Standard Pilot v0.9 · Pillar 1

Support must be real before somebody needs it.

Support should be real before a person needs it: qualified, reachable, understandable, voluntary, confidential and protected from performance consequences.

Complete working proposal — not yet an approved certification standard.

The detailed requirements need clinical, privacy, legal, accessibility, lived-experience, measurement and operational review. P1.2 is a proposed taxonomy change.

Review the method

Candidate update · IOC Toolkit evidence review

What the proposed v0.3 delta changes here

This is a controlled change layer over the v0.2 authoring bank. It strengthens literacy, pathways, action planning, safe return, screening safeguards, entourage guidance, inclusion and transition without treating an IOC product as mandatory.

Primary source located and checkedNamed expert review still required

proposed changes

new scored questions

question revisions

requirement patches

Draft only: none of these records can be used for certification until named clinical, lived-experience, privacy, accessibility, measurement and governance reviews are logged.

Open the IOC source

The controlled source wording is currently English. French normative translation remains a separate approval workstream.

Inspect the proposed controlled records

MM-IOC-01P1 · P1.3Proposed

Make recurring athlete mental-health education an explicit organisational responsibility.

Proposed change

Extend P1.3 so communication is not limited to service details. Organisations should help athletes understand common warning signs, when further help may be useful, confidentiality and its limits, how to support another person, and where routine or urgent help is found. Education must remain non-diagnostic and proportionate.

Question wording

Which statement best describes how the organisation provides recurring, practical mental-health education to athletes and checks whether it is understood?

Routing / applicability

Universal from Silver; Bronze may be satisfied by induction-level information already in P1.3-BR.

Evidence / audit impact

Add education materials, reach records, update history and protected comprehension sampling.

Required review

Clinical; lived experience; accessibility; translation.

Source pages

35, 37, 50-51

MM-IOC-02P1 · P1.4Proposed

Add a safe and supported return-to-participation process after a mental-health-related absence.

Proposed change

Where an organisation controls return to training, competition or selection after a health-related absence, it should have a coordinated process that respects athlete choice, uses appropriate qualified input, shares only necessary functional information, allows temporary adjustments and prevents both premature return and unnecessary exclusion.

Question wording

Which statement best describes how a return to training or competition is coordinated after a mental-health-related absence?

Routing / applicability

Route to organisations that control return-to-training, return-to-competition or participation decisions.

Evidence / audit impact

Add return-process document, anonymised plan sample, decision-role map and protected athlete corroboration at Diamond.

Required review

Clinical; legal; lived experience; performance operations.

Source pages

25, 67

MM-IOC-04P1 · P1.4 / P1.5Proposed

Create a clinical-screening safeguard module for organisations that choose to screen.

Proposed change

Where screening exists, test voluntariness or other lawful authority, qualified selection and interpretation of the tool, clear pre-screen information, referral after concerning results, limits of rating scales, data minimisation and separation from coaching, selection and employment decisions.

Question wording

Which statement best describes the safeguards around formal mental-health screening in the assessed scope?

Routing / applicability

Only if CTX-SERVICE-SCREENING-01 = Yes.

Evidence / audit impact

Tool rationale, consent wording, data flow, access list, follow-up protocol, referral sample and privacy review.

Required review

Clinical mandatory; privacy/legal; measurement; lived experience.

Source pages

37, 63

assessment precondition

cross-cutting rules

working indicators

cumulative stage requirements

risk-routed addenda

Purpose

Athlete Support Systems

Sport organisations provide proportionate routes to qualified, accessible, clearly explained and confidential mental-health support, with voluntary referral, continuity and protection from performance disadvantage.

Architecture decision still open

The five-indicator Pillar 1 structure, including P1.2 — timely, equitable and practical access — is approved for the working architecture. Detailed wording, evidence and measurement still require expert and pilot validation.

Assessment precondition

AP-01 · Support-system scope and service map

Before MindsMelt can assess access, the organisation must show exactly who is covered, what each service does, where it operates, who pays, who can see information and what happens when the route cannot meet the need.

Minimum evidence

Scope statement
service map
provider and route register
exact inclusions/exclusions
ownership
costs and eligibility
privacy/data-flow map
update record.

Not sufficient

A list of logos or provider names
a national helpline presented as a formal partner
“all athletes covered” without defining teams, countries or exclusions.

Proposed consequence: Major where scope or service meaning is materially unclear; critical where deliberate misrepresentation conceals unsafe or unqualified provision.

CR-01

Availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality

Every route must be tested against whether it exists, can be reached, respects the person and is delivered safely and competently. [S01–S04]

CR-02

Autonomy and voluntary participation

Routine check-ins, support and screening must not compel unnecessary disclosure or treatment. People must understand their choices and any lawful exceptions. [S02, S03, S12]

CR-03

Confidentiality and data minimisation

Collect, access and share only what is necessary for the stated purpose. Do not rely on apparently “free” consent where sporting power makes refusal difficult. [S07, S14, S15]

CR-04

Clinical independence and conflict control

Qualified professionals must be able to exercise independent judgement. Coaching, selection or commercial interests must not control clinical decisions. [S07, S11, S19]

CR-05

Accurate service descriptions

Performance, wellbeing, peer and clinical services must not be presented as interchangeable. Provider titles and partnerships must be truthful.

CR-06

Continuity and no avoidable abandonment

Delays, travel, transitions, provider absence and loss of organisational eligibility require a proportionate continuity or handoff plan.

CR-07

Controlled “not applicable”

An organisation may route out of a requirement only through verified scope facts. Lack of resources is not, by itself, proof that a safeguard is inapplicable.

P1.1

Retained · remapped

Qualified and appropriate professional support

When I need formal mental-health care, the route leads to someone appropriately qualified, correctly described and able to act independently in my interests.

Construct

Provider qualification, appropriateness, clinical governance and independence.

Core obligation

The organisation shall maintain and operate proportionate routes to appropriately qualified professional mental-health support, verify competence and jurisdiction, describe each service accurately and protect qualified clinical judgement from inappropriate performance influence.

Boundary

P1.1 owns provider quality and clinical governance. P1.2 owns practical access; P1.4 owns referral and continuity; P1.5 owns confidentiality and performance separation; urgent response belongs to Pillar 4.

Bronze

P1.1-BR

Bronze — Verified route to appropriately qualified professional support

Operating support baseline

Universal foundation with clinical routingMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll organisations; the route may be internal, contracted, public or community-based, but must be accurately described and verified.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall maintain at least one current and proportionate route to appropriately qualified mental-health care for people in scope who may require formal assessment or treatment. It shall verify provider identity, current professional registration or licence where applicable, scope of practice and jurisdiction; distinguish clinical care from performance psychology, coaching, peer support and general wellbeing activity; and define a qualified urgent alternative when the routine route is unavailable.

Intent: To ensure that “access to support” means a real route to someone competent and legally able to provide the service, not merely a name, app, campaign or unverified directory.

Minimum acceptable evidence

provider/route register
current registration or licence checks
scope-of-practice statement
service description visible to users
referral or contact pathway
urgent and backup route
contract or public-route verification where applicable

Evidence that is not sufficient

a provider biography or logo without registration verification
a mental-skills coach presented as a therapist
a search-engine list
an employee-assistance number that has not been checked
a professional whose licence does not cover the jurisdiction or service offered

Audit methods

Document review · independent sample of provider registration · route walkthrough · service-description comparison · interview with the responsible owner · crossover check with MSF role boundaries and Pillar 4 urgent routes.

Evidence validity

Provider status checked at engagement and at least at renewal or annually as a pilot default; registration current at decision date; route details rechecked after any failed contact or material change.

Proposed failure

Major if no viable qualified route exists or services are materially misdescribed. Critical where the organisation knowingly permits unqualified clinical practice, conceals provider status or deliberately directs a person to unsafe or unlawful care.

CAPA and decision

Major must be corrected before any badge. Closure requires a verified route and corrected communication, not only a promise to recruit later. Critical triggers immediate safety and scheme-integrity review.

Expert review

Qualified clinical reviewer, professional-regulation/legal reviewer, operational reviewer and lived-experience reviewer.

Sources

[S05–S11, S13, S16]

Silver

P1.1-SI

Silver — Operational professional-support arrangements and clinical boundaries

Implementation records exist

Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; clinical-governance depth increases where the organisation commissions, employs or controls providers.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall operate the qualified-support route through defined intake, referral acceptance, role boundaries, provider availability, supervision or specialist access, complaints, backup and handoff arrangements. Where it commissions or controls clinical care, the organisation shall assign a qualified clinical-governance function and protect professional judgement from coaching, selection, employment or commercial interference.

Intent: To demonstrate that verified qualifications are connected to a functioning service and that the organisation cannot override clinical judgement for performance reasons.

Minimum acceptable evidence

operating procedure
intake and referral records
provider availability and backup arrangements
clinical-governance terms where routed
supervision/consultation arrangements
complaints route
conflict and independence clauses
redacted sample of a successful and a failed referral where available

Evidence that is not sufficient

a contract with no operating pathway
provider availability dependent on coach approval
no backup during leave
an internal clinician reporting clinically to selection staff
complaints handled only by the person complained about

Audit methods

Sample records · provider and owner interviews · test a failed-referral scenario · review reporting lines, contracts and conflicts · confirm that complaints and clinical escalation can bypass performance management.

Evidence validity

Current operating cycle; at least 12 months of records where available; governance and provider arrangements current at decision date.

Proposed failure

Major for systemic intake, backup, supervision, conflict or complaints failure. Critical for deliberate interference with necessary care, unsafe unqualified treatment or retaliation linked to a clinical decision.

CAPA and decision

Major closed before Silver/Gold/Diamond. Evidence must demonstrate operation, such as a tested handoff or supervised pathway, not only revised contract wording.

Expert review

Clinical governance, professional regulation, legal/conflict, audit and lived-experience review.

Sources

[S07, S09–S13, S19]

Gold

P1.1-GO

Gold — Quality, capacity and provider-system improvement

The service is monitored and improved

Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold or Diamond; monitoring is proportionate to volume and avoids unnecessary clinical detail.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall monitor the quality and reliability of its professional-support system using protected system-level information, including provider currency, service capacity, rejected or delayed referrals, complaints, adverse events, cultural and accessibility barriers, continuity failures and conflicts. It shall record corrective action and verify whether changes improved the route.

Intent: To move beyond “we have a provider” and test whether the provider system remains qualified, reachable, appropriate and safe over time.

Minimum acceptable evidence

annual provider and route review
capacity and failed-access data
qualification rechecks
complaint/adverse-event summaries
accessibility and inclusion review
provider review records
corrective actions and effectiveness checks

Evidence that is not sufficient

utilisation totals alone
renewing a contract without quality review
measuring success only by low complaint numbers
collecting clinical outcomes the organisation does not need
identical annual review with only the date changed

Audit methods

Review protected aggregate data · sample a provider review and corrective action · compare sites/populations · interview governance and clinical leads · verify that data minimisation and confidentiality are maintained.

Evidence validity

At least annual review and after a serious complaint, provider change, repeated failed referral, new jurisdiction or material scope change.

Proposed failure

Major for persistent uncorrected quality/capacity failure, expired provider status, unmanaged conflict or misleading service claims. Critical for knowingly continuing unsafe clinical practice or concealing serious provider failure.

CAPA and decision

Major requires verified service correction, capacity or provider change and an effectiveness check before Gold/Diamond.

Expert review

Clinical governance, audit, procurement/commissioning, privacy, accessibility and lived-experience review.

Sources

[S01–S04, S09–S13, S18, S19]

Diamond

P1.1-DI

Diamond — Independently verified professional-support quality and independence

Embedded and independently corroborated

Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; sampling proportionate to provider model, scale, jurisdictions and risk.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall demonstrate through independent audit that professional-support routes across the certified scope are appropriately qualified, correctly represented, clinically governed where applicable, available in practice and protected from inappropriate performance influence. The review shall sample provider status, agreements, failed referrals, complaints or adverse events, governance, conflicts and protected athlete experience. No open major or critical finding may remain.

Intent: To substantiate Diamond’s promise that people can reach competent care and that clinical judgement is not controlled by the organisation’s performance interests.

Minimum acceptable evidence

independent registration and agreement sample
clinical-governance review
protected athlete/service-user corroboration
failed-referral and complaint sample
cross-site or cross-jurisdiction testing
independent closure of major findings

Evidence that is not sufficient

provider testimonials selected by management
auditor reliance on contracts alone
no sample outside the flagship team
raw therapy notes supplied unnecessarily
clinical lead who also has unchecked selection authority

Audit methods

Independent credential verification · protected provider and athlete interviews · sample handoffs, failures and governance · cross-scope comparison · test independence and alternative routes.

Evidence validity

Normally previous 12–24 months, adjusted for operating history and volume; provider status and material arrangements current at certification decision.

Proposed failure

Major for unreliable qualification, access, governance or independence. Critical for falsification, deliberate obstruction, retaliation, unlicensed practice or serious unresolved danger.

CAPA and decision

All major and critical findings independently closed before certification; effectiveness must be demonstrated, not merely planned.

Expert review

Independent clinical/safeguarding auditor, professional-regulation, privacy, lived-experience and assurance-method review.

Sources

[S07, S09–S13, S18, S19]

P1.2

Approved working indicator

Timely, equitable and practical access

The service is not only listed — I can realistically reach it, understand the conditions and receive an alternative when the preferred route cannot help.

Construct

Availability, accessibility, acceptability, quality and practical access barriers.

Core obligation

The organisation shall make support practically accessible by defining and operating transparent eligibility, cost, waiting, location, language, disability, scheduling and backup arrangements, and shall identify and reduce material barriers across the assessed scope.

Boundary

P1.2 owns routine practical access and capacity. P4.3 owns urgent and statutory escalation; P1.3 owns communication; P5 owns cultural willingness and stigma.

Bronze

P1.2-BR

Bronze — Transparent and usable access conditions

People know whether and how the route will work

Universal foundationMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll organisations and all populations in scope; route detail scales with service model.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall define and communicate who may use each support route, how to make contact without unnecessary permission, any cost or funding limits, expected response and waiting boundaries, location and opening hours, languages and formats, remote options, reasonable-adjustment process, urgent alternatives and what happens when the preferred route is unavailable.

Intent: To prevent a nominal service from being treated as accessible when hidden eligibility, cost, waiting, permission or practical barriers make it unusable.

Minimum acceptable evidence

athlete-facing access guide
eligibility and cost information
contact route
hours and waiting boundaries
language/accessibility information
alternative route
reasonable-adjustment process
current local or public-service information

Evidence that is not sufficient

“contact the welfare lead” with no next step
support requiring coach permission
unknown costs
no explanation of waiting or emergency alternatives
a digital-only route that is unusable for part of the population

Audit methods

Unaided route walkthrough · review access information from the user perspective · test one routine and one unavailable-provider scenario · accessibility review · compare claims with actual service terms.

Evidence validity

Access information reviewed at least every six months as a pilot default and immediately after service, cost, eligibility, provider or contact changes.

Proposed failure

Major where a material part of scope has no usable access route or where conditions are misleading. Minor for an isolated outdated detail when a safe and clear alternative remains available.

CAPA and decision

Major corrected before any badge; correction includes updated information and route testing. Minor corrected promptly with verification.

Expert review

Operational access, accessibility, clinical, consumer-information and lived-experience review.

Sources

[S01, S02, S04, S05, S09, S17, S20]

Silver

P1.2-SI

Silver — Operational access, barrier support and backup

The organisation records whether people get through

Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; data collection must be minimal and proportionate.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall operate and record the access pathway, including initial response, accepted and failed contacts, waiting or capacity delays, practical accommodations, backup routes and reasonable follow-up. It shall provide proportionate navigation or practical support where known barriers such as cost, transport, scheduling, language, disability, travel or digital access would otherwise prevent use.

Intent: To demonstrate that the access route works for real people and that predictable barriers do not end the process without an alternative.

Minimum acceptable evidence

access log with minimal data
response/waiting records
failed-contact and backup records
reasonable-adjustment examples
navigation or practical-support records
after-hours and travel alternatives
complaint or feedback route

Evidence that is not sufficient

counting website clicks as access
closing the referral after one unanswered call
collecting diagnosis details to measure waiting
no record of failed or rejected contacts
informal exceptions available only to favoured athletes

Audit methods

Sample anonymised access journeys · test unavailable provider and accommodation scenarios · review data minimisation · interview route owners and users · compare different teams/sites.

Evidence validity

Current operating cycle; normally previous 12 months or all journeys if fewer; current access and backup information.

Proposed failure

Major for systemic failed access, discriminatory barriers, no backup or misleading eligibility. Critical where access is deliberately blocked or delayed in a way that creates serious danger or retaliation.

CAPA and decision

Major closed before stage; closure requires demonstrated access or a tested alternative, not only a new policy.

Expert review

Operational, accessibility/equality, clinical, privacy and lived-experience review.

Sources

[S01–S04, S09, S17, S20]

Gold

P1.2-GO

Gold — Equity, capacity and access improvement

Barriers are measured and corrected

Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold/Diamond; analysis proportionate to population size and privacy risk.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall monitor availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality across the assessed scope; analyse waiting, failed access, affordability, language, disability, geography, schedule, identity and status-related barriers using protected data; compare materially different sites or groups; and implement and verify improvements without exposing individuals.

Intent: To reveal who the service does not reach and prevent overall utilisation averages from hiding unequal or unusable access.

Minimum acceptable evidence

defined access indicators
protected disaggregated analysis
capacity/waiting review
barrier and failed-referral trends
under-served group feedback
resource or service changes
re-test or effectiveness evidence

Evidence that is not sufficient

overall utilisation only
small subgroup reporting that risks identification
assuming low use means low need
collecting sensitive demographic data without necessity and safeguards
no action after repeated access gaps

Audit methods

Review indicator definitions and privacy controls · compare groups/sites · sample one identified barrier through to corrective action and re-test · protected user feedback.

Evidence validity

At least annual access/equity review and after repeated failures, major scope changes or new jurisdictions.

Proposed failure

Major for persistent material inequity, ignored capacity failure or unsupported claims of universal access. Critical for deliberate discriminatory exclusion or concealment of dangerous access failure.

CAPA and decision

Major closed with a proportionate access plan and evidence of implementation/effectiveness before Gold/Diamond.

Expert review

Accessibility/equality, measurement, privacy, clinical, operational and lived-experience review.

Sources

[S01–S04, S09, S10, S13, S20]

Diamond

P1.2-DI

Diamond — Independently verified practical and equitable access

People across the certified scope can actually reach support

Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; independent sampling across material sites, statuses, languages and access routes.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall demonstrate through independent route testing, protected participant evidence and review of access records that support can be reached in practice across the certified scope, including by people facing relevant language, disability, financial, geographic, schedule, status or power barriers. The auditor shall test backup and failed-access processes and confirm that no unresolved major access failure remains.

Intent: To ensure Diamond access claims survive independent testing rather than relying on service descriptions or selected success stories.

Minimum acceptable evidence

independent route-finding tests
protected interviews across relevant groups
sample access and failed-access journeys
reasonable-adjustment verification
cross-site comparison
verified access improvements

Evidence that is not sufficient

management-selected testimonials
testing only headquarters or elite squads
scripted route demonstrations
no sampling of non-permanent or lower-status participants
no failed-access sample

Audit methods

Independent unaided contact tests where ethical · protected interviews · anonymised journey sampling · cross-scope and backup testing · review unresolved complaints and barriers.

Evidence validity

Evidence normally covers the previous 12–24 months; access information and routes current at decision date.

Proposed failure

Major for inconsistent or inequitable access, unreliable backup or uncorrected exclusion. Critical for obstruction, retaliation, deliberate discrimination or grave danger caused by blocked access.

CAPA and decision

Independent closure and, where appropriate, repeat route test before certification.

Expert review

Independent audit, accessibility/equality, privacy, clinical and lived-experience review.

Sources

[S01–S04, S09, S10, S18, S20]

P1.3

Retained · remapped

Clear communication and support navigation

I know what help exists, what it can do, how to use it, what is private and where to go if the normal route is not right for me.

Construct

Proactive communication, comprehension, navigation and information accessibility.

Core obligation

The organisation shall communicate current, accessible and truthful support information proactively and repeatedly, and shall test whether people across the assessed scope can understand and navigate routine, urgent, confidential and conflict-safe routes.

Boundary

P1.3 owns support navigation. Pillar 2 owns staff education systems; P4.4 owns crisis/safeguarding readiness; P5.1 owns stigma and speaking-up culture.

Bronze

P1.3-BR

Bronze — Clear, proactive and accessible support information

People are told before they need help

Universal foundationMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll organisations and all people in scope; age, language, disability and digital-access adaptations required.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall communicate at induction and through continuously accessible channels what support is available, the difference between clinical and non-clinical roles, how to access each route, eligibility and costs, expected confidentiality and its limits, urgent alternatives, reasonable adjustments, and how to raise a concern about the service. Information shall be plain-language, current and available privately without requiring a manager.

Intent: To ensure that people do not need insider knowledge, confidence or a crisis to discover how the support system works.

Minimum acceptable evidence

induction materials
current website/app/venue information
private-access option
plain-language service guide
translated/alternative formats
distribution/update records
complaints and urgent-route information

Evidence that is not sufficient

one old email
information only in a policy archive
technical provider terms without explanation
communication available only through coaches
materials that omit cost or confidentiality limits

Audit methods

User-perspective walkthrough · sample induction · accessibility and language review · compare materials with service map · unaided location test.

Evidence validity

Current season/programme; reviewed after material route changes and at least every six months as pilot default.

Proposed failure

Major if people cannot reasonably find or understand the route or if information is materially misleading. Minor for an isolated format/distribution gap with safe alternatives.

CAPA and decision

Major corrected and user-tested before badge. Minor corrected promptly.

Expert review

Lived-experience, accessibility, clinical, communications and privacy review.

Sources

[S01, S04, S05, S09, S12, S17, S22]

Silver

P1.3-SI

Silver — Repeated navigation, orientation and comprehension checks

Communication is an operating process

Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; communication cadence adapts to season, turnover, travel and programme risk.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall operate a communication and navigation programme that repeats support information at relevant points, equips frontline roles to guide people without accessing private information, records updates and reach, and checks whether people understand where to go for routine, urgent, confidential and conflict-safe support. Identified comprehension or reach gaps shall be corrected.

Intent: To distinguish communication that was sent from communication that was received, understood and usable.

Minimum acceptable evidence

communication calendar
onboarding and refresher records
frontline navigation aids
reach/comprehension checks
updated materials
corrections after feedback
temporary/travel communication where relevant

Evidence that is not sufficient

email delivery statistics only
asking managers whether athletes received it
communication once at contract signing
frontline staff who must know private details to signpost
no update after provider change

Audit methods

Sample communications across the operating year · interview frontline staff · protected participant route questions · compare reach by team/site/status · verify correction of a gap.

Evidence validity

Current operating cycle; evidence of induction and at least one meaningful refresher or context-specific update.

Proposed failure

Major for systemic lack of communication, materially incorrect guidance or inaccessible navigation. Minor for an isolated missed refresher where routes remain well known and usable.

CAPA and decision

Major closed with repeated communication and a comprehension/route test, not only a resend.

Expert review

Communications, accessibility, lived-experience, operational and privacy review.

Sources

[S05, S09, S10, S12, S17, S22]

Gold

P1.3-GO

Gold — Co-designed communication and navigation improvement

Reach and comprehension are monitored

Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold/Diamond; monitoring must protect anonymity and include under-served groups.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall evaluate whether support information is understood and trusted across relevant groups, co-design or test materials with people in scope, analyse route confusion and under-reach, and record improvements. Communication shall be adapted where power, language, disability, culture, location or employment/selection status creates a barrier.

Intent: To prevent polished communication from serving only confident, centrally located or higher-status participants.

Minimum acceptable evidence

co-design/user-testing records
protected comprehension and trust findings
under-reach analysis
revised materials
route-finding results
leadership or service changes linked to feedback

Evidence that is not sufficient

a general satisfaction survey
publishing identifiable subgroup comments
consulting only athlete representatives selected by management
redesign without checking comprehension
no response to persistent route confusion

Audit methods

Review co-design method and participant protection · sample route-finding data · compare groups · verify one improvement from finding to re-test.

Evidence validity

At least annual evaluation and after major service, population or language changes.

Proposed failure

Major for repeated known communication failure, inaccessible material or misleading claims. Critical where communication is deliberately withheld or manipulated to prevent access or conceal harm.

CAPA and decision

Major closed with corrected materials and evidence of improved comprehension/reach.

Expert review

Lived-experience, accessibility, measurement, communications, privacy and clinical review.

Sources

[S01, S04, S09, S10, S12, S20, S22]

Diamond

P1.3-DI

Diamond — Independently verified support navigation and comprehension

People can find and explain the route without coaching

Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; independent sample across material roles, sites, languages and status groups.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall demonstrate through independent unaided route-finding, protected participant interviews and communication sampling that people across the certified scope can locate and understand routine, urgent, confidential and conflict-safe support routes, including key eligibility, cost and confidentiality boundaries. No unresolved major communication or navigation failure may remain.

Intent: To verify that the support system is understandable from the user’s perspective, not only complete from the organisation’s perspective.

Minimum acceptable evidence

independent route tests
protected interviews
cross-site/language sample
current communication archive
identified improvements and re-test
complaint/feedback sample

Evidence that is not sufficient

management present during interviews
questions shared as scripts
testing only staff who designed the system
no lower-status or remote participants
website review alone

Audit methods

Independent unaided navigation · protected interviews · compare claims and route reality · sample communication at induction, routine operation and travel/transition points.

Evidence validity

Current audit cycle with evidence of sustained communication during previous 12–24 months.

Proposed failure

Major for inconsistent comprehension, inaccessible routes or material misinformation. Critical for interview interference, retaliation, concealment or deliberate access obstruction.

CAPA and decision

Independent closure and repeat navigation testing before certification where needed.

Expert review

Independent lived-experience/interview protocol, accessibility, communications, privacy and audit review.

Sources

[S05, S09, S10, S12, S17, S18, S22]

P1.4

Retained · remapped

Voluntary check-ins, referral and continuity

A check-in does not force me to disclose, a referral leads somewhere, and support does not disappear when circumstances change.

Construct

Autonomy in check-ins, referral activation, safe handoff, follow-up and continuity.

Core obligation

The organisation shall ensure check-ins are voluntary and non-diagnostic, operate a qualified referral and handoff pathway, support people during delay or failure and maintain proportionate continuity across foreseeable transitions without unnecessary surveillance.

Boundary

P1.4 owns routine check-in/referral and continuity. Formal clinical assessment belongs to qualified providers; urgent escalation belongs to Pillar 4; broader transition support belongs to P5.2.

Bronze

P1.4-BR

Bronze — Voluntary, non-diagnostic check-ins and defined referral

Choice and boundaries are clear

Universal foundation with screening routingMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll organisations that conduct wellbeing check-ins, screening, monitoring or staff-initiated referral; referral route required universally.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall define a referral pathway and ensure that any routine wellbeing check-in is voluntary, non-diagnostic and clear about its purpose, who will see information, what is recorded, the right not to answer and the circumstances requiring urgent or safeguarding action. Non-clinical personnel shall not use check-ins or scores to diagnose, compel treatment or decide that escalation is unnecessary.

Intent: To preserve the supportive value of check-ins without turning them into covert assessment, compulsory disclosure or false clinical reassurance.

Minimum acceptable evidence

check-in/referral procedure
participant information and opt-out wording
role boundaries
referral destinations
urgent escalation link
recording/data rules
formal-screening addendum where applicable

Evidence that is not sufficient

mandatory “wellness scores” linked to selection
a coach-administered diagnostic questionnaire
no explanation of who sees answers
referral based only on a cut-off score
assuming refusal indicates a problem

Audit methods

Review check-in tools and communication · scenario interview · data-flow review · observe or reconstruct check-in process · verify urgent crossover with Pillar 4.

Evidence validity

Procedure current and reviewed after tool, provider, data-use or legal changes; participant information current each operating cycle.

Proposed failure

Major for compelled or misleading check-ins, undefined referral or non-clinical diagnosis. Critical where coercion, false reassurance, punitive use or deliberate delay creates serious harm.

CAPA and decision

Major corrected before any badge; closure includes removal/correction of coercive data use and participant re-communication, not only policy revision.

Expert review

Clinical, privacy, legal, lived-experience and measurement review mandatory.

Sources

[S02, S03, S08–S10, S12, S14, S15]

Silver

P1.4-SI

Silver — Operational referral, handoff and proportionate follow-up

The pathway moves beyond signposting

Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; formal screening is routed to qualified clinical oversight.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall operate referral and handoff through trained roles, defined consent or other lawful authority, minimum-necessary information, confirmation of route acceptance where feasible, support during delay, failed-referral escalation and proportionate follow-up. Follow-up shall check whether the person reached a safe next step without demanding diagnosis or therapy details for performance staff.

Intent: To prevent referral from becoming “here is a number” followed by abandonment, surveillance or unnecessary clinical disclosure.

Minimum acceptable evidence

referral workflow
trained-role records
redacted referral/handoff sample
failed-referral route
consent/lawful-basis guidance
follow-up record
urgent escalation criteria
screening clinical oversight where routed

Evidence that is not sufficient

closing after signposting
sending complete medical/performance files
asking coaches to confirm treatment details
no response when a provider rejects the referral
screening results reviewed only by performance staff

Audit methods

Sample successful, delayed and failed referral · privacy/minimisation check · role interviews · test unavailable provider · inspect formal-screening oversight if used.

Evidence validity

Current procedure; sample previous 12 months or all referrals if fewer; tool validity and oversight current.

Proposed failure

Major for systemic failed handoff, abandonment, excessive sharing or unqualified screening. Critical where deliberate interference, unsafe delay or coercion creates grave harm.

CAPA and decision

Major closed before Silver/Gold/Diamond with a demonstrated referral or tested scenario and corrected data flow.

Expert review

Clinical handoff, privacy, legal, operational and lived-experience review.

Sources

[S02, S04, S08–S10, S12, S13]

Gold

P1.4-GO

Gold — Referral quality, continuity and transition improvement

The organisation learns where people are lost

Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold/Diamond; continuity contexts include travel, injury, relocation, deselection, contract end and retirement where relevant.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall monitor referral activation, failed handoffs, waiting, disengagement, continuity and transition barriers using protected system-level information; review the safety and validity of any screening or monitoring tool; and implement improvements. It shall maintain proportionate continuity plans when travel, injury, relocation, provider change, deselection, contract end or retirement would otherwise interrupt necessary support.

Intent: To reveal the gap between referral and care and to prevent organisational transitions from abruptly ending a person’s support.

Minimum acceptable evidence

referral and continuity indicators
failed-handoff analysis
transition/portable-information process
tool governance review
barrier feedback
corrective actions and re-test
provider handover arrangements

Evidence that is not sufficient

counting referrals made rather than support reached
automatic transfer of clinical files without authority
continuity only for selected athletes
keeping people in organisational systems after eligibility ends without clear agreement
no review of false positives/negatives from screening

Audit methods

Review protected referral/continuity data · sample one transition and one failed handoff · inspect tool governance · verify improvements and data minimisation.

Evidence validity

At least annual review and after repeated failure, provider/tool change or material transition programme change.

Proposed failure

Major for persistent failed referral, no continuity in a foreseeable material context, unsafe tool governance or repeated privacy failure. Critical for deliberate abandonment or coercive/selection use causing serious harm.

CAPA and decision

Major closed with an implemented continuity or referral improvement and effectiveness evidence before Gold/Diamond.

Expert review

Clinical, measurement, privacy, transitions/lived-experience and operational review.

Sources

[S02, S04, S08–S10, S12, S18, S20]

Diamond

P1.4-DI

Diamond — Independently verified voluntary referral and continuity

Choice, handoff and continuity are corroborated

Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; sampling includes relevant transitions, failed referrals and screening where used.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall demonstrate through independent audit and protected participant evidence that check-ins are voluntary and non-punitive, referrals produce safe and privacy-respecting handoffs, failed routes trigger alternatives, and continuity is maintained across material contexts in the certified scope. The auditor shall sample tools, records and transitions without seeking unnecessary clinical content. No open major or critical finding may remain.

Intent: To substantiate that the organisation’s care pathway respects autonomy and continues to function when a person’s circumstances or sporting status change.

Minimum acceptable evidence

independent check-in/tool review
protected participant corroboration
redacted successful and failed referral samples
transition/continuity sample
provider/tool governance verification
independent CAPA closure

Evidence that is not sufficient

only staff accounts
participants interviewed by coaches
raw therapy or diagnostic records
no sample of people who declined a check-in or changed status
scripted success cases only

Audit methods

Independent record and tool sampling · protected interviews · transition and failed-referral walkthroughs · privacy and autonomy review · cross-scope consistency test.

Evidence validity

Previous 12–24 months adjusted for volume; tools, pathways and provider arrangements current at decision date.

Proposed failure

Major for coercive, unreliable or discontinuous pathways. Critical for retaliation, evidence manipulation, deliberate interference with care or grave unresolved danger.

CAPA and decision

Independent closure required; repeat pathway test where necessary before certification.

Expert review

Independent clinical, privacy, measurement, lived-experience and assurance review.

Sources

[S02–S04, S08–S10, S12, S18]

P1.5

Retained · remapped

Confidentiality, autonomy and protection from performance disadvantage

I can ask for help without unnecessary performance involvement, hidden data reuse or fear that disclosure will cost me my place.

Construct

Confidential access, informed boundaries, data separation, clinical independence and freedom from retaliation/performance disadvantage.

Core obligation

The organisation shall provide confidential and conflict-safe access, explain and enforce information boundaries, minimise and separate sensitive information, protect independent clinical judgement and prevent help-seeking information from being used against a person except through a lawful, necessary and transparent safety process.

Boundary

P1.5 owns routine care confidentiality and selection separation. MSF controls provide the general privacy floor; P5.1 owns wider non-retaliation culture; P3 owns governance oversight.

Bronze

P1.5-BR

Bronze — Confidential access and transparent information boundaries

People can enter support without coach or selector permission

Universal foundationMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll organisations; lawful emergency, safeguarding and fitness/participation exceptions must be explained accurately.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall provide a route to support that does not require unnecessary coaching, management or selection permission; explain before access what information is collected, who may see it, confidentiality limits and lawful exceptions; restrict routine access to authorised roles; and prohibit the use of mental-health or help-seeking information in selection, contract or performance decisions except through a lawful, necessary, transparent and athlete-known process involving appropriately qualified judgement.

Intent: To address the sport-specific fear that asking for help will expose private information or damage selection, funding, employment or status.

Minimum acceptable evidence

confidential access route
athlete-facing privacy/confidentiality explanation
role-based access list
selection-use rule
functional-information sharing process
alternative route for conflicts
provider independence statement

Evidence that is not sufficient

“everything is confidential” with no exceptions
coach consent required to book
clinical records accessible to performance dashboards
diagnosis routinely shared with selectors
relying on consent that is tied to selection participation

Audit methods

User-perspective access walkthrough · privacy/data-flow review · role/access inspection · interview provider and performance owners separately · compare policy with system permissions.

Evidence validity

Current privacy and access rules; reviewed after system, provider, purpose or legal changes and at least annually as pilot default.

Proposed failure

Major for no confidential route, undefined boundaries or inappropriate access. Critical for deliberate harmful disclosure, retaliation, covert selection use, evidence tampering or systematic exposure of protected information.

CAPA and decision

Major corrected before any badge; closure includes access correction, communication and any required incident response. Critical triggers safety, privacy and scheme action.

Expert review

Privacy/legal, clinical ethics, lived-experience and operational security review mandatory.

Sources

[S02, S03, S07, S11–S15, S22]

Silver

P1.5-SI

Silver — Operational confidentiality, consent and conflict controls

Access rights and exceptions work in practice

Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; enhanced for in-house clinical services, minors, interpreters, digital platforms and dual-role practitioners.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall operate role-based access, separated clinical/support and performance records, lawful-basis and consent/exception procedures, interpreter confidentiality, conflict-safe alternative access, controlled functional-information sharing and auditable access where proportionate. Staff shall be instructed against informal disclosure, and people shall be able to ask questions, correct inaccuracies and raise privacy concerns.

Intent: To make confidentiality an operating control rather than a promise and to manage legitimate safety communication without exposing unnecessary clinical detail.

Minimum acceptable evidence

access matrix and system permissions
separated records
privacy notice and consent/exception records
functional restriction template
access logs where available
interpreter/contractor confidentiality terms
privacy concern route
staff briefing

Evidence that is not sufficient

clinical notes in shared messaging apps
informal corridor updates
full diagnosis shared when only availability status is needed
dual-role provider with no conflict explanation
access rights that do not match policy

Audit methods

System/access sample · redacted information-sharing sample · staff and provider interviews · conflict scenario · check correction/complaint route and access logging.

Evidence validity

Access rights current; formal review at least annually and after role/system changes; sample previous 12 months.

Proposed failure

Major for systemic access, separation, consent or conflict failure. Critical for deliberate disclosure, retaliation, harmful selection use or concealment of a serious breach.

CAPA and decision

Major closed before stage with technical and procedural correction plus effectiveness check. Privacy incidents handled under legal and scheme rules.

Expert review

Privacy/security, clinical ethics, legal, lived-experience and audit review.

Sources

[S07, S11–S15, S22]

Gold

P1.5-GO

Gold — Trust, access-control and performance-separation improvement

The organisation tests whether confidentiality is believed and protected

Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold/Diamond; monitoring must not itself create a privacy risk.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall test and review confidentiality, access rights, conflicts and separation from performance decisions; monitor privacy concerns, near misses, inappropriate requests, selection-fear indicators and route avoidance using protected information; and implement and verify improvements. It shall periodically confirm that only minimum necessary functional information reaches decision-makers and that clinical professionals retain independent judgement.

Intent: To detect the informal leaks, power dynamics and fear that written confidentiality rules often miss.

Minimum acceptable evidence

access review
privacy concern/near-miss analysis
protected trust feedback
sample functional-information sharing
conflict review
selection/performance separation test
corrective action and re-test

Evidence that is not sufficient

no complaints treated as proof of trust
surveying athletes through coaches
publishing small-group results
reviewing only formal systems while ignoring messaging/email
no action after inappropriate information requests

Audit methods

Review access and sharing samples · protected participant feedback · compare policy, system and actual practice · sample one concern or near miss through CAPA · interview clinical and selection leadership separately.

Evidence validity

At least annual review and after a privacy incident, role conflict, system change or substantiated retaliation concern.

Proposed failure

Major for repeated uncorrected leakage, conflict or selection-separation failure. Critical for retaliation, deliberate covert use, evidence manipulation or serious harmful disclosure.

CAPA and decision

Major closed with corrected permissions/process and demonstrated trust/control improvement before Gold/Diamond.

Expert review

Privacy/security, clinical independence, governance, lived-experience and audit review.

Sources

[S07, S11–S15, S19, S22]

Diamond

P1.5-DI

Diamond — Independently corroborated confidentiality, autonomy and clinical independence

People trust the route and evidence supports that trust

Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; independent sample includes relevant clinical, performance, selection, HR and contracted roles.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall demonstrate through independent privacy/conflict audit, protected participant evidence and sampling of access and information-sharing controls that people can seek support without inappropriate performance involvement, coercion, retaliation or covert reuse of information. Qualified clinical decisions shall be protected from non-clinical override, and no unresolved major or critical confidentiality or autonomy finding may remain.

Intent: To substantiate Diamond’s trust promise in the area where sport’s power imbalance creates the greatest fear of help-seeking consequences.

Minimum acceptable evidence

independent access/conflict audit
protected athlete and staff interviews
sample sharing and functional restrictions
provider independence evidence
privacy incident/CAPA sample
cross-site/system consistency review

Evidence that is not sufficient

organisation-selected testimonials
management present during interviews
audit limited to written privacy notices
no inspection of actual access rights
raw clinical files supplied to prove confidentiality

Audit methods

Independent system and role-access testing · protected interviews · sample conflicts, requests and functional information · cross-check clinical authority and selection separation · verify CAPA.

Evidence validity

Previous 12–24 months plus current permissions and arrangements at certification decision.

Proposed failure

Major for unreliable confidentiality, autonomy or independence. Critical for retaliation, deliberate harmful disclosure, covert selection use, obstruction or falsification.

CAPA and decision

All major/critical findings independently closed before certification; serious trust failure may require a sustained implementation period and repeat corroboration.

Expert review

Independent privacy/security, clinical ethics, legal, lived-experience and assurance review.

Sources

[S03, S07, S11–S15, S19, S22]

Evidence and assurance

A policy is a starting point. The audit tests the route.

Scope and service design

Service map, provider register, role descriptions, access conditions, privacy/data-flow map.

Design does not prove use.

Professional verification

Registration/licence checks, scope, jurisdiction, supervision and governance.

A certificate does not prove availability or independence.

Communication

Induction, route guides, accessible formats, updates and user tests.

Sending does not prove comprehension.

Implementation records

Access, referral, failed handoff, accommodation, continuity and complaint records.

Use minimum necessary data; absence of cases is not automatically proof of quality.

System-level monitoring

Waiting, barriers, access gaps, provider review, privacy concerns and CAPA.

Avoid identifying small groups or collecting diagnoses unnecessarily.

Protected corroboration

Confidential athlete/staff interviews and unaided route tests.

Organisation-selected testimonials are not independent corroboration.

External verification

Registration checks, public routes, contracts, service confirmations and system permissions.

Marketing claims and untested partner logos are insufficient.

Document and system review

Whether routes, roles, data flows and eligibility are defined and technically controlled.

Credential verification

Whether claimed providers and professional titles are current and appropriate.

Unaided route test

Whether a person can find and activate the route without coaching.

Journey sampling

Whether routine, delayed, failed and transition referrals are handled as described.

Protected interviews

Whether people understand, trust and can use the system without feared disadvantage.

Cross-scope sampling

Whether the flagship team and less visible teams/sites receive comparable minimum protection.

Conflict test

Whether a concern or care decision can bypass the coach, selector, executive or provider implicated.

CAPA effectiveness

Whether correction changed access, confidentiality or continuity in practice.

Evidence validity

Evidence expires when the route changes.

Provider registration/licence

At engagement and renewal; normally annual; current at decision.

Refresh trigger: Complaint, sanction, scope/jurisdiction change or provider role change.

Service/access information

At least six-monthly.

Refresh trigger: Provider, contact, cost, eligibility, hours, language or route change; failed contact.

Privacy/access controls

At least annually.

Refresh trigger: System, role, provider, purpose, legal or incident change.

Communication

Current season/programme and onboarding.

Refresh trigger: Service change, new population/site or material comprehension gap.

Implementation samples

Normally previous 12 months.

Refresh trigger: Use all available records for new/low-volume systems.

Gold/Diamond trends

Normally 12–24 months.

Refresh trigger: Adjust for organisation history and volume; do not fabricate volume.

Screening/tool review

Before use and after material evidence/licence/version changes.

Refresh trigger: Incident, false-reassurance concern, data-use change or new population.

Finding classification

Consequences match actual risk.

Observation

Requirement met; improvement would strengthen the system.

Example: Clear route exists but user-testing could be broader.

Minor

Isolated, limited failure without material systemic access or confidentiality risk.

Example: One outdated format while current alternatives remain usable; isolated overdue review.

Major

Systemic or material failure that undermines the stage claim or blocks safe access.

Example: No qualified route; inaccessible service; compulsory check-in; no confidential route; repeated failed handoff.

Critical

Current serious danger, deliberate concealment, retaliation, falsification, harmful disclosure or knowingly unsafe/unqualified practice.

Example: Covert selection use of therapy data; retaliating after help-seeking; knowingly allowing unlicensed treatment; deliberate interference with urgent care.

Controlled routing

One safety function, evidence proportionate to context.

RA-01

Minors and young athletes

Age-appropriate information; consent and assent; guardian involvement and limits; confidential access where lawful; safeguarding crossover; transition to adult services; school/academy coordination; no assumption that parents may see all information.

RA-02

Small and volunteer-led organisations

No requirement to employ a clinician solely because of size; verified external/public routes; clear limitations; practical navigation; conflict-safe alternative beyond the main coach; no unsupported “partnership” or availability claims.

RA-03

In-house or commissioned clinical services

Named qualified clinical governance; professional independence; supervision; adverse-event and complaint process; safe records; continuity; conflicts; no routine clinical reporting to performance staff.

RA-04

Performance psychology and dual-role practitioners

Clear distinction between performance and clinical services; role-change process; informed choice; separate records where required; conflict and referral rules; no ambiguous “psychologist” claims where title/scope differs.

RA-05

Travel, remote and cross-border care

Verify provider authority and indemnity by jurisdiction; know the person’s location during remote care; local emergency route; platform privacy; language; medication and continuity plan; handoff before travel or relocation.

RA-06

Residential, boarding and academy settings

Private out-of-hours access; separation from house, coaching and selection authority; youth/guardian rules; support when away from family; safe spaces for remote consultations; continuity during holidays and release.

RA-07

Federations, franchises, member bodies and multiple sites

Exact certified scope; central minimums; local service maps and providers; delegation controls; escalation where local route fails; cross-site access analysis; no claim that unaudited members are covered.

RA-08

Language, disability, culture and interpreters

Accessible formats and reasonable adjustments; qualified/confidential interpreters; culturally appropriate choices; private communication; no family or teammate interpreter by default where confidentiality or accuracy could be compromised.

RA-09

Screening, monitoring and digital wellbeing tools

Clear purpose; validated tool for population and use; qualified oversight; voluntariness and lawful basis; false-positive/negative response; crisis plan; data minimisation; no automated diagnosis or selection use; vendor and algorithm governance.

RA-10

Injury, deselection, contract end, retirement and other transitions

Advance explanation of eligibility end; proportionate continuation or handoff; portable information controlled by the person; safe medication/clinical continuity; no abrupt withdrawal as punishment; clear financial and provider boundaries.

Proportional organisation models

Small community club

A verified external/public route, clear and private navigation, voluntary referral, safe data handling and a conflict-safe alternative may be sufficient. The club must not claim guaranteed clinical access it does not provide.

Professional team or academy

Likely needs commissioned or embedded routes, defined capacity, clinical independence, rapid referral, travel/residential coverage, confidential entry and strong separation from selection.

National federation

Needs exact scope, central standards, local-country service maps, delegation controls, cross-squad consistency, provider governance and monitoring of unequal access.

International federation / multi-country body

Needs jurisdiction routing, travel/event provision, provider verification by country, language/accessibility choices and transparent limits where member organisations are outside scope.

Event organiser

Focuses on temporary access, clear signposting, qualified event provision, handoff to home systems, confidentiality in accreditation/medical structures and urgent crossover with Pillar 4.

Organisation serving staff and volunteers

Must state whether staff/volunteers receive the same, separate or public routes, and cannot imply coverage that excludes them without saying so.

Questionnaire blueprint

The applicant form is not the audit.

Translate requirements into routed measurement instruments; do not turn every control, evidence request and audit test into an applicant yes/no question.

Working range: Approximately 32–42 Pillar 1 applicant-bank items, with a typical routed sitting of roughly 22–30. This is an authoring hypothesis, not a quota or a validated scale.

Scope and service mapping

4–6 unscored selectors

Establishes covered populations, provider model, jurisdictions, costs, digital tools, minors, travel and transition contexts.

Cross-cutting rights and safeguards

6–8 applicant prompts

Tests voluntary participation, confidentiality, clinical independence, accurate service descriptions, continuity and controlled applicability.

Indicator maturity

15–20 focused prompts

Tests provider quality, practical access, navigation, referral continuity and performance separation without duplicating the same construct.

Routed risk modules

7–10 conditional prompts

Activates only for minors, commissioned care, digital tools, travel, residential settings, multiple sites, transitions and other relevant contexts.

01 · Applicant questions linked to one retained requirement and one primary construct.

02 · Evidence requests stating what may demonstrate practice and what is not sufficient.

03 · Auditor prompts, unaided route tests and sampling instructions kept separate from answer keys.

04 · Protected athlete, staff and provider corroboration with consent, independence, anti-retaliation and minimum-data safeguards.

Required review

Clinical and professional-regulation review

Provider qualification, scope of practice, role boundaries, referral, screening, supervision and clinical independence.

Privacy, data-protection and security review

Lawful basis, consent under power imbalance, access controls, data minimisation, retention, digital tools and functional-information sharing.

Accessibility and equality review

Language, disability, cost, geography, schedule, status, reasonable adjustments and equitable route testing.

Safeguarding, minors and legal review

Confidential access, guardian involvement, assent, reporting crossover, jurisdictional duties and retaliation protection.

Lived-experience and operational review

Findability, trust, feasibility, transitions, protected corroboration and whether routes work outside flagship teams.

Measurement and assurance review

Five-indicator distinctness, maturity progression, validity periods, finding consistency, sampling and question-bank coverage.

Open design decisions

01
Confirm the five-indicator model and whether “timely, equitable and practical access” should remain a separate indicator.
02
Define the minimum qualified route for organisations relying entirely on public/community services.
03
Decide whether MindsMelt should set any universal response or waiting-time boundary, or require each organisation to publish and justify its own.
04
Define what financial support or coverage, if any, is expected by stage and organisation type.
05
Approve professional-category and registration addenda for France, the UK and founding-cohort jurisdictions.
06
Approve the boundary between clinical mental health, sport psychology, performance psychology, counselling, psychotherapy, peer and player-care roles.
07
Approve check-in and formal-screening rules, including validated tools, consent, data use and clinical oversight.
08
Approve the precise rule for functional health information that may be shared for safety/participation decisions.
09
Define minors’ confidential access, guardian involvement and assent by jurisdiction.
10
Set evidence-validity and refresh periods after operational testing.
11
Define protected interview sampling and retention rules for Diamond.
12
Decide how staff, volunteers and entourage are included in scope and public claims.
13
Define continuity expectations when an athlete is deselected, released, retires or leaves the organisation.
14
Confirm finding severities and whether any limited minor findings may remain open at pathway verification.
15
Define how outsourced digital and teletherapy vendors are reviewed and represented publicly.

Readiness checklist

Can the organisation prove the route works?

21 source records support this working model. The register preserves the source gap in the draft so it can be resolved during controlled authoring.

We can state exactly who and what is included in the assessed scope.
We can distinguish clinical care, performance psychology, wellbeing/player-care, peer support and crisis routes.
Every claimed professional route has been verified for qualification, scope and jurisdiction.
People can access support without unnecessary coach, manager or selector permission.
Eligibility, cost, waiting, language, disability, hours, location and backup routes are clear.
Support information is available privately, proactively and in accessible formats.
Routine check-ins are voluntary, non-diagnostic and clear about information use.
Referrals include safe handoff, failed-route escalation and proportionate follow-up.
We have plans for travel, injury, relocation, deselection, contract end and retirement where relevant.
Clinical/support information is separated from performance and selection systems.
Any necessary functional information sharing is lawful, minimal, transparent and clinically justified.
We can demonstrate provider independence and manage dual-role conflicts.
We monitor access barriers and failed referrals without collecting unnecessary clinical data.
We can show how communication, access, provider or confidentiality failures produced improvement.
We can support independent route testing and protected athlete/staff interviews without interference.
We have no unresolved major or critical Pillar 1 finding for the stage claimed.

Pillar 1 is now structurally complete.

P1.2 is approved for the working architecture and all twenty requirements are connected to framework v1.2. Next comes named expert review, controlled question writing, translation and pilot testing.

Help review the model All requirements