conflict of interest exists where an assessor's judgement about a candidate could be, or could reasonably be seen to be, affected by a relationship, an interest or a prior role.

Conflicts that bar an assessor from a candidate

An assessor must not score, moderate or review an appeal for a candidate where the assessor:

1. Is a family member, partner or close friend of the candidate.
2. Is or was within the last two years the candidate's line manager, direct report, or client or supplier in a paid engagement.
3. Has a financial interest in the candidate's organisation or in the outcome of the case the candidate is analysing.
4. Has provided paid consultancy, coaching or closed-cohort delivery to the candidate's organisation on the same case within the last two years.
5. Has any other relationship that the assessor would be uncomfortable seeing described in the candidate's appeal.

Where the conflict is with the only available assessor, the candidate is offered a place on a later cohort with a different assessor, or a delayed assessment of their submission once a second assessor is appointed, at no extra charge. The candidate chooses.

Conflicts that must be declared but do not bar

1. The assessor and candidate work in the same sector or the same profession. This is expected and is the reason the assessor is qualified.
2. The assessor and candidate have met professionally, follow each other on a professional network or have exchanged public comments.
3. The candidate is a member of GOVBRM at any tier. Every candidate is; it is not a conflict.
4. The assessor taught the candidate on the masterclass. At practitioner tier this is by design. At master tier the second assessor must not have scored the candidate's practitioner case analysis where another assessor is available.

Declared conflicts are recorded on the cohort file and the moderating assessor is told. A declared conflict is one reason to put the submission in the moderation sample.

The assessor declaration

Every assessor signs this before each cohort or each master assessment round:

I have read the conflict of interest and independence policy for GOVBRM Academy. I have checked the candidate list for this cohort against it. I declare the following conflicts (or none): (list). I will score against the published rubric and nothing else. I will not discuss any candidate's submission or result with anyone outside the assessment process. I will not use any candidate's submission for any purpose other than assessment without their written consent. I understand that a score I give may be second-scored, discussed in moderation and reviewed on appeal, and I will keep records that make that possible. Signed, role, date.

Independence of the Academy from commercial pressure

• No assessor is paid per pass. Where assessors are engaged, they are paid per submission scored or per cohort, never on results.
• Closed cohorts for one organisation are assessed on the same rubric, moderated on the same rule, and the organisation receives only pass or not-yet-passed for each named participant, with the participant's consent, and never the score sheet.
• The Director of Studies does not score the case analysis of anyone who is, at the time, a paying consultancy client of the Director of Studies' business. Such a candidate waits for a second assessor.

Independence of the assessor from the candidate during assessment

• Between the masterclasses, assessors give formative feedback in the group activity only. They do not review drafts of individual case analyses.
• Assessors do not accept gifts from candidates. A candidate's endorsement or testimonial is never solicited before a result is issued, and never as a condition of anything.
• Assessors communicate results only through the process, in writing, after moderation.

The transitional position, stated plainly

Until a second assessor is appointed:

• Every score sheet is written as if it will be moderated, with evidence per criterion, so that late moderation is possible.
• Every candidate-facing document states that the Director of Studies currently holds every role in the process.

Path to a Method Council

Breaches

An assessor who scores with an undeclared barring conflict is removed from the assessor list. Every submission they scored in that cohort is rescored by another assessor. Candidates affected are told. The Director of Studies is not exempt: a breach by the Director of Studies is recorded, the rescoring happens, and the record is available to any future Method Council.

Review

This policy is reviewed after the first cohort, then annually, and whenever a second assessor or a Method Council is appointed.

Director of Studies, GOVBRM Academy

GOVBRM Academy credential revocation, revalidation and continuing professional development policy

Status: draft v0.1, GOVBRM original, not yet validated.

Scope

Practitioner credentials (Certified AI Demand Strategist, Certified AI Value Orchestrator) and the Master AI Value Partner credential. Foundation certificates of completion are not recorded by the Academy and cannot be revoked or revalidated; the Academy may, however, publicly correct a false claim about what a foundation certificate means.

Part one: credentials do not expire

A credential, once issued, remains a true statement: on a stated date, against a stated syllabus year, the holder met the published standard. The year in the credential ID (Example credential ID: GBRM-DS-2026-1234) records the syllabus year and nothing else. There is no expiry date, no re-examination and no fee to keep a credential.

Epistemic label: Adapted from professional body practice where a qualification is permanent and standing is maintained by CPD.

Part two: revalidation by continuing professional development declaration

Design

Every three years from the issue date, or from the last accepted declaration, the holder is invited to make a CPD declaration. The declaration keeps the registry entry marked "Current, CPD declared (year)". It is a self-declaration, not an assessment. The Academy does not count hours or points. (GOVBRM original. Hypothesis: that a reflective declaration without hours counting keeps credentials meaningful without becoming a tax. Not yet demonstrated.)

The declaration form

Four fields, about half a page in total:

Process

1. Ninety days before the three-year date, the Academy writes to the holder at the address on the registry record with the form and this policy.
2. The holder returns the form. The Academy checks that it is complete and not obviously false, and records "Current, CPD declared (year)" with the date.
3. If nothing is received by the three-year date, the registry status changes to "Revalidation due". The credential remains valid. The certificate is unaffected. The holder can declare at any later time and the status returns to current.
4. A declaration is refused only where it is incomplete or where the Academy has reason to believe it is false, in which case the holder is told why and invited to resubmit.

What revalidation is not

• It is not a re-examination and cannot result in a credential being removed.
• It is not a mechanism for keeping holders subscribed. A lapsed member can revalidate.

Revalidation and syllabus change

Part three: withdrawal at the holder's request

A holder may ask for their credential to be retired at any time, for any reason. The registry status changes to "Withdrawn at holder's request" and the name, if listed, is removed. The credential ID stays in the registry so that the certificate can still be checked and shows as withdrawn. A withdrawn credential can be reinstated on request within five years without reassessment.

Part four: revocation

Grounds

The Academy may revoke a credential only on one of these grounds:

1. Dishonesty in obtaining it: plagiarism; submitting another person's work or an AI-generated analysis as the candidate's own reasoning without disclosure; a case declared real that was fabricated; collusion or impersonation in the knowledge check; a false attendance record; a false declaration at master tier.
2. Misrepresentation in using it: describing the credential as a degree, a diploma, a licence, a regulated qualification, an academic qualification or a third-party accredited qualification; claiming a tier or track not held; continuing to display a credential after it has been withdrawn or revoked; altering a certificate.
3. A false CPD declaration.

Conduct in the holder's professional life that is not about the credential is not a ground. The Academy is not a regulator and does not judge fitness to practise.

Process

1. Notice. The Academy writes to the holder setting out the ground, the evidence, and the proposed action. The holder has twenty-eight days to reply in writing.
2. Reply. The holder may explain, correct (for example by amending a profile) or dispute. Where the ground is misrepresentation and the holder corrects it within the notice period, the matter closes with a written warning on the file and no change to the registry.
3. Decision. The Director of Studies decides on the papers and gives written reasons within twenty-one days of the reply or of the notice period ending. Where the Director of Studies gathered the evidence, an external adviser who has signed the assessor declaration reviews the decision before it is issued. Once a Method Council exists, revocation decisions pass to a panel of two members.
4. Effect. On revocation the registry status changes to "Revoked", the name if listed is removed, and the holder is asked to stop displaying the badge and certificate. The credential ID remains in the registry so that a check returns the revoked status rather than "not found". The Academy does not publish the reason.
5. Appeal. The holder may appeal within twenty-one days on the grounds that the process was not followed or the evidence does not support the ground. The two-stage appeal process in GOVBRM Academy moderation, appeals and resubmission policy applies, adapted: stage one is a review by someone who did not make the decision, stage two is final.
6. Reapplication. A holder whose credential was revoked for dishonesty in obtaining it may apply to a cohort again after two years, at the standard price, and is assessed as a new candidate. A holder whose credential was revoked for misrepresentation may apply for reinstatement after one year on evidence that the misrepresentation has stopped.

Interim suspension

Part five: record keeping

Part six: communications

Every certificate, badge page and the /verify/ page carries one sentence: "Credentials do not expire; the year in the ID is the syllabus year; holders are invited to make a continuing professional development declaration every three years; a credential can be revoked for dishonesty or misrepresentation." The candidate handbook carries this policy in full.

Review

Reviewed annually and whenever a Method Council is appointed. Any change to the grounds for revocation applies only to conduct after the change is published.

Director of Studies, GOVBRM Academy

GOVBRM Academy credential registry policy

Status: draft v0.1, GOVBRM original, not yet validated.

What the registry is

The registry is the Academy's authoritative list of every practitioner and master credential it has issued, published at govbrm.com/verify. It is public, plain and small. Today it is empty; no practitioner credential has been issued.

The registry does not record foundation certificates of completion. Those are generated on the learner's own device, the Academy keeps no record of them, and /verify/ checks them by confirming that the ID, name and date match the Academy's generator.

The authoritative representation of a credential

A credential is the registry entry, not the PDF and not the badge. Specifically:

• The authoritative representation of a credential is the accessible HTML record for its credential ID, served at govbrm.com/verify with the ID as the query, built from the published registry file.
• The PDF certificate and the digital badge are convenient copies. If they and the registry disagree, the registry is right.
• A credential ID that returns "not found" at /verify/ is not a GOVBRM Academy credential, whatever the document says.

Epistemic label: GOVBRM original. Adapted from the principle in open credentialing that the verifiable record, not the printed artefact, is the credential.

What an entry records

Not published, kept on the Academy's private cohort file: contact address, cohort code, score sheet, feedback, moderation record, CPD declarations, any revocation papers, opt-in record.

Nothing else is ever added to the public record. No organisation, no job title, no score, no photograph.

Name opt-in

• The default is name withheld. A holder must opt in, in writing, for their name to appear.
• The name listed is the name the holder gives, which need not match any legal name; it must match the certificate.
• A holder may opt in or out at any time by writing to the Academy. Changes are made within fourteen days and the last status change date is updated.
• Opting out does not remove the entry. The ID, credential, date and status remain, so the credential can still be verified.

Retention

Removal requests

A holder may ask for:

1. Their name to be withheld. Always granted, within fourteen days.
2. Their credential to be marked withdrawn. Always granted, within fourteen days. The entry remains, marked withdrawn, so that a certificate in circulation checks as withdrawn rather than as fake.

A third party (for example an employer) may ask the Academy to confirm a credential. The Academy points them to /verify/ and confirms nothing beyond what the public record shows.

Corrections

A holder may ask for a factual correction (misspelt name, wrong date). Corrections are made within fourteen days and the last status change date is updated. The Academy keeps a private log of corrections.

Publication and integrity

• Every change to the file is dated in the change log with the field changed and the reason category (issue, name opt-in, name opt-out, CPD declared, withdrawn, correction, under review, revoked, deleted). Reasons are categories, never narrative.
• The Academy does not issue credentials through an Open Badges platform. The verification route is the credential ID. Open Badges issuance is an aspiration, not a commitment.

What the registry does not do

• It does not rank, score or compare holders.
• It does not confirm employment, job title or organisation.
• It does not say why a credential was revoked.
• It does not list candidates who did not pass, or who are in progress.
• It does not list foundation learners.

Ownership

The Director of Studies, GOVBRM Academy owns the registry and is the only person who may write to it until a Method Council exists and a second writer is appointed under a written procedure.

Director of Studies, GOVBRM Academy

Proposed GOVBRM Method Council

Status: draft v0.1, GOVBRM original, not yet validated.. This council does not yet exist.. No one has been approached, appointed or consulted.

Why a council

GOVBRM is founder-led. One person wrote the method, the toolkit, the courses and the assessment standards, and the same person marks the assessments and issues the credentials. That is normal for a new method and it is also the weakest point in its credibility. A buyer, a regulator or a candidate has no one independent to ask whether the method is sound, whether an assessment was fair, or whether a change to the method was made for good reasons.

Membership

Term

• Two years, renewable once, to a maximum of four consecutive years
• Terms are staggered so that no more than half the council changes in any year
• A member may resign at any time in writing

Responsibilities

The council is responsible for the integrity of the method and of the assessment scheme. In practice:

1. Review and approve every change to the published method specification, the canvases, the lanes, the gates and the calibration parameters
2. Approve the assessment rubric, marking scheme and moderation process, and any change to them
3. Review the anonymised evidence from implementations and the research programme as it is published, and say in public whether the evidence supports the claims the site makes
4. Publish a short annual statement: what changed, what was approved, what was refused, what evidence was seen, what the council's conflicts are
5. Keep the four labels honest: challenge any claim marked Established or Adapted that the council thinks is a Hypothesis

Conflicts of interest

• Every member publishes a conflicts statement on appointment and updates it annually or when anything changes
• A member with a conflict on a particular matter says so before discussion and does not vote on it. The minutes record the declaration
• A member who delivers GOVBRM training or consulting for a fee, under licence, must disclose it and may not vote on licensing or on the assessment of their own trainees

Decision rights

Methodology change and version release process

1. Evidence. Each proposal states the label it claims (Established, Adapted, GOVBRM original, Hypothesis) and the evidence behind it. A proposal with no evidence is logged as a Hypothesis and may still be approved as one
2. Consultation. Substantive changes are published as a draft for comment for a period the council sets, not less than four weeks. Editorial changes need no consultation
3. Decision. The council votes. The decision and the reasons are minuted
4. Release. Versions are numbered. A change to gates, lanes, stages or the ladder is a major version. A change to a canvas's fields, prompts or scales is a minor version. A change to wording, layout or calibration parameters marked as initial is a patch. The provenance page and the method specification carry the version history
5. Notice. Licensees and credential holders are told of major and minor versions. Assessment material is updated before the next cohort, never during one

Assessment governance

• The rubric, marking scheme, moderation process, appeals process and revocation process are published and can only be changed by the council
• A candidate who is a member's colleague, client or trainee is not moderated by that member
• The council reviews the pass rate, the appeal rate and the moderation findings each year and publishes them, as counts, once there are enough candidates for the counts not to identify anyone
• The registry policy governs what is published about credential holders; the council reviews it annually

Complaints

• The outcome and the reasons are given to the complainant in writing. The annual statement reports complaint counts and themes, not identities
• The council cannot award compensation or make findings about the law; it can uphold or dismiss a complaint, change an assessment outcome, order a re-assessment, or recommend a change to the method or process

What it costs and what it asks

For members: four meetings a year of about two hours, online, plus reading. Consultation drafts and appeals as they arise. An honest conflicts statement.

Plain statement of current position