Standard Pilot v0.9 · Pillar 2

Training counts when people can use it safely.

The people around me know how to notice when something may be wrong, respond with care, stay within their role, connect me to appropriate support and obtain help themselves when needed.

Complete working proposal — not yet an approved certification standard.

The requirements need athlete, learning, clinical, safeguarding, privacy, legal, measurement and operational review. P2.5 remains a controlled taxonomy proposal.

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-05P2 · P2.2Proposed

Broaden recognition training beyond visible distress caused directly by sport.

Proposed change

State explicitly that relevant people may notice concerns connected to competitive, personal or organisational pressures. They are not expected to solve family, financial or personal problems; they must respond respectfully, reduce immediate avoidable stress where appropriate and connect the person to support.

Question wording

Which statement best describes how competence is verified for recognising possible concerns linked to competitive, personal or organisational pressures and responding within role boundaries?

Routing / applicability

Universal; scenario examples should be adapted by role and organisation type.

Evidence / audit impact

Scenario library should include injury/underperformance, grief/family or financial pressure, and leadership/team/logistical stress.

Required review

Clinical; operational; lived experience; cultural review.

Source pages

25, 33

MM-IOC-06P2 · P2.1 / P1.3Proposed

Add proportionate guidance for influential people outside the formal workforce.

Proposed change

Where families, parents, agents, sponsors or other representatives materially influence support, travel, selection or transition, the organisation should provide simple guidance on support routes, urgent action, confidentiality, role boundaries and acting in the athlete's interests. This is not a requirement to train every family member as staff.

Question wording

Where people outside the formal workforce play an important support role, which statement best describes the guidance they receive?

Routing / applicability

Route for minors, residential programmes, formal athlete-agent/representative models or other verified entourage dependence.

Evidence / audit impact

Guidance materials, distribution records, role/consent rules and protected athlete feedback.

Required review

Safeguarding; lived experience; legal; cultural review.

Source pages

25, 27

assessment precondition

cross-cutting rules

working indicators

cumulative stage requirements

risk-routed addenda

Purpose

Staff Training and Awareness

The people around athletes and staff have the role-specific knowledge, practical skills, boundaries, routes and support needed to contribute safely.

Architecture decision still open

P2.5 is approved for the working architecture. It reorganises the previous designated-lead function into a broader competence-leadership and workforce-support control. Detailed wording and measurement remain subject to expert and pilot validation.

Assessment precondition

AP-01 · Workforce, role and competence map

Before MindsMelt can assess competence, the organisation must show who works with or influences people in sport, what each role is expected to do, where its boundaries sit and how competence is maintained.

Minimum evidence

Current role inventory
competence matrix
role descriptions
contract/volunteer categories
risk and scenario map
induction and refresh rules
owner and backup
external expertise arrangements
update record.

Not sufficient

A staff list with no competence expectations
course attendance records without role mapping
excluding volunteers or contractors
assuming clinicians cover every non-clinical role.

Proposed consequence: Major where a material role group or safety-critical competence is missing. Critical where deliberate omission, misrepresentation or known unqualified practice creates serious current danger.

CR-01

Role-based, not course-based

Competence expectations follow actual responsibilities, power and likely scenarios; completion of one named course is never the universal test.

CR-02

Support and refer; do not diagnose or treat

Non-clinical roles may listen, support, signpost and escalate within protocol, but must not provide clinical assessment or treatment outside competence.

CR-03

Routine, urgent and safeguarding routes remain distinct

Learning must show which route applies, how they connect and when immediate danger overrides normal process.

CR-04

Every employment status counts

Employees, volunteers, contractors, consultants, interns, board members and temporary/event staff are included where their role creates responsibility or access.

CR-05

Accessible and culturally responsive learning

Content, examples, delivery and assessment must account for language, disability, culture, age, identity, neurodiversity and digital access.

CR-06

Demonstrated competence, not attendance

Records of completion contribute evidence, but practical understanding, behaviour and role application must also be tested where material.

CR-07

Safe learning and rehearsal

Scenarios must be relevant without being humiliating, coercive, unnecessarily graphic or likely to expose personal experiences. Participation and debrief rules must be clear.

CR-08

Confidentiality and information minimisation

Training records should show competence without collecting unnecessary health information or exposing disclosures made during learning.

CR-09

Supervision and support are part of competence

People must be able to seek advice, acknowledge uncertainty, hand over responsibility and obtain support after difficult situations.

CR-10

Controlled “not applicable”

A role or module may be routed out only through verified scope facts and a recorded rationale, not because learning is inconvenient or costly.

P2.1

Retained · remapped

Role-based competence framework and coverage

The people whose work affects me have been identified, know what is expected of them and receive learning appropriate to their actual role — including volunteers, contractors and temporary staff.

Construct

Role analysis, competence definition, coverage, induction and gap control.

Core obligation

The organisation shall define and maintain role-based mental-health and safeguarding competence requirements for all relevant personnel in the assessed scope, ensure proportionate induction and learning, maintain coverage records and manage competence gaps before people undertake responsibilities they are not ready to perform.

Boundary

P2.1 owns who needs which competence and whether coverage is complete. P2.4 owns learning quality and competence verification. P3.2 owns executive accountability and P2.5 owns technical support and supervision.

Bronze

P2.1-BR

Role and competence requirements are defined

Every relevant person knows the baseline expected for their role.

Universal foundationMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll organisations; role depth proportionate to scope, power and risk.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall maintain a current role and competence matrix identifying every material athlete-facing, support, decision-making and safety role; define the minimum mental-health, safeguarding, confidentiality, referral and emergency competence required; provide essential induction before unsupervised or safety-critical duty; and record how volunteers, contractors, temporary staff and backups are covered.

Intent: To ensure that essential roles are not missed and that competence is defined before training is purchased or responsibility is assigned.

Minimum acceptable evidence

workforce/role map
competence matrix
role descriptions
induction content and timing
list of covered employees, volunteers and contractors
owner and review date
temporary supervision or duty restrictions for gaps

Evidence that is not sufficient

a generic promise that all staff receive awareness training
attendance list without role requirements
permanent employees covered but volunteers excluded
competence inferred from seniority or personal experience

Audit methods

Compare role map to organisation chart, rosters, contracts and operating contexts · sample induction · ask selected roles what competence is expected · test how an uncovered new starter is managed.

Evidence validity

Role matrix current and reviewed at least annually and after material workforce, activity, jurisdiction or service change. Induction before unsupervised relevant duty.

Proposed failure

Major for missing material role groups, no baseline induction or unsafe assignment. Minor for an isolated administrative gap where competence and supervision remain demonstrable.

CAPA and decision

Major closed before any badge through completed mapping, learning and demonstrated interim controls; booking future training alone is insufficient.

Expert review

Learning/competence, safeguarding, clinical, operations and lived-experience review required.

Sources

[S01, S02, S04, S08, S09, S10, S11]

Silver

P2.1-SI

Coverage is operational and gaps are controlled

Learning reaches the people who need it and overdue competence is actively managed.

Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; includes new starters, changes of role and non-permanent personnel.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall operate the competence framework through documented induction, learning assignment, completion tracking, validity monitoring and gap management. Where a person has not yet demonstrated required competence, the organisation shall provide supervision, restrict relevant duty, arrange an alternative competent person or take another documented safety measure until the gap is closed.

Intent: To move from a matrix on paper to complete and controlled workforce coverage.

Minimum acceptable evidence

learning assignment records
completion/validity dashboard
induction sample
overdue and exception log
supervision or restricted-duty records
contractor evidence
backup arrangements
closure evidence

Evidence that is not sufficient

completion percentage without a denominator or role groups
automatic reminders with no action
expired competence ignored because the person is experienced
temporary staff allowed to work first and complete induction later

Audit methods

Reconcile role matrix to completion data · sample overdue cases and controls · interview new, volunteer and contractor roles · trace one role change from risk assessment to learning assignment.

Evidence validity

Current operating cycle; completion and exception data current at assessment; sample normally covers previous 12 months.

Proposed failure

Major for systemic non-coverage, no control of safety-critical gaps or misleading completion claims. Minor for isolated overdue learning with documented safe control and prompt closure.

CAPA and decision

Major requires competence to be completed and demonstrated or responsibility reassigned before stage verification.

Expert review

Operations, safeguarding, learning systems and audit review required.

Sources

[S04, S08, S09, S10, S12]

Gold

P2.1-GO

Competence needs and coverage are reviewed by risk

The organisation learns where its workforce model is weak and corrects it.

Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold/Diamond; analysis proportionate to workforce and organisational complexity.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall evaluate whether competence requirements and coverage remain appropriate by analysing incidents, near misses, referral or reporting failures, athlete and workforce feedback, accessibility barriers, turnover, role changes, new activities and changes in evidence or guidance. It shall identify material competence risks, assign corrective action and verify that changes improve coverage and role readiness.

Intent: To ensure the competence framework changes with the organisation rather than becoming a static course catalogue.

Minimum acceptable evidence

annual competence-needs review
incident/feedback inputs
role-risk analysis
turnover and contractor trends
accessibility review
revised curriculum or requirements
CAPA and effectiveness checks
leadership reporting

Evidence that is not sufficient

annual refresh created only by changing dates
no analysis of missing roles or failed handoffs
training increased after an incident without identifying the competence gap
data limited to completion rates

Audit methods

Trace at least one operational signal to a changed competence requirement and verified outcome · compare high-risk role coverage · review omitted or underrepresented groups · interview technical owner and operations lead.

Evidence validity

At least annual evaluation and after serious incident, repeated failure, major expansion, new jurisdiction or significant turnover.

Proposed failure

Major for repeated or material competence gaps left unaddressed, inaccurate coverage reporting or failure to adapt after known risk. Critical where known unqualified practice is deliberately allowed and creates grave danger.

CAPA and decision

Major closed through revised requirements, completed implementation and an effectiveness check; policy revision alone is insufficient.

Expert review

Measurement, learning, operations, safeguarding and lived-experience review required.

Sources

[S01, S02, S04, S10, S12, S13]

Diamond

P2.1-DI

Role coverage is independently verified across the scope

The competence framework works beyond headquarters and the best-prepared team.

Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; sample selected independently and proportional to risk.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall demonstrate through independent review that role-based competence requirements, induction, coverage and gap controls are consistently implemented across the assessed scope. Sampling shall include relevant sites, teams, shifts, volunteers, contractors, temporary or seasonal roles and at least one group with lower organisational power or reduced supervision where applicable. No open major or critical P2.1 finding may remain.

Intent: To substantiate that coverage claims reflect the real workforce rather than a central spreadsheet or showcase programme.

Minimum acceptable evidence

independent sampling plan
reconciled workforce and learning data
selected personnel interviews
new-starter and contractor samples
gap-control records
cross-site findings
independently closed corrective actions

Evidence that is not sufficient

organisation-selected participants only
headquarters sample
no comparison with actual rosters
high completion rate with excluded populations
open systemic gaps covered by future plans

Audit methods

Independent data reconciliation, protected role interviews and cross-site sampling · test one unannounced or recently changed role · review gap controls and correction effectiveness.

Evidence validity

Evidence normally covers previous 12–24 months and current personnel at decision date.

Proposed failure

Major for inconsistent or unreliable coverage, material exclusions or ineffective controls. Critical for falsification, concealment or knowingly assigning unqualified people to dangerous responsibilities.

CAPA and decision

Independent closure and evidence of sustained implementation required before certification.

Expert review

Independent competence/audit, safeguarding, clinical and workforce-data review required.

Sources

[S04, S10, S12, S13]

P2.2

Retained · remapped

Recognition and safe first response

When someone notices that I may be struggling, they approach me respectfully, listen without judgement, protect my dignity and help me reach the right next step rather than ignoring, interrogating or labelling me.

Construct

Recognition of possible concern, compassionate communication, immediate support and route activation.

Core obligation

The organisation shall ensure that relevant personnel can recognise possible signs of distress or changed functioning, initiate a respectful and proportionate conversation, listen and respond without judgement, identify when immediate safety or safeguarding action may be required and activate the appropriate organisational route without non-clinical diagnosis or false reassurance.

Boundary

P2.2 owns the human first response. P2.3 owns role boundaries and handoff competence. P4 owns emergency and safeguarding procedures. Qualified clinical assessment remains outside this indicator.

Bronze

P2.2-BR

Relevant roles can recognise concern and respond safely

The first human response protects dignity and opens the correct route.

Universal foundationMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll relevant athlete-facing and supervisory roles; depth depends on likely contact and responsibility.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall provide relevant personnel with role-appropriate guidance on recognising possible distress, significant changes in behaviour or functioning, safeguarding indicators and requests for help; approaching the person privately and respectfully; listening without judgement; avoiding diagnosis, blame, minimisation or interrogation; explaining confidentiality limits honestly; and activating the correct routine, urgent, emergency or safeguarding route.

Intent: To make the first interaction supportive and safe while preventing non-clinical staff from overreaching.

Minimum acceptable evidence

role guidance
learning objectives and materials
concise conversation/route aid
induction records
accessible versions
approved examples and scenarios
links to current organisational routes

Evidence that is not sufficient

a list of diagnoses and symptoms with no response guidance
“tell your manager” as the only instruction
scripts that force disclosure
language implying staff can determine whether someone is truly at risk

Audit methods

Review content with clinical/safeguarding expert · ask sampled roles to describe how they would approach a concerning change · verify that answers connect to current routes and confidentiality rules.

Evidence validity

Content reviewed at least annually and after route, law, serious incident or material guidance change. Personnel receive it before relevant unsupervised duty.

Proposed failure

Major where material roles have no safe-response guidance or content encourages harmful overreach, secrecy or non-response. Minor for isolated wording or distribution gaps with safe alternatives.

CAPA and decision

Major corrected before any badge through revised content, delivery and demonstrated understanding.

Expert review

Clinical, safeguarding, lived-experience, accessibility and communications review required.

Sources

[S01, S02, S03, S04, S05, S06, S16]

Silver

P2.2-SI

Safe first-response skills are practised

People demonstrate how they would respond, not only what they remember.

Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; scenarios selected by role and risk.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall provide practical learning in which relevant personnel apply safe first-response skills to realistic role-based scenarios, including uncertainty, reluctance to disclose, cultural or communication differences and situations requiring routine, urgent or safeguarding escalation. Competence shall be checked through facilitated discussion, observed practice or another defensible method, and material gaps shall be remediated before unsupervised responsibility continues.

Intent: To verify that people can apply respectful communication and route decisions in realistic situations.

Minimum acceptable evidence

scenario curriculum
facilitator competence
participation records
observation or assessment criteria
anonymised results
remediation
duty restrictions or supervision where needed
safe debrief arrangements

Evidence that is not sufficient

video completion only
rehearsed script with the “right answer” supplied
scenarios unrelated to actual role
no response to failed competence check
participants pressured to disclose personal experience

Audit methods

Observe or review scenario delivery · sample assessment and remediation · ask how scenarios are adapted for role, power and accessibility · interview participant and facilitator samples.

Evidence validity

Practice evidence within current operating year; safety-critical and new roles before independent duty; repeated after material failure or role change.

Proposed failure

Major for systemic inability to provide a safe first response or no remediation after failure. Minor for isolated documentation weakness where competence is otherwise evidenced.

CAPA and decision

Major requires repeat learning and demonstrated competence, not attendance alone.

Expert review

Clinical/safeguarding scenario design, adult learning and lived-experience review required.

Sources

[S03, S04, S05, S08, S09, S14]

Gold

P2.2-GO

First-response quality is evaluated and improved

The organisation checks whether responses are respectful, equitable and effective.

Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold/Diamond; evaluation proportionate to scale and exposure.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall evaluate the quality and consistency of first responses using protected athlete and workforce feedback, scenario findings, incident and near-miss reviews, referral or safeguarding failures and accessibility or bias analysis. It shall identify differences across roles, sites, identities, languages and contract status; revise learning or supervision; and verify that corrective action improves practice.

Intent: To detect where apparently trained people still respond in ways that discourage disclosure, reinforce stigma or fail to activate support.

Minimum acceptable evidence

protected feedback
scenario trends
incident/near-miss learning
disparity or accessibility analysis
revised content
coaching/supervision
CAPA and re-test
leadership or technical review

Evidence that is not sufficient

confidence survey only
satisfaction data from people selected by management
low report numbers treated as proof of good response
no analysis of who avoids staff or why

Audit methods

Trace at least one response-quality signal to a change and re-test · compare role/site groups · review how negative or dissenting feedback is protected · interview technical owner and selected participants.

Evidence validity

At least annual evaluation and after serious response failure, repeated complaints, material population change or significant new context.

Proposed failure

Major for known harmful or inequitable response patterns left uncorrected, misleading evaluation or repeated failure to activate routes. Critical where deliberate intimidation, humiliation or withholding of urgent action creates grave danger.

CAPA and decision

Major closed through revised practice, supervision and verified improvement.

Expert review

Lived-experience, clinical, safeguarding, measurement and equity/accessibility review required.

Sources

[S01, S02, S04, S05, S11, S13]

Diamond

P2.2-DI

Safe first response is independently observed and corroborated

The way people respond is trusted in practice across different roles and settings.

Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; independent sample across roles and operating contexts.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall demonstrate through independent observation or controlled scenarios and protected athlete and workforce evidence that relevant personnel recognise possible concern, respond respectfully, state their limits and activate appropriate routes consistently across the assessed scope. Sampling shall include lower-power participants and non-permanent roles where applicable, and no open major or critical P2.2 finding may remain.

Intent: To verify that compassionate and safe first response is embedded rather than performed only during internal training.

Minimum acceptable evidence

independent scenario plan
protected interviews
unaided role responses
cross-site/role findings
negative and positive evidence
corrective action and repeat assessment

Evidence that is not sufficient

senior staff demonstration only
prepared answers
management present during interviews
testimonials chosen by the organisation
no testing of difficult or ambiguous situations

Audit methods

Independent scenario or structured interview, protected participant sampling and comparison with incidents/referrals · test accessibility and power dynamics.

Evidence validity

Current certification cycle with evidence of sustained operation across previous 12–24 months.

Proposed failure

Major for inconsistent, untrusted or unsafe responses. Critical for retaliation, interference, evidence manipulation or serious deliberate harm.

CAPA and decision

Independent closure and, where needed, repeat observation before certification.

Expert review

Independent clinical/safeguarding assessor and protected-interview review required.

Sources

[S03, S04, S05, S13, S14]

P2.3

Retained · remapped

Role boundaries, referral and escalation competence

The person I approach knows what they may do, what they must not do, where my information can go and how to connect me to appropriate support without taking control of my care or sporting future.

Construct

Role boundaries, confidentiality limits, referral decisions, handoff and escalation competence.

Core obligation

The organisation shall define and maintain clear mental-health, safeguarding, confidentiality and referral boundaries for relevant roles and ensure that personnel can apply those boundaries when supporting, referring or escalating a concern, including where roles overlap with coaching, selection, employment, clinical care or safeguarding.

Boundary

P1 owns the availability and quality of support services. P2.3 owns staff understanding and use of routes. P4 owns urgent and safeguarding protocols. Professional clinical scope remains governed by law and relevant professional standards.

Bronze

P2.3-BR

Role boundaries and routes are explicit

People know their authority, limits and the correct next step.

Universal foundationMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll relevant roles; professional and jurisdictional detail routed.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall define in clear role-specific language what relevant personnel may provide, what requires qualified professional input, what information they may access or share, when confidentiality cannot be maintained, how consent and emergency exceptions are handled and which routine, urgent, emergency and safeguarding routes apply. Non-clinical personnel shall not diagnose, provide treatment, use a score to withhold escalation or promise absolute secrecy.

Intent: To prevent well-intentioned support from becoming unsafe clinical practice, coercion, informal information sharing or failed escalation.

Minimum acceptable evidence

role-boundary statements
referral/escalation decision aids
confidentiality guidance
consent and emergency-exception rules
professional scope references
induction/communication evidence

Evidence that is not sufficient

a generic code of conduct
“use common sense”
a coach described as the team therapist without qualification
confidentiality guidance that omits selectors or informal messaging
a checklist used to label a person low risk

Audit methods

Review role guidance · compare to actual job descriptions and routes · ask sampled personnel how they would handle routine, urgent, safeguarding and confidentiality scenarios · verify professional claims.

Evidence validity

Current and reviewed at least annually and after legal, route, provider, role or serious-incident change.

Proposed failure

Major for undefined or materially unsafe boundaries, dead routes or routine inappropriate access. Critical for unqualified treatment, intentional withholding of urgent escalation or deliberate harmful disclosure.

CAPA and decision

Major corrected before any badge through revised boundaries, communication and demonstrated understanding; a new document alone is insufficient.

Expert review

Clinical, safeguarding, privacy/legal, professional-scope and lived-experience review required.

Sources

[S02, S04, S05, S06, S07, S16]

Silver

P2.3-SI

Referral and escalation competence is demonstrated

People can make a safe handoff without abandoning the person or demanding unnecessary information.

Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; routes appropriate to role and scope.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall require relevant personnel to demonstrate how they initiate a routine referral, activate urgent or safeguarding escalation, support the person until responsibility is transferred, share only necessary information, record required actions and respond when the intended route is unavailable. Learning shall address dual roles, selection or employment power and the limits of follow-up questions after referral.

Intent: To ensure that the boundary and route are usable in practice and protect the person during handoff.

Minimum acceptable evidence

referral/handoff scenarios
observed competence
minimum-information guidance
unavailable-provider scenario
route aids
redacted referral or escalation sample where available
remediation and supervision records

Evidence that is not sufficient

giving a phone number and ending responsibility
staff seeking diagnosis details “for planning”
one successful referral used as universal evidence
no backup route
no plan for a concern about the person receiving the referral

Audit methods

Observe or reconstruct a referral · test an unavailable route · review privacy and consent reasoning · interview coach, manager, medical and safeguarding role samples · compare with Pillar 1 and 4 systems.

Evidence validity

Current operating year; repeated after material route/provider change or identified boundary failure.

Proposed failure

Major for systemic failed handoff, abandonment, inappropriate information sharing or inability to distinguish routes. Critical where deliberate delay, coercion or disclosure creates grave harm.

CAPA and decision

Major requires demonstrated safe handoff and closure of route or boundary weaknesses before stage verification.

Expert review

Clinical handoff, safeguarding, privacy, operational and lived-experience review required.

Sources

[S04, S05, S06, S07, S16]

Gold

P2.3-GO

Boundary and referral failures are monitored and corrected

The organisation learns where power, dual roles and system gaps cause unsafe practice.

Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold/Diamond; monitoring proportionate and privacy-protective.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall monitor and review boundary questions, inappropriate disclosure, failed or delayed referrals, role confusion, repeated requests for clinical information, conflicts involving coaching or selection power and concerns about unqualified practice. It shall provide consultation or supervision, correct the underlying role or system causes and verify that changes reduce recurrence without exposing personal health information.

Intent: To identify hidden boundary failures that course-completion data will not reveal.

Minimum acceptable evidence

protected incident/consultation themes
failed-referral review
access or disclosure findings
dual-role risk analysis
supervision themes
corrective action
revised role design or routes
effectiveness evidence

Evidence that is not sufficient

no recorded boundary breaches treated as proof
individual blamed without system review
raw clinical files sent to management
repeated confusion addressed only with another email

Audit methods

Sample protected themes and corrective actions · trace a difficult boundary case · review role conflicts and access controls · interview technical, clinical/safeguarding and operational owners.

Evidence validity

At least annual review and after serious breach, repeated failed referral, new dual-role arrangement or provider change.

Proposed failure

Major for repeated or known boundary/referral failures left uncorrected. Critical for deliberate misuse of health information, unlicensed practice, retaliation or concealment.

CAPA and decision

Major closed through role/system correction, supervision and effectiveness verification.

Expert review

Clinical governance, privacy, safeguarding, role design and audit review required.

Sources

[S01, S04, S05, S07, S10, S13]

Diamond

P2.3-DI

Boundaries and referral practice are independently corroborated

Powerful roles cannot quietly override confidentiality, clinical judgement or safe handoff.

Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; sample includes roles with coaching, selection, employment or clinical power.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall demonstrate through independent review, protected interviews and relevant evidence sampling that role boundaries, confidentiality limits, professional independence, referral and escalation competence operate consistently across the assessed scope. The audit shall test dual-role and conflict scenarios and confirm that athletes and staff can seek or receive support without inappropriate clinical overreach, information demand or performance disadvantage. No open major or critical P2.3 finding may remain.

Intent: To substantiate that written boundaries survive real hierarchy, commercial pressure and multidisciplinary work.

Minimum acceptable evidence

independent role and access review
protected athlete/staff interviews
referral and boundary samples
conflict/recusal evidence
professional verification
corrective-action closure

Evidence that is not sufficient

policy review only
senior leadership assurances
interviews in management presence
no sampling of selection or employment roles
athlete care dependent on sharing diagnosis details

Audit methods

Independent protected interviews, role scenarios, access and referral sampling, conflict review and cross-scope comparison.

Evidence validity

Previous 12–24 months and current role arrangements at decision date.

Proposed failure

Major for unreliable boundaries, role conflict or unsafe handoff. Critical for coercion, retaliation, evidence manipulation, deliberate harmful disclosure or unqualified clinical practice.

CAPA and decision

Independent closure and demonstrated sustained practice required before certification.

Expert review

Independent clinical, safeguarding, privacy and assurance review required.

Sources

[S04, S05, S07, S13]

P2.4

Retained · remapped

Learning quality, practice and competence assurance

The learning given to people around me is accurate, relevant and practised. The organisation checks whether they can use it safely instead of counting certificates.

Construct

Learning design, provider competence, practice, assessment, transfer and evaluation.

Core obligation

The organisation shall design, select, deliver and evaluate mental-health and safeguarding learning using defined role-based objectives, competent content owners or providers, accessible and psychologically safe methods, practical application and proportionate competence assurance, with corrective action where learning does not transfer into safe practice.

Boundary

P2.4 owns the quality and assurance of learning. P2.1 owns who must receive it. P2.2 and P2.3 define the response and boundary competencies being taught. P3 owns procurement and resource accountability.

Bronze

P2.4-BR

Learning is relevant, current and responsibly designed

The organisation knows what each learning activity is meant to change.

Universal foundationMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll required learning; depth proportional to role and risk.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall define role-based learning objectives, select or develop content with appropriate clinical, safeguarding, legal and lived-experience input, verify the competence and scope of internal or external providers, connect learning to current organisational routes and role aids, provide accessible delivery and use a proportionate method to confirm basic understanding. Learning shall not rely on graphic, coercive or personal disclosure-based methods.

Intent: To prevent generic, outdated or potentially harmful training from being treated as evidence of competence.

Minimum acceptable evidence

learning specification
objectives
content review record
provider/trainer competence
local route integration
accessibility plan
understanding check
version/date
participant safety and debrief rules

Evidence that is not sufficient

provider marketing page
course title alone
content never reviewed against local routes
quiz answers shared in advance
trainer qualified clinically but not to teach the role
scenarios requiring personal disclosure

Audit methods

Review objectives, content and provider competence · compare learning to role matrix and routes · sample accessibility and understanding checks · interview content owner and participants.

Evidence validity

Content and provider approval current; reviewed at least annually and after route, evidence, law or serious-incident change.

Proposed failure

Major for materially inaccurate, harmful, irrelevant or inaccessible learning; no content ownership; or no credible understanding check. Minor for isolated administrative weakness.

CAPA and decision

Major corrected before any badge through content review, delivery and evidence of understanding.

Expert review

Clinical, safeguarding, learning design, accessibility and lived-experience review required.

Sources

[S01, S02, S03, S04, S08, S10, S11]

Silver

P2.4-SI

Learning includes practice, assessment and remediation

The organisation checks application and corrects gaps.

Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; practical assurance targeted to role risk.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall incorporate practical application into learning for roles that may receive disclosures, activate referrals, manage confidential information or respond to urgent and safeguarding situations. It shall use defined competence criteria, record results proportionately, provide feedback and remediation and prevent or supervise relevant duty where a material gap remains.

Intent: To establish that learning changes usable skill rather than only short-term recall.

Minimum acceptable evidence

practice plan
assessment criteria
assessor/facilitator guidance
anonymised competence results
remediation
reassessment
supervision or duty-control records
participant feedback and safety review

Evidence that is not sufficient

attendance plus satisfaction form
multiple-choice quiz as the only test for a complex role
no assessor consistency
failure recorded but no action
unsafe role-play or public ranking

Audit methods

Observe or review practice and assessment · sample failed/low results and remediation · test assessor consistency · interview participants about psychological safety and relevance.

Evidence validity

Current operating year; reassessment after material failure or significant role change.

Proposed failure

Major for no competence assurance in safety-critical roles, invalid assessment or uncorrected failure. Minor for isolated record gap with competence evidenced elsewhere.

CAPA and decision

Major closed through remediation, reassessment and safe duty control.

Expert review

Learning assessment, clinical/safeguarding and operational review required.

Sources

[S03, S04, S10, S12, S14]

Gold

P2.4-GO

Learning transfer and provider quality are evaluated

The organisation checks whether learning changes behaviour and remains fit for purpose.

Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold/Diamond; methods proportionate to scale and available evidence.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall evaluate whether learning transfers into role behaviour and system performance using competence trends, observation, referral and reporting quality, incidents, feedback, accessibility, confidence and support-seeking data. It shall evaluate internal trainers and external providers, control train-the-trainer arrangements, identify unintended effects or bias, revise learning and verify improvement.

Intent: To avoid repeating popular learning that does not improve practice or may create overconfidence and role overreach.

Minimum acceptable evidence

evaluation plan
transfer indicators
observation or scenario trends
incident/referral inputs
provider review
trainer calibration
accessibility and bias findings
revised content
effectiveness check

Evidence that is not sufficient

participant satisfaction as the only outcome
knowledge gain measured immediately with no application evidence
provider renewed solely because completion was high
confidence increase treated as competence

Audit methods

Trace evaluation findings to content/provider change and re-test · review negative evidence · compare different trainers/sites · examine whether training created role overconfidence or unnecessary escalation.

Evidence validity

At least annual programme evaluation and after serious failure, major provider change or repeated competence concerns.

Proposed failure

Major for unreliable assurance, known ineffective or harmful learning, unqualified providers or misleading evaluation. Critical for deliberate falsification or training people to undertake dangerous unqualified practice.

CAPA and decision

Major requires changed learning/provider controls and verified transfer improvement.

Expert review

Measurement, adult learning, clinical/safeguarding, accessibility and lived-experience review required.

Sources

[S01, S02, S10, S11, S12, S13]

Diamond

P2.4-DI

Learning and competence assurance are independently validated

Independent evidence confirms that the programme produces reliable role competence.

Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; sampling across modules, trainers, roles and sites.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall demonstrate through independent review that learning objectives, content governance, provider competence, accessibility, practice, assessment, remediation and evaluation are consistently implemented and produce credible role competence across the assessed scope. The review shall sample more than one trainer, site or delivery mode where applicable and confirm that no open major or critical P2.4 finding remains.

Intent: To verify that the competence system is reliable and not dependent on one strong facilitator, one course or self-reported confidence.

Minimum acceptable evidence

independent curriculum and provider review
observed delivery/practice
assessment sample
trainer calibration
participant evidence
transfer analysis
corrective-action closure
cross-site consistency

Evidence that is not sufficient

external accreditation or brand name accepted without reviewing delivery
showcase session only
organisation chooses all participants
no examination of failed or remediated learners
no transfer evidence

Audit methods

Independent document review, observed learning or scenario, assessor/trainer sampling, protected participant interviews and transfer-evidence challenge.

Evidence validity

Current certification cycle and sustained evidence across previous 12–24 months.

Proposed failure

Major for inconsistent, invalid or ineffective learning/assessment. Critical for manipulation, falsification, unsafe methods or deliberate authorisation of unqualified practice.

CAPA and decision

Independent closure and evidence of sustained correction required before certification.

Expert review

Independent learning-assurance, clinical/safeguarding and accessibility review required.

Sources

[S04, S10, S12, S13]

P2.5

Approved working indicator

Competence leadership, supervision and workforce support

The people supporting me have someone competent to consult, are not left alone with difficult responsibility and can obtain support for their own wellbeing without shame or performance disadvantage.

Construct

Technical ownership, supervision, consultation, backup, workforce support and succession.

Core obligation

The organisation shall maintain competent technical ownership and accessible consultation, supervision, backup and workforce-support arrangements for the mental-health and safeguarding competence system, so that personnel can acknowledge uncertainty, obtain advice, transfer responsibility, learn from difficult situations and access support for their own wellbeing without replacing qualified clinical care or concentrating the system in one individual.

Boundary

P3.2 owns executive and governing-body accountability. P2.5 owns technical competence leadership and operational consultation. Pillar 1 owns access to care; P2.5 ensures staff and responders can use it and are supported.

Bronze

P2.5-BR

Technical competence ownership and advice are available

No person is expected to improvise or carry the system alone.

Universal foundationMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll organisations; owner may be internal or external and may hold another role where competence, capacity and conflicts are controlled.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall designate a named competent person or external technical adviser to maintain the role-competence framework and learning content, coordinate with clinical and safeguarding expertise, answer role-boundary and referral questions and review material learning needs. A backup arrangement shall exist, and personnel shall be told how to obtain timely advice and personal support. The role shall not be represented as clinical care unless the person is appropriately qualified and acting within professional scope.

Intent: To provide a reliable competence owner and advice route without creating an unqualified “mental-health lead” who substitutes for services or governance.

Minimum acceptable evidence

appointment/contract
role description
competence and scope evidence
time/capacity
clinical/safeguarding links
backup
consultation route
staff support information
communication record

Evidence that is not sufficient

a volunteer named with no time, training or backup
clinician assumed to own all workforce learning without agreement
“mental health champion” presented as therapist
advice route available only through a line manager

Audit methods

Interview owner and backup · test advice route · review competence and conflicts · ask sampled personnel where they go with uncertainty or personal impact · compare to P3 accountability.

Evidence validity

Appointment, competence and support routes current; reviewed at least annually and after departure or material scope change.

Proposed failure

Major for no viable owner/adviser, no backup or misleading clinical representation. Minor for isolated communication gap where advice remains accessible.

CAPA and decision

Major corrected before any badge through competent appointment, capacity, communication and backup.

Expert review

Clinical, safeguarding, learning, workforce wellbeing and governance-boundary review required.

Sources

[S01, S02, S04, S05, S14, S15]

Silver

P2.5-SI

Consultation, supervision and responder support operate

People can ask for help before, during and after difficult situations.

Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; supervision type appropriate to role and professional status.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall operate accessible consultation and supervision arrangements for relevant personnel, including advice on uncertainty, boundaries and route use; structured support after difficult disclosures, incidents or repeated exposure; and confidential routes through which coaches, staff and volunteers can seek support for their own mental health. Participation in support shall not require unnecessary disclosure to managers or selectors, and supervision shall not be confused with clinical treatment.

Intent: To reduce unsafe isolation, overconfidence, emotional overload and avoidance after difficult experiences.

Minimum acceptable evidence

consultation/supervision procedure
rota or availability
anonymised utilisation themes
post-incident support offers
confidential staff support route
supervision competence
escalation/backup
communication and access records

Evidence that is not sufficient

informal “door always open”
mandatory group debrief requiring personal disclosure
line manager is the only support route
supervision available to clinicians but not coaches/safeguarding staff
no after-hours or travel alternative where needed

Audit methods

Walk through a difficult disclosure or incident from the responder perspective · sample support offers and consultation · review confidentiality · interview personnel across roles and contract types.

Evidence validity

Current operating cycle; support information continuously available; supervision/consultation frequency based on role and exposure.

Proposed failure

Major for no viable consultation or support in material roles, coercive debriefing or unsafe confidentiality. Critical where retaliation or deliberate denial of support contributes to grave harm.

CAPA and decision

Major closed through operating arrangements and demonstrated access, not a future provider agreement alone.

Expert review

Workforce mental health, clinical/safeguarding supervision, privacy and lived-experience review required.

Sources

[S01, S02, S04, S05, S15]

Gold

P2.5-GO

Technical leadership and workforce support are evaluated

The organisation monitors whether the people operating the system remain capable and supported.

Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold/Diamond; protected system-level evaluation.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall evaluate the effectiveness and resilience of technical ownership, consultation, supervision and workforce support. It shall consider workload, repeated exposure, confidence, help-seeking barriers, turnover, absence, single-person dependency, supervision quality, role conflict and succession; protect personal information; allocate corrective resources and verify that changes improve capacity and access.

Intent: To prevent the competence system from weakening through burnout, turnover, under-resourcing or dependence on one committed individual.

Minimum acceptable evidence

protected workforce feedback
workload/capacity review
supervision-quality review
turnover and succession plan
single-point-of-failure analysis
access barriers
resource action
effectiveness check
technical/governance reporting

Evidence that is not sufficient

support utilisation low therefore need is low
wellbeing survey without role or exposure analysis
technical lead praised while workload is unsustainable
replacement plan exists only after resignation

Audit methods

Review protected trends and actions · test backup and succession · compare role groups and sites · interview technical owner, supervisors and lower-power personnel · verify data minimisation.

Evidence validity

At least annual evaluation and after serious incident, technical-lead departure, repeated absence, major restructure or evidence of workforce harm.

Proposed failure

Major for known unsustainable dependency, ineffective supervision, unaddressed support barriers or misleading reporting. Critical for retaliation, coercion or concealment of serious workforce harm.

CAPA and decision

Major closed through capacity, supervision or support changes and effectiveness verification.

Expert review

Workforce wellbeing, governance, clinical/safeguarding supervision, measurement and privacy review required.

Sources

[S01, S02, S04, S11, S13, S15]

Diamond

P2.5-DI

Competence leadership and workforce support are independently corroborated

People trust the advice and support system, and it remains resilient when pressure or turnover occurs.

Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; protected sample includes technical owner, frontline roles and non-permanent personnel where applicable.

The organisation shall

The organisation shall demonstrate through independent review and protected participant evidence that technical competence leadership, consultation, supervision, backup and workforce-support arrangements are accessible, competent, confidential, conflict-safe and resilient across the assessed scope. The review shall test succession and reduced-supervision contexts and confirm that no open major or critical P2.5 finding remains.

Intent: To verify that the people operating the wellbeing system can safely acknowledge uncertainty, obtain support and maintain competence without fear or over-dependence on one individual.

Minimum acceptable evidence

independent competence/capacity review
protected interviews
consultation and supervision sample
confidentiality controls
backup/succession test
support accessibility
corrective-action closure

Evidence that is not sufficient

technical lead testimony only
utilisation totals without trust or accessibility evidence
management-selected interviewees
no contractor/volunteer sample
no test of absence or turnover

Audit methods

Independent protected interviews, consultation-route test, supervision and succession review, cross-site sampling and corrective-action verification.

Evidence validity

Current certification cycle and evidence of sustained operation across previous 12–24 months.

Proposed failure

Major for inaccessible, conflicted, unreliable or fragile support/leadership arrangements. Critical for retaliation, deliberate confidentiality breach, evidence manipulation or grave unsupported harm.

CAPA and decision

Independent closure and demonstrated resilience required before certification.

Expert review

Independent workforce wellbeing, clinical/safeguarding supervision and assurance review required.

Sources

[S01, S02, S04, S13, S15]

Evidence and assurance

Certificates show attendance. The audit tests competent behaviour.

Role and competence matrix

Reviewed at least annually and after material role, activity, provider, jurisdiction or workforce change.

Induction

Completed before unsupervised relevant or safety-critical duty.

Core learning content

Reviewed at least annually and after serious incident, route change, legal change or material evidence update.

Training/learning refresh

Risk- and role-based; proposed maximum periods require expert review rather than one universal interval.

Practical scenario/competence check

Normally within the current operating year for safety-critical roles and after material failure or role change.

Coverage and exception data

Current at assessment; normally sampled over previous 12 months.

Gold evaluation

At least annual and after serious or repeated competence failure.

Diamond evidence

Normally previous 12–24 months plus current role holders at decision date.

Scope reconciliation

Confirm the assessed scope and reconcile the role map with actual rosters, contracts, teams, sites and operating contexts.

Learning-system review

Review a risk-based sample of curricula, role aids, providers, trainers, induction and competence criteria.

Scenario observation

Observe or reconstruct practical scenarios where material, without using humiliating, graphic or coercive methods.

Independent role sampling

Interview a sample across role, power, contract status, site, language and permanence, selected independently for Diamond.

Route-understanding test

Test routine, urgent, emergency and safeguarding route understanding without asking staff to diagnose fictional people.

Gap and remediation review

Review competence gaps, restrictions, supervision, remediation and effectiveness rather than only completed learning.

Protected corroboration

Use protected athlete and workforce evidence to challenge whether staff responses, confidentiality and boundaries are trusted.

Minimum-data and safety response

Minimise personal information and immediately follow safety or safeguarding duties if current danger is disclosed.

Protected participation questions

Athletes / participants: If you approached a coach or staff member, would they know what to do? Have you experienced pressure to disclose more than you wanted? Are support and reporting routes understood?
Coaches / frontline staff: What would you do first? Where does your role end? Who do you consult? What changes if the concern is urgent or safeguarding-related?
Volunteers / contractors: What induction did you receive? What route would you use? Who covers when your usual contact is unavailable?
Clinical / safeguarding roles: Where do you see recurring role confusion? How are staff supervised and how are boundary breaches corrected?
Technical owner / leadership: How are role requirements set, gaps managed, learning evaluated, support resourced and difficult evidence escalated?

Evidence validity

Competence evidence expires when the role, route or risk changes.

Role and competence matrix

Reviewed at least annually and after material role, activity, provider, jurisdiction or workforce change.

Induction

Completed before unsupervised relevant or safety-critical duty.

Core learning content

Reviewed at least annually and after serious incident, route change, legal change or material evidence update.

Training/learning refresh

Risk- and role-based; proposed maximum periods require expert review rather than one universal interval.

Practical scenario/competence check

Normally within the current operating year for safety-critical roles and after material failure or role change.

Coverage and exception data

Current at assessment; normally sampled over previous 12 months.

Gold evaluation

At least annual and after serious or repeated competence failure.

Diamond evidence

Normally previous 12–24 months plus current role holders at decision date.

Finding classification

Consequences follow the actual competence and safety risk.

Observation

A credible improvement opportunity where the requirement is met.

Typical consequence: Does not block recognition.

Minor

An isolated, limited gap that does not materially undermine competence or immediate safety.

Typical consequence: Prompt correction; open-at-award rule remains a scheme decision.

Major

A material role group is untrained, competence is not demonstrated, boundaries are unsafe, learning is ineffective or support/supervision is unreliable.

Typical consequence: Blocks the relevant stage until independently verified closure where required.

Critical

Current grave danger, deliberate unqualified practice, retaliation, concealment, falsification, harmful disclosure or intentional interference with protected evidence.

Typical consequence: Stops or suspends the process and activates safety, safeguarding or legal escalation as applicable.

Controlled routing

One competence floor, learning proportionate to role and context.

Small and volunteer-led organisation

Activates when: Small workforce, combined roles or limited internal expertise. Additional expectations: External technical support, simple role aids, affordable federation pathways, conflict-safe alternatives, backup and proportionate evidence.

Minors and adults at risk

Activates when: The scope includes children, young people or adults at risk. Additional expectations: Jurisdictional safeguarding duties, age-appropriate communication, consent/assent, guardian limits, online contact, grooming/coercion indicators and reporting competence.

High-performance or professional environment

Activates when: Selection, contracts, scholarships, employment or major performance power. Additional expectations: Dual-role boundaries, confidentiality, selection disadvantage, multidisciplinary work, injury/deselection contexts and power-aware response.

Federation, league or multi-site system

Activates when: Central requirements are delivered through members, regions or sites. Additional expectations: Minimum role standards, trainer quality, local implementation, central monitoring, escalation, sampling and support for weaker members.

Events and temporary workforce

Activates when: Short programmes, competitions or large temporary staffing. Additional expectations: Pre-duty induction, concise role aids, venue and host routes, temporary safeguarding contacts, shift coverage and rapid competence checks.

Clinical and medical services

Activates when: The organisation provides or commissions clinical care. Additional expectations: Professional scope, clinical supervision, documentation, multidisciplinary confidentiality, emergency skills and separation from non-clinical learning.

Remote and digital work

Activates when: Support, supervision, training or contact occurs online. Additional expectations: Location-aware escalation, digital privacy, online disclosure, accessibility, remote scenario practice and platform competence.

Travel, camps and residential programmes

Activates when: People travel, stay overnight or operate away from normal systems. Additional expectations: After-hours responsibility, host-country routes, isolated settings, room/travel boundaries, handover and fatigue-aware staffing.

Language, disability, culture and neurodiversity

Activates when: The population or workforce has differing access or communication needs. Additional expectations: Alternative formats, interpretation boundaries, culturally safe examples, communication adjustments and testing with affected users.

A10

Outsourced, seasonal and high-turnover workforce

Activates when: Learning or delivery relies on providers or frequent personnel change. Additional expectations: Contract clauses, evidence portability, trainer approval, rapid induction, continuity, exit handover and verification after provider change.

Proportional organisation models

Small community club

Simple role map; approved federation learning; named external adviser; brief induction; clear referral/safeguarding cards; annual scenario; volunteer support and backup.

Would still fail: One coach completed a course; no volunteer induction; no backup; staff told to call the president for everything.

Professional club or academy

Role-specific curricula; clinical/safeguarding input; coaches, medical, operations and residential staff assessed; dual-role rules; supervision; protected feedback; travel and youth modules.

Would still fail: Sophisticated e-learning but no scenario practice; clinical staff expected to train everyone without time; selectors access personal support information.

National federation

Central competence standards; approved trainer/provider system; member-body support; role and course mapping; regional sampling; escalation and technical supervision; minimum data and improvement reporting.

Would still fail: Publishing a toolkit and assuming clubs implement it; counting certificates sent; no local sampling or support for smaller members.

International federation or Olympic body

Multi-jurisdiction framework; adaptable modules; trainer calibration; athlete-entourage coverage; language/accessibility; national-body assurance; independent sampling and technical governance.

Would still fail: Headquarters course treated as global competence; legal and cultural differences ignored; member bodies choose whether essential roles participate.

Event organiser or short programme

Pre-event role map; micro-induction; venue and host routes; trained welfare/safeguarding leads; shift role cards; temporary staff check; post-event lessons and responder support.

Would still fail: Emailing a policy; assuming venue security owns mental health; no induction for volunteers; no coverage after normal hours.

What is connected today

01 · Implemented now

Public requirement model

This page and its version-controlled source now expose the complete Pillar 2 working proposal.

02 · Connected architecture

Controlled framework and portal

P2.5 and all twenty requirements are recorded in working framework v1.2. The controlled v0.2 authoring bank now contains 125 organisation-facing items; the IOC v0.3 delta remains separate and proposed.

03 · Next controlled step

Requirement-linked question register

After taxonomy and expert approval, each retained requirement will generate separate applicant, evidence, auditor and protected-corroboration records for pilot testing.

Questionnaire blueprint

The applicant form is not the audit.

Requirements define the obligation. Applicant questions locate and describe the claim. Evidence requests, auditor tests and protected corroboration determine whether it is true. A training certificate is evidence input, not an automatic score.

Working range: Approximately 28–36 Pillar 2 applicant-bank items, with a typical routed sitting of roughly 20–26. This is an authoring hypothesis for the controlled approximately 100–150-item master bank, not a quota or validated instrument.

Scope and role mapping

4–6 unscored selectors

Establish workforce groups, power, employment status, risk contexts, services, jurisdictions, minors, travel, events and outsourced delivery.

Core role and response claims

12–16 focused prompts

Test coverage, safe first response, role boundaries, referral, learning quality and access to competent advice.

Evidence, gaps and exceptions

6–8 prompts

Locate competence records, scenario evidence, overdue roles, interim controls, remediation, supervision and controlled not-applicable rationales.

Routed risk modules

6–10 conditional prompts

Activate youth, high-performance, multi-site, event, clinical, remote, travel, accessibility and high-turnover addenda only when relevant.

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

02 · Evidence requests distinguishing acceptable evidence from attendance-only or otherwise insufficient proof.

03 · Auditor prompts, scenario tests and sampling instructions kept separate from applicant answer keys.

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

Required review

Clinical and suicide-prevention review

safe first-response wording, non-clinical boundaries, referral, escalation and avoidance of harmful risk prediction.

Safeguarding review

role coverage, minors/adults at risk, reporting duties, case roles, temporary personnel and scenario safety.

Athlete and lived-experience review

trust, power, confidentiality, selection fear, language, accessibility and whether staff responses feel safe in practice.

Learning and competence review

taxonomy, learning objectives, provider competence, adult-learning methods, assessment validity, remediation and transfer.

Operational and workforce review

small-club feasibility, volunteer burden, induction timing, turnover, supervision, travel and event delivery.

Privacy and legal review

training records, disclosure during learning, role access, professional scope, employment/volunteer duties and jurisdictional addenda.

Measurement and audit review

competence constructs, sampling, evidence validity, inter-rater consistency, severity and Diamond corroboration.

Cognitive walkthrough

Cognitive walkthrough with 3–5 different organisations before loading a formal framework version.

Open design decisions

01
Final five-indicator taxonomy
02
Minimum Bronze competence checks
03
Training and refresh intervals
04
Required practical rehearsal
05
Trainer/provider approval
06
Use of mental-health first-aid programmes
07
Designated technical lead competence
08
Supervision and staff-support model
09
Diamond scenario and interview protocol
10
Severity calibration

Readiness checklist

Can the organisation prove people apply learning safely?

20 source records support this working model. Their use still requires the review flags recorded against each requirement.

We can identify every role that may receive a disclosure, observe concern, refer, escalate, control information or influence wellbeing.
Volunteers, contractors, temporary/event personnel, board members and backups are included where relevant.
Each material role has defined competence, boundaries, induction, refresh and supervision expectations.
Essential induction occurs before unsupervised relevant duty and completion data reconcile with actual rosters.
Overdue or incomplete competence results in supervision, restricted duty, reassignment or another documented control.
Relevant personnel can describe how they would approach, listen and respond without diagnosing, blaming or forcing disclosure.
People can distinguish routine support, urgent concern, immediate emergency and safeguarding routes.
Role guidance explains confidentiality limits, information sharing, consent, emergency exceptions and selection/employment boundaries.
Staff know how to refer and support a person until safe handoff without demanding diagnosis details.
Learning has role-based objectives, competent content ownership, current routes, accessible delivery and a credible understanding check.
Safety-critical roles practise realistic scenarios and failed competence checks lead to remediation and reassessment.
We evaluate behaviour and transfer, not only attendance, satisfaction or confidence.
A named competent technical owner or external adviser and backup maintain the system and can be consulted.
Personnel can obtain supervision or advice when uncertain and confidential support after difficult situations.
The competence system does not depend on one unavailable or overloaded person.
Incidents, referral failures, boundary concerns, athlete feedback, turnover and accessibility findings change learning and support.
Corrective action includes reassessment and evidence that practice improved.
Independent reviewers could sample competence beyond headquarters and include volunteers, contractors or lower-power roles.
Protected athletes and staff could describe responses and boundaries as respectful, safe and trustworthy.
There are no open major or critical Pillar 2 findings.

Pillar 2 is now structurally complete.

P2.5 is approved for the working architecture and all twenty requirements are connected to framework v1.2. Next comes named expert review, controlled question writing and pilot testing.

Help review the model All requirements