Map a course
Seven steps from an existing course to a completed coverage map. Work systematically: the process catches the two errors that cause most returns.
The fields and rulesFix the framework version first
Choose a released version and write it down. Every later decision depends on it.
Also record extension codes with their own versions, or “None”.
List what the course assesses, before what it teaches
Start from your assessment instruments, not your syllabus. Mapping from assessment first prevents an inflated map.
A list of tasks with what each task actually requires the learner to do.
Match each task to statements at indicator level
For each task, open the candidate statement and read its indicators. Record the identifier, not the domain.
Task ↔ statement pairs, with indicator numbers in the notes column.
Set coverage values
Mark each statement taught, assessed or both. Nothing else counts as assessed.
The coverage column complete, no blanks.
Weight the assessed statements
Weightings reflect the contribution to the overall result, and must sum to 100 across assessed statements.
The weighting sum checked and equal to 100.
Declare exclusions with reasons
List every statement in the referenced sets that you do not cover, each with a reason.
No referenced-set statement absent from both the row table and the exclusion list.
Record the level actually reached, then sign it
Apply the level tests below, write the level your assessment supports, add the pass mark with its method, the validity period, the date and a named signatory.
Publish it at a stable public address.
When a course covers part of a statement
A statement is not a topic; it is a competence with two to four indicators.
Mark assessed. You need not assess every indicator listed on the statement, but you must be able to say which ones the task reaches.
Mark taught. This is the correct answer far more often than providers expect.
Mark taught, and note in the notes column which indicator the assessment reaches.
Move it to the exclusion list with a rationale.
There is no “partial” coverage value in the schema, deliberately.
Framework gap, or scope creep?
| Ask | If yes |
|---|---|
| Would a practitioner in another sector, doing this work, need this competence? | GAP |
| Is it specific to one product, platform or vendor? | CREEP |
| Is it a competence at all, or is it product training? | CREEP |
| Can you name two people, in different organisations, whose work requires it? | GAP |
| Does it sit inside a domain's declared boundary but simply have no statement yet? | GAP |
Submit a gap report. It takes the unmapped content, the competence you believe it teaches, and the evidence that practitioners exercise it.
Submit a gap reportClaimed level and reached level are different numbers
Most overclaiming is not dishonest. A course teaches L3 content, assesses it with L2 methods, and calls itself L3 because the material was covered.
The learner is asked to identify, describe or distinguish, and is judged on recognition rather than performance.
The learner produces something to a given procedure, in a familiar situation, and is judged on the product and its documentation.
The learner faces a non-routine situation with competing constraints, chooses an approach, and must justify the choice.
The learner sets an approach where no adequate practice exists and is judged on the standard they set for others.