Five mandatory units, 410 hours of Total Qualification Time, 41 credits. Every learning outcome, every assessment criterion, and the check that holds each one against the Ofqual Level 5 descriptor. Two of the five units have been rewritten and are marked where they appear.
Future Fluency is about working well alongside AI and automation. Not building the technology. Using it, checking it, and leading a team through what it changes.
The subject moves as the level rises, and it moves deliberately. At Level 3 the learner changes their own daily work. They use AI tools on real tasks, check what comes back, automate something they repeat, and review what changed. At Level 5 the learner leads a department through the same shift. Technical depth does not rise. Judgement, analysis and working with people does.
This matters for reviewing the specification. A reader expecting deeper AI content at Level 5 will think the units have gone soft. They have not. The level rises through the complexity of the problem, not the difficulty of the tool.
Credit is calculated at the Ofqual convention of 1 credit per 10 hours of Total Qualification Time. Guided learning hours are indicative.
Tables scroll sideways on a narrow screen.
| Ref | Unit | TQT | Credits | GLH | Criteria |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ZFF-GM-05 | Leading a Department Through a Change in Required Capability | 60 | 6 | 24 | 28 |
| ZFF-EI-05 | Working with the People Whose Roles Change | 60 | 6 | 24 | 27 |
| ZFF-AU-05 | Planning Automation Across a Department | 80 | 8 | 46 | 26 |
| ZFF-DA-05 | Using Data to Direct a Department's Priorities | 70 | 7 | 40 | 25 |
| ZFF-PJ-05 | Applied Project: Annual Automation Plan for Own Department | 140 | 14 | 10 | 30 |
| Total | 5 mandatory units | 410 | 41 | 144 | 136 |
410 TQT clears the 370 hour Diploma threshold with 40 hours of headroom. The criteria total was 97 before ZFF-GM-05 and ZFF-EI-05 were rewritten. Those two units carried 8 criteria each and now carry 28 and 27. TQT, credits and GLH are unchanged, so the size of the qualification is unaffected.
| Level 3 Diploma | Level 5 Diploma | |
|---|---|---|
| Guided learning | 155 (40%) | 144 (35%) |
| Everything else | 235 (60%) | 266 (65%) |
| Total Qualification Time | 390 | 410 |
The share of guided learning falls as the level rises, and that is the descriptor doing its work. A Level 5 problem is only broadly defined. A large part of what the learner needs cannot be known in advance by anyone, including the tutor. The department, its systems and its people are the content, and they are found in the doing.
Two things are easy to misread in that table. Guided learning is not the same as time with Zavmo. It is the hours spent under direction. Tutoring is one part of that, not all of it. The other hours are not all project work. They are reflection, reading and personal investigation as well as the project, and most of it happens inside the learner's own job.
Back to the unit indexEvery criterion in every unit below is held against the Ofqual RQF Level 5 descriptor.
Practical, theoretical or technological knowledge and understanding of a subject or field of work to find ways forward in broadly defined, complex contexts. Can analyse, interpret and evaluate relevant information, concepts and ideas. Is aware of the nature and scope of the area. Understands different perspectives, approaches or schools of thought and the reasoning behind them.
Determine, adapt and use appropriate methods, cognitive and practical skills to address broadly defined, complex problems. Use relevant research or development to inform actions. Evaluate actions, methods and results.
Level 4 problems are complex and non-routine while normally fairly well defined. Level 5 problems are only broadly defined. The test applied throughout: has anybody told the learner what the problem is, what counts as a good answer, or which method to use? If any of the three is given, the criterion has dropped to Level 4. This is why determine appears so often. It is the descriptor's own word and it is load-bearing.
Deliberately absent from every unit: critically analyse, design research, appraise, and any outcome about evaluating implications. Also absent: reformulate and synthesise, which are Level 7. Justify does not appear either, because it appears nowhere in the three units this specification is levelled against.
The one exception has now been closed. ZFF-AU-05 previously used appraise in its LO3 stem and at 3.1, 3.4, 4.3, 4.4 and 5.5, and ZFF-PJ-05 used appraisal at 2.4. The work those criteria describe is weighing candidate processes against criteria the learner has set, which is squarely the descriptor's own evaluate, so the wording has been changed to evaluate and evaluation and the meaning is unchanged. Nothing was demoted and nothing was rescoped. The before and after wording is set out in the findings section. The rule now holds without exception: appraise appears nowhere in any criterion.
The change is happening to the learner's team or department and the learner leads a function through it. Level 3 was personal scope. The moment an outcome asks what the department is for, it has left Level 5 upward. The moment it takes only the learner's own tasks as its object, it has left Level 5 downward.
It is change management and working with people, applied to automation and data. It is explicitly not deep AI or dataset expertise. Technical depth peaks at Level 3 and does not rise up this ladder. Someone will eventually try to improve these units by adding AI content. That would mis-level them.
Back to the unit indexZFF-GM-05 and ZFF-EI-05 were written earlier than the other three and to a different house style. They were not fit to submit. They have been rewritten in full and the replacements appear below, marked Rewritten wherever they occur.
Every criterion took the learner's own mindset, own regulation or own relationships as its object. The level rule the other three units are written to says plainly that a Level 5 outcome taking only the learner's own tasks as its object has left Level 5 downward. As written, the two sat closer to Level 3, with no visible difference in scope from ZFF-GM-03.
Appraise is treated as Level 6 throughout the other units. Formulate is Level 7. Justify appeared in both and appears nowhere in the three departmental units. All three have been removed.
Eight assessment criteria each, against 25 to 30 in the other three, and against 60 hours of Total Qualification Time each. That is not a small difference in a Diploma. It changes what an assessor has to evidence and it looks inconsistent to an External Quality Assurer reading the qualification whole.
"Assess own mindset across defined domains" names no standard against which the assessment is made, and mindset is not directly observable. ZFF-GM-03 solves the same problem at Level 3 by assessing what the learner does rather than the attitude they report holding. That is the precedent the rewrites follow.
| Previous version | Rewritten version | |
|---|---|---|
| ZFF-GM-05 | Growth Mindset. Understanding mindset theory, appraising own learning behaviours, applying growth practices to a self-identified challenge. 4 outcomes, 8 criteria. | Leading a Department Through a Change in Required Capability. 5 outcomes, 28 criteria. |
| ZFF-EI-05 | Emotional Intelligence. Understanding models of emotional intelligence, evaluating own self-awareness and regulation, applying empathy in a working relationship. 4 outcomes, 8 criteria. | Working with the People Whose Roles Change. 5 outcomes, 27 criteria. |
| Effect on size | 60 TQT, 6 credits, 24 GLH each | 60 TQT, 6 credits, 24 GLH each. Unchanged |
The subject matter is not lost. Mindset and emotional intelligence are what the two units build. What the learner does with them, at departmental scope, is what the units now assess. Both sit beside ZFF-AU-05 and ZFF-PJ-05, which already require consultation and a judgement about the skills a department holds.
Back to the unit indexEach unit carries its reference, level, hours, credits, guided learning hours and status, its aim, every learning outcome, every assessment criterion, and a level check that maps each descriptor clause to the criteria that answer it.
Criteria tables scroll sideways on a narrow screen.
This unit replaces the previous ZFF-GM-05, titled Growth Mindset, which had four outcomes and eight criteria, all of them taking the learner's own mindset as their object.
TQT, credits and guided learning hours are unchanged, so the Diploma remains at 410 TQT and 41 credits.
This unit gives the learner the skills to lead a department through a change in what its people are expected to be good at. The emphasis is on the judgement and the leading rather than on any particular skill being built. Learners establish what capability their department currently holds and what its work will require as its processes change, determine for themselves the criteria by which options for closing the difference will be evaluated, and evaluate those options using figures from their own systems and evidence of how comparable work has gone elsewhere. They then consult the people whose expected capability changes, adapt the recommendation in the light of what those conversations establish, set out what each person is expected to do and what support is available, and evaluate what the change produced in the department's work.
Scope is departmental. Keeping the learner's own skills current is ZFF-GM-03 and is outside this unit.
A design note that is load-bearing: this unit assesses what the learner does, not the attitude anyone reports holding. Every criterion is an observable action, a stated determination, or a judgement made against evidence that can be produced. No criterion asks the learner to demonstrate a growth mindset, and no criterion asks an assessor to judge a learner's or a colleague's attitude, resilience or confidence. Those would not be assessable.
The learner will: Know how a change in required capability affects the work of a department.
| Ref | The learner can |
|---|---|
| 1.1 | Analyse the effects on a department's work when the capabilities its roles require change, including the effect on people whose established competence is no longer what the work requires |
| 1.2 | Compare different approaches to building capability in a department, and the reasoning behind each |
| 1.3 | Evaluate the reasons capability-building programmes fail to change what people do at work |
| 1.4 | Identify the constraints that limit what own department can change about the capability it holds, including time, budget, role definitions, agreements and the availability of learning |
| 1.5 | Evaluate the different views held within own department about the change in what its people are expected to be good at, and the reasoning given for them |
The learner will: Be able to establish what capability a department holds and what it will require.
| Ref | The learner can |
|---|---|
| 2.1 | Determine the method used to establish what capability the department holds and what it will require, and state the reasons for choosing it |
| 2.2 | Establish the capabilities the department's roles currently require, and the work each of those capabilities supports |
| 2.3 | Establish the capability the department currently holds, using the department's own records and evidence from work already carried out |
| 2.4 | Determine the capability the department will require as its processes change, and state the reasons |
| 2.5 | Analyse the difference between the capability held and the capability required, and identify where that difference carries most cost to the department |
| 2.6 | Evaluate the reliability of the evidence obtained, and state how gaps were handled |
The learner will: Be able to determine how a department's capability difference will be closed.
| Ref | The learner can |
|---|---|
| 3.1 | Determine the criteria against which options for closing the difference will be evaluated, and state the reasons for them |
| 3.2 | Identify the options available for closing each part of the difference, including developing the people already in post, changing how work is allocated, recruiting, redeploying, and obtaining capability from outside the department |
| 3.3 | Interpret the cost and the benefit of each option, using figures from the department's own systems |
| 3.4 | Use relevant investigation of comparable work, inside or outside own organisation, to inform the choice between options |
| 3.5 | Identify a capability the department should not attempt to build, and evaluate the reasons |
| 3.6 | Evaluate the options against the criteria determined at 3.1, and state which are recommended |
The learner will: Be able to lead a department through a change in what its people are expected to be good at.
| Ref | The learner can |
|---|---|
| 4.1 | Identify the people whose expected capability changes, and state how it changes for each |
| 4.2 | Consult those people about the change, and record what was raised |
| 4.3 | Analyse the concerns raised, and evaluate which of them alter the recommended options |
| 4.4 | Adapt the recommendation in response to what the consultation established, and state what changed |
| 4.5 | State, for each person whose expected capability changes, the actions they are expected to take, the support available to them and the period over which the change applies |
| 4.6 | Determine how the change in the department's capability will be evidenced in the work the department produces, and state what will count as evidence |
The learner will: Be able to evaluate a change in a department's capability and own method.
| Ref | The learner can |
|---|---|
| 5.1 | Evaluate the change in the department's capability against the requirement determined at 2.4, using the evidence determined at 4.6 |
| 5.2 | Evaluate the effect of the change on the work the department produces, using figures from the department's own systems |
| 5.3 | Identify where the change did not take effect, and evaluate the reasons |
| 5.4 | Evaluate how effective the method determined at 2.1 and the criteria determined at 3.1 were, giving reasons |
| 5.5 | Identify what would be determined differently at the next change in the department's required capability, and the reasons |
5 learning outcomes, 28 assessment criteria.
| Descriptor clause | Answered by |
|---|---|
| Find ways forward in broadly defined, complex contexts | LO2 and LO3. Nobody states which capabilities matter, what the department should be able to do next, or how the difference should be closed. 2.1 and 3.1 require the learner to determine the method and the criteria before any option can be evaluated |
| Analyse, interpret and evaluate relevant information, concepts and ideas | 1.1, 2.5 and 4.3 analyse; 3.3 interprets; 1.3, 1.5, 2.6, 3.5, 3.6, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 evaluate |
| Is aware of the nature and scope of the area | 1.4, 2.2, 2.3. The learner establishes what the department's roles require and what its people can already do before proposing anything |
| Understands different perspectives, approaches or schools of thought and the reasoning behind them | 1.2 and 1.5. Both require the reasoning, not only the position |
| Determine, adapt and use appropriate methods to address broadly defined, complex problems | 2.1, 2.4, 3.1 and 4.6 determine; 4.4 adapts; LO3 and LO4 use |
| Use relevant research or development to inform actions | 3.4, which uses investigation of comparable work to inform the choice rather than to describe the field |
| Evaluate actions, methods and results | LO5 in full, and 4.3. 5.4 evaluates the method and the criteria the learner determined rather than ones they were given |
ZFF-GM-03 is the closest unit in the suite and the difference has to be visible in the wording. There the learner keeps their own skills current: they compare their own skills with what their own role will require, plan one piece of their own learning, and review what it changed. Here the learner establishes what a department can already do, determines what it will need, evaluates the options for closing the difference, and leads the people through the change. No criterion in this unit takes the learner's own skills as its object. Determine, analyse and interpret appear here and appear nowhere in ZFF-GM-03.
A Level 4 version would read: assess your team against the competency framework you have been given, and choose from the training options on the approved list, within the budget you have been set. Every one of those is a definition supplied from outside. Removing all three is what makes this Level 5. Watch 3.1 if the unit is ever edited. If the criteria for evaluating options are supplied as a competency framework or a template rather than determined by the learner, the unit becomes Level 4 and the qualification's level claim goes with it. The same applies to 2.1: supplying a skills-audit instrument drops the unit a level.
No criterion asks the learner to critically analyse, to design research, or to evaluate implications beyond the department. 3.4 uses investigation that already exists. 5.2 evaluates the effect on the department's own work, which is scope-bounded. Two moves are above the level and are excluded: reconsidering what the department's roles are for, and changing what the organisation as a whole expects of its people. Where the recommendation genuinely requires an organisational change to proceed, the correct treatment is to record it at 1.4 as a constraint, not to widen the unit.
Zavmo records the learner's work on this unit inside the platform: which outcomes and criteria they opened, what the tutor put to them, what they answered, where their reasoning was working at the analyse level the unit asks for, and the moment each outcome was recorded as met. It records nothing about the department itself. Every statement the builder produces names the outcome and the criteria it bears on, so a statement made while the learner works on LO3 carries learning_outcome_id of LO3 and assessment_criteria_addressed of 3.1 and 3.6. The assessor reads the record criterion by criterion rather than as a session log.
| Event | What it records for this unit | Status |
|---|---|---|
| ZAV-LRN-003 ZAV-LRN-004 | Learning outcomes and assessment criteria rendered to the learner, with the time | Observed |
| ZAV-LRN-020 ZAV-LRN-022 | Discuss phase started and completed. The tutoring dialogue that builds LO1, with its start and end | Observed |
| ZAV-LRN-032 | Knowledge check answered, with the learner's response held on the statement | Observed |
| ZAV-BLM-004 | Bloom evidence at the analyse level, which is the level 1.1, 2.5 and 4.3 ask for | Observed |
| ZAV-LRN-050 ZAV-LRN-052 | Learning outcome met, and the unit recorded as complete | Observed |
| ZAV-CRT-002 ZAV-CRT-003 ZAV-CRT-004 | Assessment criterion attempted, passed and failed, each carrying a criterion id and an evidence id. This is the row that matters most to an assessor, and it has never fired | Wired |
| ZAV-CRT-005 | Evidence submitted against a criterion, with an evidence id and an evidence type | Wired |
| ZAV-OFQ-003 ZAV-OFQ-004 | Regulated learning outcome met and assessment criterion passed, carrying the outcome id, the unit id, the criterion id and the ids of the statements offered as evidence | Wired |
| ZAV-GM-001 to ZAV-GM-006 | Growth-mindset language and setback signals. Present in the platform, and deliberately not evidence for any criterion here: the unit assesses what the learner does, never the attitude anyone reports | Wired |
Status as measured against the production store on 17 July 2026. What the three words mean, and what they do not.
Most of LO4, and the parts of LO2, LO3 and LO5 that reach into the department, happen where there is no telemetry.
This unit replaces the previous ZFF-EI-05, titled Emotional Intelligence, which had four outcomes and eight criteria, all of them taking the learner's own self-awareness, own regulation or a single working relationship as their object.
TQT, credits and guided learning hours are unchanged, so the Diploma remains at 410 TQT and 41 credits.
This unit gives the learner the skills to work with the people whose roles change when a department automates part of its work, including the people who do not want the change. The emphasis is on what the department establishes and what it then does, rather than on any single conversation. Learners establish who is affected and what changes for each of them, determine for themselves the method by which they will find out what those people raise, and analyse what is raised to separate objections to the change itself from objections to the way it is being made. They then determine the criteria by which the department's response will be evaluated, decide which points change the department's plans and which do not, work directly with the people concerned including those who continue not to accept the change, and evaluate what the whole of it produced in the department's work.
Scope is departmental. Strengthening one working relationship is not this unit. What the organisation as a whole should do about role change is set elsewhere and is outside it.
A design note that is load-bearing: this unit assesses what the learner does, not the emotional state anyone reports holding. Every criterion is an observable action, a stated determination, or a judgement made against recorded evidence. No criterion asks the learner to demonstrate empathy, and no criterion asks an assessor to rate a learner's self-awareness or regulation. Those would not be assessable. Emotional intelligence is what the unit builds. The conduct of a real change, and its record, are what it assesses.
The learner will: Know how people in a department respond when their roles change.
| Ref | The learner can |
|---|---|
| 1.1 | Analyse the effects on the work of a department when the roles within it change |
| 1.2 | Evaluate what is at stake for different groups of people in a department when its roles change, and the reasoning behind the positions they take |
| 1.3 | Compare different approaches to working with people through a change to their roles, and the reasoning behind each |
| 1.4 | Evaluate the reasons changes to roles are agreed and then not carried through in practice |
| 1.5 | Identify the obligations and constraints that govern how own department may work with people whose roles change, including consultation requirements, agreements and the organisation's own procedures |
The learner will: Be able to establish how a change to roles affects the people in a department.
| Ref | The learner can |
|---|---|
| 2.1 | Identify the people whose roles change and state what changes for each, and identify the people whose work depends on the roles that change |
| 2.2 | Determine the method used to establish what those people raise about the change, and state the reasons for choosing it |
| 2.3 | Establish, using that method, what each person or group raises about the change, and record it |
| 2.4 | Analyse what was raised to establish which points concern the change itself and which concern the way it is being made |
| 2.5 | Interpret what was raised to establish which parts of the change are least likely to be carried through in practice, and state the reasons |
| 2.6 | Evaluate the reliability of what the method established, and state how the position of people who did not take part was handled |
The learner will: Be able to determine how a department will respond to people who do not accept a change.
| Ref | The learner can |
|---|---|
| 3.1 | Determine the criteria against which the department's response to each point raised will be evaluated, and state the reasons for them |
| 3.2 | Analyse the points raised by people who do not accept the change, and evaluate which of them are supported by evidence |
| 3.3 | Determine which points will change the department's plans and which will not, and state the reasons in each case |
| 3.4 | Use relevant investigation of comparable changes, inside or outside own organisation, to inform the response |
| 3.5 | Adapt the department's plans in response to what the consultation established, and state what changed |
| 3.6 | Determine what the department will do where a person continues not to accept the change, within the obligations and constraints identified at 1.5 |
The learner will: Be able to work with the people whose roles change.
| Ref | The learner can |
|---|---|
| 4.1 | State to each person whose role changes what is changing, when it changes, and what is expected of them |
| 4.2 | Respond to each point raised, stating what the department will do about it and the reasons |
| 4.3 | Conduct a discussion with a person who does not accept the change, and record what was agreed and what was not |
| 4.4 | Determine the support each person requires to carry out the changed role, and state how and when it will be provided |
| 4.5 | Determine how the department will keep the people whose roles change informed while the change proceeds, and how the effect on their work will be measured |
The learner will: Be able to evaluate how a department worked with the people whose roles changed.
| Ref | The learner can |
|---|---|
| 5.1 | Evaluate the effect of the change on the work of the people whose roles changed, against what was determined at 4.5 |
| 5.2 | Evaluate the effect of the change on the department's work, using figures from the department's own systems |
| 5.3 | Evaluate how far the points recorded at 2.3 changed what the department did, giving reasons |
| 5.4 | Evaluate how effective the method determined at 2.2 and the criteria determined at 3.1 were, giving reasons |
| 5.5 | Identify what would be determined differently at the next change to the department's roles, and the reasons |
5 learning outcomes, 27 assessment criteria.
| Descriptor clause | Answered by |
|---|---|
| Find ways forward in broadly defined, complex contexts | LO2 and LO3. Nobody tells the learner how to find out what people think, what counts as a point worth acting on, or where the line falls between changing the plan and holding it. 2.2, 3.1 and 3.3 require the learner to determine all three |
| Analyse, interpret and evaluate relevant information, concepts and ideas | 1.1, 2.4 and 3.2 analyse; 2.5 interprets; 1.2, 1.4, 2.6, 3.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 evaluate. 2.3 to 2.5 run the descriptor's verbs in its own order across a single body of recorded evidence |
| Is aware of the nature and scope of the area | 1.5, 2.1, 2.3. The learner establishes who is affected, who depends on them, and what the department is obliged to do, before deciding anything |
| Understands different perspectives, approaches or schools of thought and the reasoning behind them | 1.2 and 1.3, and 2.4. 2.4 makes the learner separate the objection to the change from the objection to how it is being made, which are different positions with different reasoning |
| Determine, adapt and use appropriate methods to address broadly defined, complex problems | 2.2, 3.1, 3.3, 3.6, 4.4 and 4.5 determine; 3.5 adapts; LO2 and LO4 use |
| Use relevant research or development to inform actions | 3.4, which uses investigation of comparable changes to inform the response rather than to describe the field |
| Evaluate actions, methods and results | LO5 in full, and 3.2. 5.4 evaluates the method and the criteria the learner determined rather than ones they were given |
The previous version of this unit assessed the learner's own self-awareness and the effect of their practices on one working relationship. That is personal scope and it sat at or below Level 3. Nothing of that kind survives. Here the object is every person whose role changes, the people whose work depends on those roles, and the department's own output. The learner determines the method, sets the criteria, decides which objections move the plan, and answers for the result.
A Level 4 version would supply the list of people to consult, a briefing script to work from, and a decision already taken about which objections may be conceded. 2.2, 3.1 and 3.3 exist specifically to remove all three. Watch 3.1 and 3.3 if the unit is ever edited. A change-management template that fixes what counts as an acceptable response defines the problem for the learner and drops the unit a level. Supplying a template is exactly the kind of helpfulness a delivery team adds later without realising what it costs.
No criterion asks the learner to critically analyse, to design research, or to evaluate implications beyond the department. 3.4 uses investigation that already exists. 5.2 evaluates the effect on the department's own work. Two moves are above the level and are excluded: reconsidering what the department's roles are for, and changing how the organisation as a whole handles role change. Where the response genuinely requires either, the correct treatment is to record it at 1.5 as a constraint the department is working within, not to widen the unit.
The gap is widest in this unit and it should be said first. What Zavmo records is the preparation and the practice: the dialogue that builds LO1, the role-play or case study the tutor put in front of the learner, the questions the learner asked rather than answered. What it cannot record is the conversation at 4.3 with a colleague who does not accept the change, which is the unit's hardest criterion and its most important one.
| Event | What it records for this unit | Status |
|---|---|---|
| ZAV-CHA-001 ZAV-CHA-002 ZAV-CHA-004 | Which teaching character worked with the learner, and when it took and left the floor | Observed |
| ZAV-LRN-020 ZAV-LRN-022 | Discuss phase started and completed, across the dialogue that builds LO1 | Observed |
| ZAV-ENG-006 | A question the learner asked unprompted | Observed |
| ZAV-LRN-061 | A role-play or case study was put in front of the learner mid-lesson | Observed |
| ZAV-LRN-062 ZAV-LRN-063 | Learning modality attempted and completed. The platform records that a role-play was shown. It does not yet record that it was attempted or finished | Catalogued |
| ZAV-CNV-001 to ZAV-CNV-005 | Grice quantity, quality, relation and manner scores, and a communication satisfaction measure, on the learner's exchanges with the tutor. Not a measure of how the learner spoke to a colleague | Wired |
| ZAV-CRT-002 ZAV-CRT-003 | Assessment criterion attempted and passed, with a criterion id and an evidence id | Wired |
| ZAV-OFQ-003 ZAV-OFQ-004 | Regulated learning outcome met and assessment criterion passed | Wired |
| ZAV-MP-006 | A written or spoken reflection, held with the prompt that produced it | Wired |
Status as measured against the production store on 17 July 2026. What the three words mean, and what they do not.
This unit gives the learner the skills to work out what in a department's work could be automated, what should not be, and what it would cost to find out. The emphasis is on the judgement rather than the tooling. Learners establish what their department actually does and where its effort goes, determine for themselves the criteria a candidate process has to meet, analyse individual processes against those criteria using figures from their own systems, and test that evaluation against how comparable work has gone elsewhere. They then consult the people whose work would change, adapt the evaluation in the light of what those conversations establish, and put a recommendation to whoever would decide.
Scope is departmental. The unit stops at a recommendation on a set of candidate processes. Turning that into a sequenced, resourced annual plan is ZFF-PJ-05.
The learner will: Know how automation changes the work of a department.
| Ref | The learner can |
|---|---|
| 1.1 | Analyse the effects that introducing automation has on the work of the people in a department |
| 1.2 | Compare different approaches to introducing automation into a department, and the reasoning behind each |
| 1.3 | Evaluate the reasons automation programmes fail to deliver what was expected of them |
| 1.4 | Identify the constraints that limit what own department can automate, including systems, contracts, permissions and skills |
| 1.5 | Evaluate the different views held within own department about automation, and the reasoning given for them |
The learner will: Be able to establish what a department does and where its effort goes.
| Ref | The learner can |
|---|---|
| 2.1 | Map the processes carried out by own department, showing inputs, outputs and the people involved |
| 2.2 | Determine the method used to establish where the department's effort goes, and state the reasons for choosing it |
| 2.3 | Establish the volume and the time cost of the department's main processes from the department's own systems |
| 2.4 | Identify the processes that other teams depend on, and what they depend on them for |
| 2.5 | Evaluate the reliability of the figures obtained, and state how gaps were handled |
The learner will: Be able to evaluate processes in a department as candidates for automation.
| Ref | The learner can |
|---|---|
| 3.1 | Determine the criteria against which candidate processes will be evaluated, and state the reasons for them |
| 3.2 | Analyse a candidate process to establish which parts could be automated and which could not |
| 3.3 | Interpret the costs and the benefits of automating a candidate process, using figures from the department's own systems |
| 3.4 | Use relevant investigation of comparable work, inside or outside own organisation, to inform the evaluation |
| 3.5 | Identify a process that should not be automated, and evaluate the reasons |
| 3.6 | Evaluate the candidate processes against the criteria determined at 3.1, and state which are recommended |
The learner will: Be able to work with the people whose work automation would change.
| Ref | The learner can |
|---|---|
| 4.1 | Identify the people whose work would change, and how it would change for each |
| 4.2 | Consult those people about the proposed change, and record what was raised |
| 4.3 | Analyse the concerns raised, and evaluate which of them alter the evaluation |
| 4.4 | Adapt the evaluation in response to what the consultation established, and state what changed |
| 4.5 | Evaluate the skills the department would need that it does not currently hold |
The learner will: Be able to recommend a course of action and evaluate own method.
| Ref | The learner can |
|---|---|
| 5.1 | State the checks, the fallbacks and the points of human decision for each recommended process |
| 5.2 | Evaluate the risks the recommendation carries for the department, and what would be done about each |
| 5.3 | Present the recommendation, with the evidence, to the person who would decide |
| 5.4 | Evaluate how effective the method determined at 2.2 and the criteria determined at 3.1 were, giving reasons |
| 5.5 | Identify what would be determined differently in a further evaluation, and the reasons |
5 learning outcomes, 26 assessment criteria.
| Descriptor clause | Answered by |
|---|---|
| Find ways forward in broadly defined, complex contexts | LO2, LO3. Nobody states which processes to look at or what would make one worth automating. 2.2 and 3.1 require the learner to determine both before any evaluation can start |
| Analyse, interpret and evaluate | 1.1, 3.2, 4.3 analyse; 3.3 interpret; 1.3, 1.5, 3.5, 3.6, 4.5, 5.2 evaluate |
| Aware of the nature and scope of the area | 1.4, 2.1, 2.4 |
| Understands different perspectives and the reasoning behind them | 1.2 and 1.5. Both require the reasoning, not only the position |
| Determine, adapt and use appropriate methods | 2.2, 3.1 determine; 4.4 adapt; LO2 and LO3 use |
| Use relevant research or development to inform actions | 3.4 |
| Evaluate actions, methods and results | LO5, and 4.3. 5.4 evaluates the method the learner determined rather than one they were given |
A Level 4 version would read: evaluate the three processes your director has identified, against the business case template, within the budget you have been given. Every one of those is a definition supplied from outside. Removing all three is what makes this Level 5. Watch 3.1 if the unit is ever edited. If the criteria are supplied as a template rather than determined by the learner, the unit becomes Level 4 and the qualification's level claim goes with it.
No criterion asks the learner to critically analyse or to design research. 3.4 uses investigation that already exists. 5.2 evaluates risks to the department, which is scope-bounded.
The evidence divides cleanly across this unit's 80 hours. LO1 is knowledge, and the platform records the dialogue that builds it. LO2, LO3 and LO5 produce artefacts, and the platform records their submission and the criteria they were submitted against. LO4 and 5.3 are meetings, and the platform records nothing at all.
| Event | What it records for this unit | Status |
|---|---|---|
| ZAV-LRN-001 | The unit opened, with the time | Observed |
| ZAV-LRN-004 | The assessment criteria rendered to the learner | Observed |
| ZAV-LRN-031 ZAV-LRN-032 | Content delivered against LO1, and the in-line checks answered | Observed |
| ZAV-BLM-013 | Bloom level reached at analyse, which is the threshold 3.2 works at | Observed |
| ZAV-LRN-052 | The unit recorded as complete | Observed |
| ZAV-LRN-041 ZAV-LRN-042 ZAV-LRN-043 | Demonstration submitted and validated, and the Demonstrate phase completed. The route by which the process map and the evaluation reach the portfolio | Wired |
| ZAV-CRT-005 ZAV-CRT-006 | Evidence submitted, and evidence validated with the checking agent named and its stated reason held | Wired |
| ZAV-CRT-002 ZAV-CRT-003 ZAV-CRT-004 | Assessment criterion attempted, passed and failed | Wired |
| ZAV-OFQ-002 ZAV-OFQ-005 | Regulated unit attempted and completed, against the unit id | Wired |
Status as measured against the production store on 17 July 2026. What the three words mean, and what they do not.
This unit gives the learner the skills to use the data their department already produces to decide where its effort should go. The emphasis is on the direction rather than the arithmetic. Learners establish what their department's measures actually count, what behaviour each one encourages in the people it reports on, and what they leave out. They then determine a question about the department's priorities that data could help settle, determine the method for answering it, analyse what the data indicates, and test that reading against an alternative one and against how comparable work behaves elsewhere.
Scope is departmental. The learner directs the priorities of a function, which includes changing what that function measures. What the department exists to achieve is set elsewhere and is outside this unit. The unit assumes no specialist statistical training and none is required to meet the criteria.
The learner will: Know what a department's measures show and what they drive.
| Ref | The learner can |
|---|---|
| 1.1 | Analyse what the measures reported by own department actually count, and over what period |
| 1.2 | Analyse the behaviour each measure encourages in the people whose work it reports on |
| 1.3 | Evaluate what own department's current measures leave out |
| 1.4 | Compare different approaches to measuring work of this kind, and the reasoning behind each |
| 1.5 | Evaluate the different views held within own department about what its measures show, and the reasoning given for them |
The learner will: Be able to determine a question about a department's priorities that data could help settle.
| Ref | The learner can |
|---|---|
| 2.1 | State the question about own department's priorities that the work will address, and the reasons for selecting it |
| 2.2 | Determine the data that bears on the question, and state the reasons for the selection |
| 2.3 | Identify data that was available but set aside, and evaluate the effect of setting it aside |
| 2.4 | Determine the method to be used to work with the data, and state the reasons for choosing it |
| 2.5 | Evaluate the quality of the data obtained, and state how gaps and errors were handled |
The learner will: Be able to analyse a department's data and interpret what it indicates.
| Ref | The learner can |
|---|---|
| 3.1 | Analyse the selected data in relation to the question |
| 3.2 | Interpret what the analysis indicates about where the department's effort is going |
| 3.3 | Identify an interpretation the same data would also support, and evaluate which of the two it better supports |
| 3.4 | Use relevant investigation, inside or outside own organisation, to test whether the interpretation holds |
| 3.5 | Evaluate the limits of what the data can show, and what would be needed to settle the question |
| 3.6 | Identify where an AI or automated tool was used in the analysis, and evaluate what was checked and why |
The learner will: Be able to direct a department's priorities from what data indicates.
| Ref | The learner can |
|---|---|
| 4.1 | Determine the changes to the department's priorities that follow from the interpretation |
| 4.2 | Evaluate what the department would stop or reduce in order to make the changes possible |
| 4.3 | Consult the people whose work the changes would affect, and record what was raised |
| 4.4 | Adapt the proposed changes in response to what the consultation established, and state what changed |
| 4.5 | Present the proposed priorities, with the evidence, to the person who decides them, and respond to challenge |
| 4.6 | State how the effect of the changes will be measured, and over what period |
The learner will: Be able to evaluate the effect of directing priorities from data.
| Ref | The learner can |
|---|---|
| 5.1 | Evaluate the effect of the changed priorities against what was stated at 4.6, using evidence |
| 5.2 | Evaluate how effective the method determined at 2.4 was, giving reasons |
| 5.3 | Identify what would be determined differently next time, and the reasons |
5 learning outcomes, 25 assessment criteria.
| Descriptor clause | Answered by |
|---|---|
| Find ways forward in broadly defined, complex contexts | LO2. The question is not supplied. 2.1 requires the learner to state it and give reasons, 2.4 to determine how it will be answered |
| Analyse, interpret and evaluate | 1.1, 1.2, 3.1 analyse; 3.2 interpret; 1.3, 1.5, 2.3, 2.5, 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 4.2 evaluate. 3.1 to 3.3 run the three verbs in the descriptor's own order across a single body of data |
| Aware of the nature and scope of the area | 1.1, 1.3, 3.5 |
| Understands different perspectives and the reasoning behind them | 1.4 and 1.5, and 3.3. 3.3 makes the learner hold two readings of the same data at once and choose between them on evidence |
| Determine, adapt and use appropriate methods | 2.2, 2.4, 4.1 determine; 4.4 adapt; LO3 use |
| Use relevant research or development to inform actions | 3.4 |
| Evaluate actions, methods and results | LO5 |
ZFF-DA-03 is the closest unit in the suite and the difference has to be visible in the wording. In ZFF-DA-03 the learner states a question about their own work and recommends to the person who decides. Here the learner determines a question about a department's priorities, determines the method, changes what the department measures, and consults the people affected. Analyse and determine appear here and appear nowhere in ZFF-DA-03.
A Level 4 version would supply the question and the reporting pack. 2.1 and 2.4 exist specifically to remove both.
Nothing asks the learner to critically analyse or to design research, to evaluate implications beyond the department, or to reconsider what the department is measuring for, which is the Level 7 move.
The analysis in this unit happens in the learner's own tools, on their department's own data. Zavmo records the learning around it, and the submission of what came out of it, not the analysis itself.
| Event | What it records for this unit | Status |
|---|---|---|
| ZAV-LRN-003 ZAV-LRN-004 | Learning outcomes and assessment criteria rendered to the learner | Observed |
| ZAV-LRN-030 ZAV-LRN-033 | Deliver phase started and completed, across the teaching that builds LO1 | Observed |
| ZAV-BLM-004 ZAV-BLM-020 | Analyse-level evidence, and a recorded drop back to a lower level | Observed |
| ZAV-COG-003 ZAV-COG-004 | Where the learner found the work hard or easy. Delivery information for the tutor, and not evidence for any criterion | Observed |
| ZAV-CRT-005 | Evidence submitted against a criterion | Wired |
| ZAV-CRT-002 ZAV-CRT-003 | Assessment criterion attempted and passed | Wired |
| ZAV-OFQ-003 ZAV-OFQ-004 | Regulated learning outcome met and assessment criterion passed | Wired |
| ZAV-LRN-051 | Bloom level advanced. Defined in the registry, with no emit call site in code | Catalogued |
Status as measured against the production store on 17 July 2026. What the three words mean, and what they do not.
This unit is the applied project that carries the Diploma to its size, and it is the qualification's anchor. Over a period long enough for the department's own year to be visible in the figures, the learner maps what their department actually does, determines which processes are candidates for automation and which are not, costs the options with real numbers from real systems, consults the people whose work would change, sequences the work across a year, builds in the checks and the fallbacks, and presents the plan to whoever signs departmental plans off.
The deliverable is stated in the brief. Almost nothing else is: not which processes, not what counts as a benefit, not what a good sequence looks like, not whose agreement is needed, and not whether the answer is to automate much or little.
Delivery note. The 140 hours are almost entirely the learner's own work, carried out in their job. A departmental planning project run across a year generates continuous, time-stamped, real-work evidence. That is normally the hardest thing to produce for a qualification at this level, and the most expensive for a conventional provider to assess.
The learner will: Be able to establish what own department does and what it costs.
| Ref | The learner can |
|---|---|
| 1.1 | Determine the boundary of the department the plan will cover, and state the reasons for it |
| 1.2 | Map the processes the department carries out across a year, including those that occur only occasionally |
| 1.3 | Establish the volume, the time and the cost of each main process from the department's own systems |
| 1.4 | Determine the method used to establish those figures, and state the reasons for choosing it |
| 1.5 | Evaluate the reliability of the figures, and state how gaps and disputed figures were handled |
| 1.6 | Identify the obligations and commitments the department must continue to meet whatever the plan changes |
The learner will: Be able to analyse which of a department's processes are candidates for automation.
| Ref | The learner can |
|---|---|
| 2.1 | Determine the criteria by which candidate processes will be selected, and state the reasons for them |
| 2.2 | Analyse each main process against those criteria |
| 2.3 | Interpret the cost and the benefit of automating each candidate, using the department's own figures |
| 2.4 | Use relevant investigation of comparable work to inform the evaluation, and state what it established |
| 2.5 | Identify the processes that should not be automated, and evaluate the reasons for each |
| 2.6 | Evaluate the candidates against one another and state the order in which they are recommended |
The learner will: Be able to consult the people whose work a plan would change.
| Ref | The learner can |
|---|---|
| 3.1 | Identify the people whose work each recommended change would affect, and how it would affect them |
| 3.2 | Consult those people, and record what was raised |
| 3.3 | Analyse the concerns raised, and evaluate which of them change the plan |
| 3.4 | Adapt the plan in response, and state what changed and the reasons |
| 3.5 | Evaluate the skills the department will need that it does not currently hold, and state how they will be obtained |
The learner will: Be able to produce a sequenced annual plan with checks and fallbacks.
| Ref | The learner can |
|---|---|
| 4.1 | Sequence the recommended changes across the year, and state the reasons for the order |
| 4.2 | Identify the dependencies between the changes, and between the changes and work outside the department |
| 4.3 | State the resources each change requires, and when they are required |
| 4.4 | State the checks that will be carried out on each change, by whom, and at what point |
| 4.5 | State the fallback for each change, and the point at which the fallback would be used |
| 4.6 | Evaluate the risks the plan carries for the department, and state what would be done about each |
| 4.7 | Determine how the effect of each change will be measured, and against what starting figure |
The learner will: Be able to present a departmental plan and evaluate own method.
| Ref | The learner can |
|---|---|
| 5.1 | Present the plan to the person who signs off the department's plans, in a form suited to that decision |
| 5.2 | Respond to challenge on the plan's figures, its sequence and its risks |
| 5.3 | Record the decision taken and any conditions attached to it |
| 5.4 | Evaluate how effective the method determined at 1.4 and the criteria determined at 2.1 were, giving reasons |
| 5.5 | Evaluate how far the consultation changed the plan, giving reasons |
| 5.6 | Identify what would be determined differently in the next annual plan, and the reasons |
5 learning outcomes, 30 assessment criteria.
This is the unit most likely to be challenged on level, in both directions. The challenge from below is that a stated deliverable makes the problem well defined. The challenge from above is that an annual plan for a department sounds strategic. Both are answered here rather than left to a review.
| Descriptor clause | Answered by |
|---|---|
| Find ways forward in broadly defined, complex contexts | LO1, LO2. See the paragraph below on what is and is not given |
| Analyse, interpret and evaluate | 2.2, 3.3 analyse; 2.3 interpret; 1.5, 2.5, 2.6, 3.5, 4.6 evaluate |
| Aware of the nature and scope of the area | 1.1, 1.2, 1.6, 4.2 |
| Understands different perspectives and the reasoning behind them | 3.2, 3.3. Carried mainly by ZFF-AU-05 1.2 and 1.5, which precede this unit |
| Determine, adapt and use appropriate methods | 1.1, 1.4, 2.1, 4.7 determine; 3.4 adapt; LO2 and LO4 use. Four determinations, each of which would be supplied at Level 4 |
| Use relevant research or development to inform actions | 2.4, with a requirement to state what it established rather than merely that it was done |
| Evaluate actions, methods and results | LO5, and 4.6 |
The brief names the deliverable: an annual automation plan for your department. That is the whole of what is stated. It does not name the processes, the criteria, the method, the measure of benefit, the people who must agree, the shape of the year, or the answer. Two competent learners in the same department would produce different plans and both could be sound. That is the descriptor's broadly defined, and it is why the same brief at Level 3 is not the same kind of brief at all. There the object was named and only the instance was chosen.
Supplying the criteria at 2.1, supplying the process list at 1.2, or supplying a business case template that fixes what counts as a benefit. Any one defines the problem for the learner and drops the unit a level. The assessment guidance says so, because supplying a template is exactly the kind of helpfulness a delivery team adds later without realising what it costs.
Both exclusions are explicit. First, reframing what the department is for. Second, producing a plan that changes how the organisation as a whole operates. A learner who produces either has produced work above the level, and the criterion is still not met. Assessors find this counter-intuitive and need telling. Where a plan genuinely requires an organisational change to proceed, the correct treatment is to record it at 4.2 as a dependency outside the department, not to widen the plan.
Nothing asks the learner to critically analyse, to design research, or to evaluate implications. 4.2 identifies dependencies. It does not place the learner in a context where many factors interact and none can be held constant.
This is where the record earns its place. A hundred and forty hours across a department's own year is the hardest evidence to assemble at this level and the most expensive to assess, because an assessor normally meets it as a finished plan and has to reconstruct months of work from it. The platform's record does not remove that problem, but it changes what the assessor starts from. Every statement carries two times, the moment the thing happened and the moment it was stored, so the order of the work is read rather than inferred. Statements are written by the Zavmo backend and never by the learner's browser, so a learner cannot post their own. The store is a single table inside Zavmo's own service: there is no external learning record store and nothing is mirrored anywhere else.
| Event | What it records for this unit | Status |
|---|---|---|
| ZAV-LRN-001 | The project opened, with the time | Observed |
| ZAV-ENG-001 | Session duration, session by session across the year | Observed |
| ZAV-MP-001 ZAV-MP-003 | The learner returned to their own earlier work, and which part of it | Observed |
| ZAV-LRN-050 ZAV-LRN-052 | Learning outcome met, and the unit recorded as complete | Observed |
| ZAV-MP-006 | A reflection written or spoken against a named prompt. The route by which the review criteria at 5.4 to 5.6 reach the portfolio | Wired |
| ZAV-CRT-005 ZAV-CRT-006 | Evidence submitted, and evidence validated with the checking agent and its reason held | Wired |
| ZAV-CRT-002 ZAV-CRT-003 ZAV-CRT-004 | Assessment criterion attempted, passed and failed, across 30 criteria | Wired |
| ZAV-OFQ-005 ZAV-OFQ-006 | Regulated unit completed, and regulated qualification completed | Wired |
| ZAV-LRN-054 | Where a year-long project stopped, and when | Wired |
| ZAV-CRT-010 | Certificate generated. Defined in the registry, with no emit call site in code | Catalogued |
Status as measured against the production store on 17 July 2026. What the three words mean, and what they do not.
What the record does contribute here is continuity: when the learner worked, in what order, what they went back to, and where they revised. That bears on authentication of the portfolio, which is what a 140-hour project assessed at distance is most often challenged on. It does not replace the recorded professional discussion, and section 6 makes that discussion mandatory for exactly this reason.
Back to the unit indexThe same model applies to every unit at both levels.
Assessment is by portfolio drawn from work the learner is already responsible for, gathered over the period of the unit. There is no examination.
Zavmo's AI tutors deliver the learning and prompt the learner to produce and submit evidence. The AI does not make the assessment decision. Every decision on every criterion is made by a named, occupationally competent, appropriately qualified human assessor, internally verified by a qualified IQA against a sampling plan, and sampled by the awarding organisation's External Quality Assurer.
Learner activity in the platform is captured as xAPI statements and assembled into the portfolio: the tasks they selected, the instruction sets they wrote and rewrote, the outputs the tool returned, the checks they ran, the amendments they made and the reasons they gave. This gives the assessor a time-stamped record of the learner's process rather than only a finished artefact. The xAPI record is evidence presented to the assessor. It is not an assessment decision. Section 7 sets out which events actually fire today, which are only wired, and what the record does not reach.
At least one recorded professional discussion per unit, conducted by the qualified assessor. This is the primary control for authenticating the learner at distance and confirming the portfolio is their own work.
Learners are expected to use AI in producing evidence, because that is the subject of the qualification. All AI use in evidence must be declared. The assessment decision rests on the learner's judgement about the AI output, not on the polish of the output itself, and that judgement is confirmed in live discussion.
Records of professional discussion and oral questioning for the knowledge outcomes. Product evidence, annotated by the learner, for the skills outcomes. Witness testimony from a line manager where a criterion turns on something that happened in real work. Reflective accounts for the review outcomes. These are suggestions and centres could use other evidence, provided the criteria are covered and the evidence can be internally and externally verified.
The tasks used must be tasks the learner is already responsible for. Simulated tasks should only be used where a learner's role genuinely offers no suitable real task, and the reason must be recorded.
Zavmo writes every learner action as an xAPI statement. For a qualification assessed from real work carried out over months, that record is the difference between an assessor reading a finished artefact and an assessor reading how it was made. This section sets out what the record holds, how a statement reaches an individual assessment criterion, and, at equal length, what it does not hold.
No learner has yet been registered against this Diploma, so none of the events named on this page has fired for it. What follows describes a mechanism and its measured state on 17 July 2026. It is not a record that already exists for this qualification and it should not be read as one.
Statements use the xAPI vocabulary of actor, verb, object, context and result. There is no external learning record store. Every statement is a row in a single Postgres table inside Zavmo's own service, and nothing is mirrored anywhere else. Statements are written by the back end and never by the learner's browser, because a statement posted by a learner is a statement a learner controls. Each row carries two times: when the thing happened, and when it was stored.
This is the part that matters for a regulated qualification, and it is a property of the code rather than an intention. The statement builder's build_statement takes learning_outcome_id and assessment_criteria as required arguments, alongside learning_objective_id. A statement that cannot name the outcome and the criteria it bears on does not get built. Ten extensions are mandatory on every statement. Three of them are the triangulation an awarding organisation would ask about.
| Extension | What it carries |
|---|---|
| learning_objective_id | The objective the activity was taught against |
| learning_outcome_id | The learning outcome the statement bears on, for example LO3 |
| assessment_criteria_addressed | The criteria the statement bears on, as a list, for example 3.1 and 3.6 |
| virtual_team_member | Which teaching character was working with the learner |
| 4d_phase | Discover, Discuss, Deliver or Demonstrate |
| bloom_level | remember, understand, apply, analyse, evaluate or create |
| kirkpatrick_level | 1 to 4 |
| growth_mindset_indicator mindset_language_used dweck_feedback_type | Mindset signals. Recorded, and not offered as evidence against any criterion in this Diploma. The units assess what the learner does |
An assessor therefore reads the record filtered to one criterion at a time rather than as a session log. Two families carry criterion-level attribution directly: ZAV-CRT-002, ZAV-CRT-003 and ZAV-CRT-004, which hold a criterion id and an evidence id for a criterion attempted, passed or failed; and the ZAV-OFQ family, which holds the regulated outcome id, unit id and criterion id together with the ids of the statements offered as evidence for them.
Every event named on this page carries one of three statuses. They mean different things, and treating them as interchangeable is how a specification gets caught.
Seen firing in the production store. This is the only status that means a record of this kind already exists.
A live emit call site exists in the code, confirmed by a static analysis that the build re-runs and fails on if it drifts. The event has not been seen firing.
Defined in the event registry with no emit call site. Named here so a reviewer sees the whole shape. Not evidence of anything.
| Events | What the number is | |
|---|---|---|
| Catalogued | 217 | Event types defined in the registry |
| Wired | 187 | Of those, the ones with a live emit call site in code |
| Observed | 67 | Of those, the ones seen firing in production |
| Never fired | 150 | Catalogued events with no production sighting at all |
At Level 5 a large share of the work happens in meetings, in consultation with people, and in documents produced in the learner's own workplace. No amount of wiring reaches any of it.
Saying this plainly is the point rather than a concession. A record that claims more than it holds fails the first time an External Quality Assurer samples against it, and it takes the credible parts down with it.
Section 6 states it and this section does not change it. The AI teaches. A human assessor decides. The xAPI record is evidence presented to a named, occupationally competent assessor, and it is never an assessment decision. Where a statement records that a validating agent checked a submission, what is recorded is that a check ran and what it said. The decision on the criterion is still the assessor's, is internally verified, and is sampled by the awarding organisation.
Every status on this page is derived from Zavmo's own engineering records rather than stated from memory: the emission audit, regenerated by a static analysis of the code, which fails the build if the recorded status drifts from what the code does; the production observation snapshot, taken read-only against the production store on 17 July 2026; and the vendored event registry, which is hash-guarded against its upstream copy. Any of the three can be re-run.
Back to the unit indexAll five units and all 136 criteria were read against four tests: is the criterion observable and measurable, is it at level, is it consistent with the unit's own rules, and can it be assessed in practice. One contradiction has been resolved in the wording. Everything else is flagged for the assessor of record to decide, not silently rewritten.
The level rule lists appraise as a Level 6 verb deliberately absent throughout, and ZFF-AU-05 then used it in its LO3 stem and at 3.1, 3.4, 4.3, 4.4 and 5.5. ZFF-PJ-05 2.4 used appraisal as well, which the earlier note did not record. The unit contradicted the rule its own level claim rests on.
The judgement. None of it requires Level 6 thinking. Every one of those criteria is weighing candidate processes against criteria the learner set for themselves at 3.1, which is precisely the descriptor's evaluate. ZFF-AU-05 3.6 already used evaluate for the same operation, so the unit was running two words for one act. ZFF-GM-05 3.1, written later, uses evaluated in the identical construction. Changing the word brings the two units into line and moves nothing. No criterion was widened, narrowed or shifted to a different verb band.
| Where | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| AU-05 LO3 | Be able to appraise processes in a department as candidates for automation. | Be able to evaluate processes in a department as candidates for automation. |
| AU-05 3.1 | Determine the criteria against which candidate processes will be appraised, and state the reasons for them | Determine the criteria against which candidate processes will be evaluated, and state the reasons for them |
| AU-05 3.4 | Use relevant investigation of comparable work, inside or outside own organisation, to inform the appraisal | Use relevant investigation of comparable work, inside or outside own organisation, to inform the evaluation |
| AU-05 4.3 | Analyse the concerns raised, and evaluate which of them alter the appraisal | Analyse the concerns raised, and evaluate which of them alter the evaluation |
| AU-05 4.4 | Adapt the appraisal in response to what the consultation established, and state what changed | Adapt the evaluation in response to what the consultation established, and state what changed |
| AU-05 5.5 | Identify what would be determined differently in a further appraisal, and the reasons | Identify what would be determined differently in a further evaluation, and the reasons |
| PJ-05 2.4 | Use relevant investigation of comparable work to inform the appraisal, and state what it established | Use relevant investigation of comparable work to inform the evaluation, and state what it established |
| AU-05 prose | Unit aim: test the appraisal against how comparable work has gone elsewhere; adapt the appraisal in the light of those conversations. Level check: before any appraisal can start. Level 4 boundary: appraise the three processes your director has identified | The same sentences with evaluation and evaluate. No other word altered |
| Section 3 | The flagged exception, reproduced and left for a reviewer's view | Replaced by a note recording the change and the reasoning |
The word survives in three places on this page, all deliberate. Twice in the statement of the rule itself at section 3 and section 4, where it names the verb being excluded. Once at section 4 in the description of the withdrawn ZFF-GM-05, where it records what the previous wording said and must not be edited to say something else. It appears in no assessment criterion in any unit.
ZFF-GM-05 LO5, ZFF-EI-05 LO5 and ZFF-DA-05 LO5 each evaluate the effect of a change against a measure the learner set earlier in the same unit. ZFF-GM-05 and ZFF-EI-05 carry 60 hours of TQT, ZFF-DA-05 carries 70, and nothing in the specification states the elapsed calendar time those hours are spread across. ZFF-PJ-05, which has 140 hours and an explicit year, requires no effect evaluation at all. The three smaller units carry the harder practical burden and the largest unit carries none of it.
Recommendation. State a minimum elapsed period for each of the three units in the assessment guidance, or reword their LO5 criteria to accept early effect with its limits stated. Do not reduce the criteria: evaluating what a change produced is the descriptor clause those outcomes exist to answer.
4.3 reads: conduct a discussion with a person who does not accept the change, and record what was agreed and what was not. It is a good criterion and it is the hardest thing in the unit. If nobody in the learner's department objects, a competent learner cannot meet it through no fault of their own, and neither can the assessor make a decision on it.
Recommendation. Add a stated fallback: a discussion with a person who raised a point the department did not accept, or a simulated discussion with the reason recorded, consistent with section 6 item 7. The fallback belongs in the assessment guidance rather than in the criterion.
3.5 reads: adapt the department's plans in response to what the consultation established. ZFF-GM-05 4.4 uses the same phrase and is safe, because 4.2 above it says "Consult those people". In ZFF-EI-05 the method is determined at 2.2 and used at 2.3, and neither uses the word. An assessor looking for the consultation will not find one.
Recommendation. 3.5 to read "Adapt the department's plans in response to what was established at 2.3, and state what changed". Meaning unchanged. Left for decision because it touches a criterion.
LO2 reads: be able to determine a question about a department's priorities that data could help settle. 2.1 reads: state the question. The unit's level check rests on 2.1 being a determination, and it is the only criterion carrying the outcome's central move. State sits at Level 2 to 3 and does the descriptor no work.
Recommendation. 2.1 to read "Determine the question about own department's priorities that the work will address, and state the reasons for selecting it". This is the single change on this list that most affects the level claim, because ZFF-DA-05 has no other criterion determining the problem.
Three criteria, against five in ZFF-GM-05, five in ZFF-EI-05, five in ZFF-AU-05 and six in ZFF-PJ-05, on 70 hours of TQT. It has no criterion evaluating the criteria the learner determined, because the unit has none determining them, which is coherent. It also has nothing asking what the department would measure differently, which the parallel units all carry.
Recommendation. Either accept it with the reason stated in the unit rationale, or add one criterion on whether the changed measures held. Adding one moves the Diploma total off 136, so it is a decision for the assessor of record rather than an edit.
The level check row for "understands different perspectives, approaches or schools of thought and the reasoning behind them" reads "Carried mainly by ZFF-AU-05 1.2 and 1.5, which precede this unit". An External Quality Assurer reads a unit as standing on its own, and this is the 14-credit unit.
Recommendation. Either cite ZFF-PJ-05 3.2 and 3.3 alone, which do carry the clause within the unit, or state explicitly that the clause is met at qualification level and that the unit is not offered standalone. Leaving it as a cross-unit citation invites the question at the worst moment.
ZFF-AU-05 5.3, ZFF-DA-05 4.5 and ZFF-PJ-05 5.1 and 5.2 all require a presentation to a real decision maker. ZFF-PJ-05 5.3 goes further and requires a decision to have been taken and recorded. A deferred sign-off, which is ordinary in any organisation, leaves a competent learner unable to meet 5.3.
Recommendation. ZFF-PJ-05 5.3 to accept a recorded outstanding decision with the reason for the delay. Extend section 6 item 7 so that it covers the absence of an available decision maker as well as the absence of a suitable real task.
ZFF-GM-05 4.2, ZFF-EI-05 2.3, 4.1 and 4.3, ZFF-AU-05 4.2, ZFF-DA-05 4.3 and ZFF-PJ-05 3.2 all require a record of what named individuals raised about a change to their own roles. That evidence is internally verified, externally sampled, and retained. The specification says nothing anywhere about anonymisation or the handling of personal data in a portfolio.
Recommendation. Add a paragraph to section 6. This is the finding most likely to be raised first by a regulated awarding organisation, it applies to five units out of five, and it costs one paragraph to close.
3.6 reads: determine what the department will do where a person continues not to accept the change, within the obligations and constraints identified at 1.5. The constraint at 1.5 contains it, but an assessor reading LO3 alone could expect evidence of a contractual or disciplinary step actually taken.
Recommendation. State in the assessment guidance that a recorded determination meets 3.6, and that no learner is required to evidence a disciplinary or contractual action against a colleague in order to pass a unit.
No criterion asks an assessor to judge an attitude. The two rewritten units hold the ZFF-GM-03 line right through: every criterion is an observable action, a stated determination, or a judgement made against evidence that can be produced. Nothing asks a learner to demonstrate a growth mindset, report an emotional state, or have their empathy rated, and the mindset signals the platform records are excluded from evidence by design.
The one to watch is ZFF-EI-05 4.3, where "a person who does not accept the change" is a position that person holds. It is assessable only where the record shows the position was stated, not inferred by the learner. Recommendation. Say so in the assessment guidance, in one sentence.
Critically analyse, design research, reformulate, synthesise and justify appear in no criterion in any unit. After the change at finding 1, appraise appears in none either. Scope is departmental throughout: no criterion takes only the learner's own tasks as its object, and none reaches the organisation as a whole. Each unit's Level 6 and Level 7 boundary paragraphs name the two moves that would breach it and route them to a constraint or a dependency instead, which is the right treatment.
Each criterion citing another was followed to its target: ZFF-GM-05 3.6 to 3.1, 5.1 to 2.4 and 4.6, 5.4 to 2.1 and 3.1; ZFF-EI-05 3.6 to 1.5, 5.1 to 4.5, 5.3 to 2.3, 5.4 to 2.2 and 3.1; ZFF-AU-05 3.6 to 3.1, 5.4 to 2.2 and 3.1; ZFF-DA-05 5.1 to 4.6, 5.2 to 2.4; ZFF-PJ-05 5.4 to 1.4 and 2.1. Every target exists and says what the citing criterion assumes it says. The per-outcome counts sum to each unit's stated total, and 28, 27, 26, 25 and 30 sum to 136. Total Qualification Time remains 410 and credits remain 41.
ZFF-GM-05 1.2, ZFF-EI-05 1.3, ZFF-AU-05 1.2 and ZFF-DA-05 1.4 open with compare, which read alone sits below Level 5. Each carries "and the reasoning behind each", which is the descriptor's own clause about understanding different perspectives and the reasoning behind them.
Recommendation. Keep all four as they stand, and record that the trailing phrase is load-bearing. It is exactly the sort of wording a later editor shortens for neatness, and shortening it would drop four criteria a level.
ZFF-AU-05 4.5 and ZFF-PJ-05 3.5 both evaluate skills the department does not hold, and ZFF-GM-05 LO2 and LO3 cover the same ground at greater length and with a different purpose. Read across the whole Diploma this is deliberate progression rather than duplication, but it is the kind of thing an External Quality Assurer notices and asks about.
Recommendation. One sentence in the qualification rationale saying which unit owns the capability judgement and what the other two do with it.
Listed plainly, because we would rather you had this list than found it.
They are written to the descriptors and internally checked. Nobody with assessment experience has read them. This is the largest single gap.
ZFF-GM-05 and ZFF-EI-05 have been rewritten to departmental scope and to the house style of the other three. That answers the previous objection. It does not mean they are right, and they are the two units we would most like a view on.
The unit hours are judgements that produce a defensible total. If any unit's hours are revised down, the Diploma needs re-checking against the 370 hour threshold. This Diploma has 40 hours of headroom.
GLH is shown as indicative throughout. The taught and applied split in section 2 depends on the answer.
We have assumed recorded tutoring dialogue can evidence knowledge outcomes rather than written tests. That assumption is favourable to our model, so it should not be taken on our say-so. If written assessment is required, the hours split needs revisiting.
We do not currently employ occupationally competent assessors or a qualified IQA. The model in section 6 describes what we will put in place, not what is running today.
It has not been compared with qualifications already regulated. That check has to happen before submission.
We hold internal estimates of which fluencies are most in demand. They are not evidence and they are not in this specification.
Five units, 410 hours, 41 credits, 136 assessment criteria, every one held against the Ofqual Level 5 descriptor and shown against it. Two units have been rewritten to departmental scope and are marked as such. Section 7 sets out the evidence trail, including what it does not reach. Section 8 carries the assessor-readiness findings, and the open items above are the honest list of what still has to be settled.
Read the units again