Accreditation Decisions, Scoring and Evidence
Evidence Strength
Strong
Multiple current sources agree; implementation is visible; records show consistency, monitoring and corrective action.
Adequate
Relevant evidence demonstrates the requirement with limited gaps or sampling uncertainty.
Weak
Evidence is mainly policy or assertion; implementation is recent, isolated, inconsistent or difficult to trace.
Unreliable
Evidence conflicts, lacks attribution, appears altered, omits material facts or cannot be verified.
Indicative Institutional Scoring
Overall minimum
Per standard minimum
The recommended decision rule is at least 70% overall, at least 60% in every applicable standard, no critical nonconformity and no unresolved major nonconformity at unconditional approval. Scores support professional judgment; they do not override critical weakness in legality, learner protection, assessment, data, certification or truthful claims.
Nonconformity
Critical
Immediate or severe risk to legality, safety, credential integrity, data, learners or public trust.
Major
Systemic or material failure affecting the reliability of the approved scope.
Minor
Limited weakness that does not by itself undermine the system but requires correction.
Observation or improvement opportunity
Evidence does not constitute nonconformity but indicates a useful strengthening opportunity.
Payment and Decision Independence
Fees purchase the defined review or service, not approval. Sales personnel, agents, consultants or partners must not promise accreditation, a specific grade, a passing result or treatment outside the controlled process.