What “aligned to the framework” is allowed to mean

Four tiers exist, and the difference between them is who checked. Nothing else about them differs in kind.

Tier 0 — you say so

You publish a coverage map at a public address and declare it against a named framework version. We have read nothing. The permitted wording says that the alignment is self-declared and unreviewed, and the register marks the entry UNVERIFIED. There is no fee and no waiting, and a Tier 0 listing is a legitimate thing to hold: most organisations referencing a standard have never been audited against it.

Tier I — we read the map

A reviewer checks the coverage map against the course or credential material and confirms the mapping is accurate. This says nothing about assessment rigour. A Tier I holder may state that its coverage map is verified; it may not state or imply that its assessment was examined, because it was not.

Tier II — we read the assessment

The map, the instruments, the pass mark and the standard-setting record are examined. This is the strongest claim available about a single credential, and it is specific to the credential reviewed — not to the provider, and not to sibling credentials that were not examined.

Tier III — one body holds it

The tier opened on 30.08.2026 and one organisation is listed on it. Tier III accredits a body — its governance, examiners, standard setting and appeals — not a course, so it never licenses a claim about a credential outside the portfolio reviewed. No provisional or pending status exists, and the register is the place to check the entry, its date and its version.

Four phrases that are never permitted at any tier

Accredited, unless the organisation is listed at Tier III on the register today. Approved, which we do not do at any tier. Certified by AI Certification Standards, which describes something we do not offer — we do not certify individuals. And compliant, which implies a regulatory position that no tier establishes.