Does assurance change the result?
Measure where desk claims, implementation records and independent review diverge—and whether that divergence changes by tier or organisation type.
Research · the evidence layer
Do not just publish a standard. Learn whether it works.
MindsMelt is designed to turn independently reviewed governance data into safer benchmarks, public accountability and better future requirements—without turning identifiable athlete experience into a dataset for organisations.
5
framework pillars
25
working indicators
≥5
minimum aggregate cohort
0
identifiable athlete records shared
The evidence loop
Assessment should improve the system that produced it.
The certification arm produces structured evidence about governance. The athlete arm reveals what people seek and where systems feel absent. Only safe, aggregate patterns cross the wall between them.
- 01
Collect structured outcomes
Version-pinned indicator outcomes, assurance route, scope and status—not a loose satisfaction survey.
- 02
Protect before analysing
Separate restricted evidence, remove identifiers and enforce cohort-size and disclosure rules.
- 03
Publish patterns, not people
Show sector gaps, progress and scheme effectiveness only when the aggregate is safe and interpretable.
- 04
Revise transparently
Feed findings into consultation, council decisions, version notes and transition dates.
What the programme will examine
Questions that matter after the badge is awarded.
Do systems become usable?
Track whether access routes, crisis readiness, staff knowledge and non-retaliation mechanisms move from policy into consistent practice.
Where does progress stall?
Identify recurring major findings, evidence gaps and indicators that organisations repeatedly struggle to move from stated to operational.
Does athlete experience corroborate governance?
At higher assurance levels, compare safe aggregate interview themes with organisational claims without disclosing raw responses or identifying participants.
Is the framework fair across contexts?
Test routing, evidence burden and differential item behaviour across clubs, federations, countries, sizes and operating models.
Does the scheme itself act with integrity?
Report complaints, appeals, suspensions, decision consistency, reviewer calibration and framework changes—not only positive award counts.
Data firewall
Useful evidence without making athletes observable.
No identifiable athlete-arm activity is shared with an organisation or certification reviewer.
Raw athlete audit interviews remain restricted and are never delivered to the organisation.
No public aggregate is produced from fewer than five organisations; higher floors apply where re-identification risk remains.
Gold and Diamond public profiles use outcome bands, not numeric league tables.
Every report edition publishes definitions, exclusions, limitations, framework version and revision history.
Publication roadmap
Build the evidence in the right order.
- 01
Now
Validate the instrument
Clinical, safeguarding, athlete and governance experts challenge the five pillars, twenty-five working indicators, mandatory gates and question bank.
- 02
Pilot
Test feasibility and reliability
Founding organisations expose unclear wording, evidence burden, routing problems and differences between self-report and review.
- 03
First cycle
Publish edition one
After enough formal assessments exist, publish methodology, scheme statistics and k-anonymous patterns—never a glossy survey of unverified promises.
- 04
Later
Open a stable data layer
Versioned report editions, reproducible extracts and a read-only public registry API follow only after award lifecycle and data governance are stable.
Three public outputs