The handbooks and the rubric.

GOVBRM Academy candidate handbook

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

What this handbook is

The plain account of what you sign up for when you book a place on a practitioner cohort or, from 2027, the master portfolio assessment. It is written to the certification architecture published by GOVBRM Academy and follows it exactly. If a sales page and this handbook disagree, this handbook is right and we will fix the page.

What the credentials are, and are not

GOVBRM Academy credentials are continuing professional development credentials issued by an independent publication. They are not academic qualifications, they are not regulated qualifications, and they are not accredited by any third party or professional body. Nobody has yet independently validated the method they teach. Please describe them accurately; misrepresenting one is grounds for revocation.

Before you book a practitioner track

• Do the free micro-courses first. They are not required, but the masterclasses assume you know the vocabulary: the need sentence, value as a range, the weakest dimension, the six routes, the autonomy ladder, month nine.
• Have a case in mind. You will write your case analysis on a real request from your own organisation, or a realistic one if a real one cannot be shared. You do not need permission to use a real case if you can anonymise it so that neither the organisation nor any individual is identifiable. If you cannot, use a realistic case and say so. Realistic cases are scored on exactly the same rubric.
• Check the dates. Two live masterclasses on consecutive days, 14:00 to 18:00 UK time, online. You need to attend both in full. The cohort is twelve people at most.
• Check the price. 495 (GBP) a seat, or included with a founding membership. Substack and Stripe charge in your local currency.

What happens on a practitioner track

The three things you are assessed on

Attendance

Both masterclasses, in full. Missing more than thirty minutes of one counts as missing it. If you miss one for a good reason (illness, caring, an emergency at work), tell us and you can make it up in the next cohort of the same track at no charge. Your case analysis and knowledge check wait until you have.

Your individual case analysis

• Two pages at most, about 1,000 words. Anything after page two is not read.
• Attach the completed canvases for your track as an appendix. Canvases are evidence, not decoration; they are not scored for tidiness.
• It must be your own work. You may use an AI assistant to help you think and draft, in the same way you might use one at work; you must say that you did, and the reasoning and the decisions must be yours. We may ask you about your case at any point, and a candidate who cannot explain their own analysis has not written it.
• It is scored by an assessor against the published rubric. You get the rubric before you start. Every criterion has four levels and a written description of each. There are no hidden criteria.
• Borderline results and every not-yet-passed result are second-scored by a moderating assessor before you hear anything. A sample of passes is second-scored too, so that the standard is the same for everyone.

The knowledge check

Twenty questions, online, after the second masterclass. Fourteen correct passes. It tests whether you can apply the reasoning, not whether you memorised the slides. If you do not pass, you can sit it again once, after seven days, at no charge.

If you do not pass first time

• Case analysis: you get written feedback that names the criteria not met and what a resubmission needs to show. You may resubmit once, within sixty days of the feedback, at no charge. A resubmission is scored fresh against the same rubric by the same assessor where possible, and moderated.
• Knowledge check: one further attempt after seven days, as above.
• If after the resubmission and the second attempt you have still not passed, the result is "not yet passed". You may join a later cohort at the standard price, or ask about a discount; no promise is made about a discount. Nothing about a not-yet-passed result is published anywhere.

Appeals

You can appeal a result on the grounds that the rubric was not applied, that the process was not followed, or that there was a conflict of interest. You cannot appeal simply because you disagree with an assessor's judgement. The two-stage process is in GOVBRM Academy moderation, appeals and resubmission policy, which you receive with your feedback. During the beta the final stage is decided by the Director of Studies, who may also have been your assessor; we say so plainly because there is not yet anyone else, and it is a reason to appoint a Method Council.

Your credential

• The certificate carries your name as you give it, the credential, the guided learning hours, a credential ID and a verification link. Example credential ID: GBRM-DS-2026-1234. The year is the syllabus year, not an expiry.
• It does not expire. Every three years you will be invited to make a short continuing professional development declaration; it keeps your registry entry marked current. If you do not, the entry says "Revalidation due" and nothing else changes.
• The public registry at govbrm.com/verify lists your credential ID, the credential, the issue date and the status. Your name appears only if you opt in. You can change your mind at any time.
• Describe it as what it is: a GOVBRM Academy practitioner credential. Do not call it a degree, a diploma, a licence, a regulated or accredited qualification. Doing so is grounds for revocation.

Master AI Value Partner (from 2027)

You need both practitioner credentials. You submit one real item taken from request to realised value, with the evidence from each gate it passed. Realistic cases are not accepted at this tier. Two assessors score it independently against a published rubric; then you defend it for forty-five minutes online, where practical. One resubmission within ninety days at no charge. 150 GBP (GBP), or included with a founding membership. The full candidate guidance for the master tier is published before bookings open.

Your data

Accessibility and adjustments

Tell us before the cohort what you need: extra time on the knowledge check, a different submission format, captions, a break pattern, an alternative to the oral defence at master tier. Reasonable adjustments do not change the standard; they change how you show you have met it. The site is built to WCAG 2.2 AA but has not yet been independently audited.

Where to ask

Questions before booking go to the GOVBRM LinkedIn page. Once you are on a cohort you get a direct contact in your joining instructions.

Director of Studies, GOVBRM Academy

GOVBRM Academy assessor handbook

Status: draft v0.1, GOVBRM original, not yet validated.. Assessor appointment terms require legal review.

Who this is for

Anyone who scores a practitioner case analysis or a master portfolio for GOVBRM Academy, or who moderates another assessor's scoring. During the beta that is the Director of Studies and any invited moderating assessor. Read GOVBRM Academy certification architecture first; this handbook does not repeat the model, it tells you how to apply it.

Your job in one paragraph

You decide whether a piece of work meets a published standard. You do not decide whether you like it, whether you would have done it differently, or whether the candidate seems capable. The rubric is the standard. If the rubric is wrong, say so in the change log and score against it anyway; it changes for the next cohort, not this one.

Before the cohort

1. Confirm you have signed the assessor declaration in GOVBRM Academy assessor conflict of interest and independence policy for this cohort.
2. Read the current rubric for the track. Note its version and date; you will cite it on every score sheet.
3. Check the candidate list against your conflict of interest register. Declare any conflict before the first masterclass.

During the masterclasses

• Take attendance at the start, after the break and at the end. Record partial attendance with times; a candidate who misses more than thirty minutes of a masterclass has not attended it in full.
• The scenario group activity is formative. Give feedback out loud and generously. Nothing said in the group activity counts towards the score.
• Do not pre-score anyone's case in your head. The written analysis is the evidence.

Scoring a practitioner case analysis

What arrives

• A written analysis of two pages at most (about 1,000 words). Anything beyond two pages is not read; tell the candidate you stopped at the end of page two.
• The completed toolkit canvases for the track, as an appendix. Canvases are read for evidence; they are not scored for neatness.
• The candidate's declaration that the work is their own and that the case is real or realistic as stated.

How to score

1. Read the whole submission once without a pen.
2. Score each criterion in the rubric at one of the four levels. Write one sentence of evidence for each level you award, quoting or pointing to the submission. A score without evidence is not a score.
3. Add the weighted points. Apply the pass threshold and the essential criteria rule in the rubric.
4. Decide the outcome: pass, borderline, or not yet passed. Borderline is defined in the rubric as within the tolerance band above or below the threshold, or any pass with an essential criterion at level one.
5. Write the feedback. Format below.
6. Send the score sheet and feedback to the moderating assessor if the result is borderline or not yet passed, or if the submission is in the moderation sample. Do not tell the candidate anything until moderation is complete.

Score sheet fields

Feedback format

Feedback is written to the candidate and is theirs to keep. Use this shape, four short paragraphs at most:

1. The outcome in one sentence.
2. What met the standard, naming the criteria.
3. What did not, naming the criteria and saying exactly what a resubmission would need to show. Point to the canvas or the section of the analysis.
4. What to do next: the resubmission window, the knowledge check, or the certificate timeline.

Write in the second person. No hedging, no praise sandwich, no jargon. A candidate should be able to act on it without asking you a question.

Scoring the knowledge check

The knowledge check is scored automatically. Your job is to check the question bank before each cohort for any item the masterclass did not cover, and to remove it. Twenty questions, fourteen to pass. One further attempt after seven days. If a candidate disputes a question, record the dispute and refer it to the Director of Studies; a question found to be faulty is voided for every candidate in that cohort and the pass mark is scaled to the nearest whole number that keeps the same proportion.

Scoring a master portfolio (from 2027)

1. Two assessors score independently. Do not discuss the portfolio with the other assessor until both score sheets are lodged with the Director of Studies.
2. Read the portfolio in full, including the evidence at each gate. Ask yourself at each gate: is there a record that this gate was actually passed on a real item, by real people, with real consequences, or is there a description of what should have happened.
3. Score against the master rubric. Realistic cases are not accepted at this tier; if the item is not real, stop and refer to the Director of Studies.
4. Prepare five to eight questions for the oral defence, each aimed at a criterion where the evidence is thinnest.
5. Oral defence: forty-five minutes, online, recorded with the candidate's consent (audio only is acceptable). Ten minutes for the candidate to present, thirty for questions, five to close. Both assessors attend. Score the defence criteria after the call, independently, before speaking to each other.
6. Lodge both score sheets. Where both pass, the result is pass. Where both are not yet passed, the result is not yet passed. Where they differ, or either is borderline, the moderation process applies.

Moderation duties

If you are the moderating assessor:

• Score the submission blind: do not read the first assessor's score sheet until yours is lodged.
• Compare. Where the two outcomes match, record "moderated, agreed" and the result stands. Where they differ, follow GOVBRM Academy moderation, appeals and resubmission policy.
• Look for patterns across the sample, not only individual results: is the first assessor consistently generous or harsh on one criterion. Report patterns to the Director of Studies as a note on the cohort, not as a change to any individual score.

What you must never do

• Score a submission from anyone with whom you have a conflict of interest that has not been declared and cleared.
• Give a candidate their outcome before moderation is complete where moderation is required.
• Change a score after moderation without recording why.
• Coach a candidate on their own case analysis between the masterclasses beyond the formative feedback everyone receives in the group activity.
• Describe any credential as accredited, academic or regulated. None is.
• Use candidate submissions as marketing material, exemplars or content without written consent.

Record keeping

Time budget per cohort (planning assumption, Hypothesis)

Not yet demonstrated. Adjust after the first cohort and record the actuals.

Director of Studies, GOVBRM Academy

GOVBRM Academy assessment rubric and marking scheme

Status: draft v0.1, GOVBRM original, not yet validated.. All weightings and thresholds are initial calibration parameters, set by judgement before any cohort has run, and are to be reviewed after each of the first three cohorts.

How the scheme works

Every assessed submission is scored against criteria. Each criterion is scored at one of four levels. Each criterion carries a weight in points; the level multiplies it. Totals are out of 100. The pass threshold and the essential criteria rule decide the outcome.

Levels

Points for a criterion equal weight multiplied by the level multiplier. Level 3 on everything gives 80 points.

Outcomes

Thresholds are initial calibration parameters:

Rationale for 60 (Hypothesis, not yet demonstrated): a candidate at level 3 on every criterion scores 80; a candidate at level 2 on everything scores 40. The threshold sits where a candidate has met most criteria properly and attempted the rest. Review after three cohorts against the distribution of scores and the moderators' notes.

Rubric A: Certified AI Demand Strategist case analysis

The case: a real or realistic AI request arriving at the front door, taken through Discover, Assess and Prioritise to a routing decision. Canvases required: 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, plus the route.

Rubric B: Certified AI Value Orchestrator case analysis

The case: a real or realistic AI proposal at or past the Commit gate, taken through Design, Adopt and Realise to a Value Realisation Review, planned or actual. Canvases required: 09, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.

Rubric C: Master AI Value Partner portfolio (from 2027)

The item: one real AI request taken end to end, from the front door to value evidenced at the review. Realistic cases are not accepted. Evidence is required at each gate: Request, Shape, Rank, Commit, Build, Review. The written portfolio and the oral defence are scored separately; both must pass.

C1: Written portfolio

C2: Oral defence (forty-five minutes)

Where an oral defence is not practical, the same criteria are scored on written answers to the assessors' questions, returned within fourteen days, and the assessors record why the defence was written.

Moderation tolerance

Two assessors are taken to agree when their totals differ by ten points or fewer and their outcomes match. Anything else goes to moderation. Initial calibration parameter.

Calibration and change log

• The Director of Studies reviews every weight and threshold after cohorts one, two and three, using the score distributions, the moderation notes and the resubmission rate, and records any change here with a date. Changes apply from the next cohort.

Director of Studies, GOVBRM Academy