ICEQC-R-2013-10 — Teacher Qualification Evidence: Comparability, Currency and Context

The relevant evidence concerns the person, awarding institution, programme, award, date and authoritative record. The principal risk is that a title alone can conceal the body, route and evidence on which a qualification rests. Authorities should verify identity, award status, issuing authority and record custody.[REF-01]

In identity and provenance, qualification evidence concerns the person, awarding institution, programme, award, date and authoritative record. The principal risk is that a title alone can conceal the body, route and evidence on which a qualification rests. Responsible bodies should therefore verify identity, award status, issuing authority and record custody.

The decision purpose test asks which appointment, recognition, development or reporting decision the evidence informs. Decision-makers should state competent body, role and consequence. The governing proposition is that evidence adequate for one purpose may be insufficient for another. The record should identify holder, evidence, role, authority, scope and date.

A qualification is important evidence, but its title alone does not establish professional authorisation, assignment fit or current competence for every education context.

Primary evidence is material because the person, awarding institution, programme, award, date and authoritative record cannot be inferred from a single certificate or workforce label. In this domain, a title alone can conceal the body, route and evidence on which a qualification rests. The immediate safeguard is to verify identity, award status, issuing authority and record custody.

A reasoned judgement should establish which authoritative award, transcript, licence or institutional record supports the claim and should prefer verifiable source records and preserve provenance, recognising that a copied title or personal declaration should not be treated as complete evidence. Evidence should remain capable of correction by the awarding or competent authority.

Where the conclusion is conditional, the body should state the permitted role, support, supervision, evidence still required and review date rather than imply complete recognition or rejection.

The protected public interest in identity and provenance concerns the person, awarding institution, programme, award, date and authoritative record. If a title alone can conceal the body, route and evidence on which a qualification rests, appointment and workforce reporting can become misleading. The required course is to verify identity, award status, issuing authority and record custody.

Under comparability, review concerns which learning, level, volume and professional functions can responsibly be compared. Authorities should identify substantial similarity and material difference, subject to the principle that comparability is not identity and does not automatically determine recognition. Reasons should match the consequence of the decision for learners and the teacher.

Differences in route or institutional form should not be treated automatically as deficiencies. The relevant question is the evidence of learning, practice and lawful status for the intended role.

Interpretation of identity and provenance should begin with the person, awarding institution, programme, award, date and authoritative record. A foreseeable failure arises where a title alone can conceal the body, route and evidence on which a qualification rests. Institutions should verify identity, award status, issuing authority and record custody.

The currency standard requires consideration of which elements are enduring and which depend on current status or practice. Decision-makers should separate award validity, authorisation, recency and continuing learning, because age of qualification alone neither proves nor disproves current competence. Translation, conversion and verification rules should be documented.

The decision should distinguish qualification comparability, professional recognition, employment selection and assignment. These may be connected but belong to different competent judgements.

Identity and provenance requires explicit analysis because it concerns the person, awarding institution, programme, award, date and authoritative record. The risk is that a title alone can conceal the body, route and evidence on which a qualification rests. A competent body should verify identity, award status, issuing authority and record custody.

Review of context should determine how system, curriculum, language, phase and role affect relevance. It should interpret evidence against the intended assignment and acknowledge that context should inform fit without becoming an unjustified barrier to mobility. Personal records should remain protected while the decision remains explainable to the holder.

Correction should be timely. An unjustified delay can remove employment and education capacity, while unqualified acceptance can expose learners and the teacher to an unsuitable assignment.

The public-interest purpose of identity and provenance is the responsible use of the person, awarding institution, programme, award, date and authoritative record. Where a title alone can conceal the body, route and evidence on which a qualification rests, apparently comparable counts or decisions can obscure material difference. Authorities should verify identity, award status, issuing authority and record custody.

For authenticity and integrity, bodies should identify which checks establish that evidence and holder are genuine and should use proportionate verification and protected records. Any conclusion must respect that difficulty of verification is not itself proof of fraud.

The final account should state verified evidence, interpretation, limitation and required next action. It should not extend beyond the role, jurisdiction or reporting definition actually decided.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 8. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. In identity and provenance, qualification evidence concerns the person, awarding institution, programme, award, date and authoritative record. The principal risk is that a title alone can conceal the body, route and evidence on which a qualification rests. Responsible bodies should therefore verify identity, award status, issuing authority and record custody. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

The evidence gap test asks what is missing, why it matters and which alternative evidence is feasible. Decision-makers should record uncertainty and use staged, bounded decisions where lawful. The governing proposition is that absence of one document should not erase other credible evidence. The record should identify holder, evidence, role, authority, scope and date.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 8. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A qualification is important evidence, but its title alone does not establish professional authorisation, assignment fit or current competence for every education context. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Equity and access is material because the person, awarding institution, programme, award, date and authoritative record cannot be inferred from a single certificate or workforce label. In this domain, a title alone can conceal the body, route and evidence on which a qualification rests. The immediate safeguard is to verify identity, award status, issuing authority and record custody.

A reasoned judgement should establish whether procedures disadvantage displaced, disabled, minority-language or other teachers unnecessarily and should make processes accessible and examine indirect barriers, recognising that equal documentary demands can have unequal effects where records were lost through disruption. Evidence should remain capable of correction by the awarding or competent authority.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 9. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Where the conclusion is conditional, the body should state the permitted role, support, supervision, evidence still required and review date rather than imply complete recognition or rejection. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 10. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The protected public interest in identity and provenance concerns the person, awarding institution, programme, award, date and authoritative record. If a title alone can conceal the body, route and evidence on which a qualification rests, appointment and workforce reporting can become misleading. The required course is to verify identity, award status, issuing authority and record custody. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Under proportionality, review concerns how learner risk, teacher rights, shortage and feasible support shape the decision. Authorities should compare recognition, adaptation, supervision and restriction options, subject to the principle that shortage should not justify untested practice, and caution should not become automatic exclusion. Reasons should match the consequence of the decision for learners and the teacher.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 10. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Differences in route or institutional form should not be treated automatically as deficiencies. The relevant question is the evidence of learning, practice and lawful status for the intended role. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 11. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Interpretation of identity and provenance should begin with the person, awarding institution, programme, award, date and authoritative record. A foreseeable failure arises where a title alone can conceal the body, route and evidence on which a qualification rests. Institutions should verify identity, award status, issuing authority and record custody. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

The review and public account standard requires consideration of how a decision is reasoned, corrected and reported without overclaim. Decision-makers should retain evidence, reasons, scope, date and appeal route, because aggregate reporting should not convert contextual decisions into universal status. Translation, conversion and verification rules should be documented.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 11. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The decision should distinguish qualification comparability, professional recognition, employment selection and assignment. These may be connected but belong to different competent judgements. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

The relevant evidence concerns the level, volume, field and education function represented by the award. The principal risk is that similar titles can describe different depth, duration and professional purpose. Authorities should compare documented learning and purpose rather than title alone.[REF-02]

Qualification level and scope requires explicit analysis because it concerns the level, volume, field and education function represented by the award. The risk is that similar titles can describe different depth, duration and professional purpose. A competent body should compare documented learning and purpose rather than title alone.

Review of decision purpose should determine which appointment, recognition, development or reporting decision the evidence informs. It should state competent body, role and consequence and acknowledge that evidence adequate for one purpose may be insufficient for another. Personal records should remain protected while the decision remains explainable to the holder.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 13. Decision purpose to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Correction should be timely. An unjustified delay can remove employment and education capacity, while unqualified acceptance can expose learners and the teacher to an unsuitable assignment. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

The public-interest purpose of qualification level and scope is the responsible use of the level, volume, field and education function represented by the award. Where similar titles can describe different depth, duration and professional purpose, apparently comparable counts or decisions can obscure material difference. Authorities should compare documented learning and purpose rather than title alone.

For primary evidence, bodies should identify which authoritative award, transcript, licence or institutional record supports the claim and should prefer verifiable source records and preserve provenance. Any conclusion must respect that a copied title or personal declaration should not be treated as complete evidence.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 14. Primary evidence to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The final account should state verified evidence, interpretation, limitation and required next action. It should not extend beyond the role, jurisdiction or reporting definition actually decided. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

In qualification level and scope, qualification evidence concerns the level, volume, field and education function represented by the award. The principal risk is that similar titles can describe different depth, duration and professional purpose. Responsible bodies should therefore compare documented learning and purpose rather than title alone.

The comparability test asks which learning, level, volume and professional functions can responsibly be compared. Decision-makers should identify substantial similarity and material difference. The governing proposition is that comparability is not identity and does not automatically determine recognition. The record should identify holder, evidence, role, authority, scope and date.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 15. Comparability to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A qualification is important evidence, but its title alone does not establish professional authorisation, assignment fit or current competence for every education context. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

Currency is material because the level, volume, field and education function represented by the award cannot be inferred from a single certificate or workforce label. In this domain, similar titles can describe different depth, duration and professional purpose. The immediate safeguard is to compare documented learning and purpose rather than title alone.

A reasoned judgement should establish which elements are enduring and which depend on current status or practice and should separate award validity, authorisation, recency and continuing learning, recognising that age of qualification alone neither proves nor disproves current competence. Evidence should remain capable of correction by the awarding or competent authority.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 16. Currency to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Where the conclusion is conditional, the body should state the permitted role, support, supervision, evidence still required and review date rather than imply complete recognition or rejection. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

The protected public interest in qualification level and scope concerns the level, volume, field and education function represented by the award. If similar titles can describe different depth, duration and professional purpose, appointment and workforce reporting can become misleading. The required course is to compare documented learning and purpose rather than title alone.

Under context, review concerns how system, curriculum, language, phase and role affect relevance. Authorities should interpret evidence against the intended assignment, subject to the principle that context should inform fit without becoming an unjustified barrier to mobility. Reasons should match the consequence of the decision for learners and the teacher.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 17. Context to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Differences in route or institutional form should not be treated automatically as deficiencies. The relevant question is the evidence of learning, practice and lawful status for the intended role. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

Interpretation of qualification level and scope should begin with the level, volume, field and education function represented by the award. A foreseeable failure arises where similar titles can describe different depth, duration and professional purpose. Institutions should compare documented learning and purpose rather than title alone.

The authenticity and integrity standard requires consideration of which checks establish that evidence and holder are genuine. Decision-makers should use proportionate verification and protected records, because difficulty of verification is not itself proof of fraud. Translation, conversion and verification rules should be documented.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 18. Authenticity and integrity to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The decision should distinguish qualification comparability, professional recognition, employment selection and assignment. These may be connected but belong to different competent judgements. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 19. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Qualification level and scope requires explicit analysis because it concerns the level, volume, field and education function represented by the award. The risk is that similar titles can describe different depth, duration and professional purpose. A competent body should compare documented learning and purpose rather than title alone. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Review of evidence gap should determine what is missing, why it matters and which alternative evidence is feasible. It should record uncertainty and use staged, bounded decisions where lawful and acknowledge that absence of one document should not erase other credible evidence. Personal records should remain protected while the decision remains explainable to the holder.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 19. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Correction should be timely. An unjustified delay can remove employment and education capacity, while unqualified acceptance can expose learners and the teacher to an unsuitable assignment. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 20. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The public-interest purpose of qualification level and scope is the responsible use of the level, volume, field and education function represented by the award. Where similar titles can describe different depth, duration and professional purpose, apparently comparable counts or decisions can obscure material difference. Authorities should compare documented learning and purpose rather than title alone. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

For equity and access, bodies should identify whether procedures disadvantage displaced, disabled, minority-language or other teachers unnecessarily and should make processes accessible and examine indirect barriers. Any conclusion must respect that equal documentary demands can have unequal effects where records were lost through disruption.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 20. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The final account should state verified evidence, interpretation, limitation and required next action. It should not extend beyond the role, jurisdiction or reporting definition actually decided. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 21. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. In qualification level and scope, qualification evidence concerns the level, volume, field and education function represented by the award. The principal risk is that similar titles can describe different depth, duration and professional purpose. Responsible bodies should therefore compare documented learning and purpose rather than title alone. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

The proportionality test asks how learner risk, teacher rights, shortage and feasible support shape the decision. Decision-makers should compare recognition, adaptation, supervision and restriction options. The governing proposition is that shortage should not justify untested practice, and caution should not become automatic exclusion. The record should identify holder, evidence, role, authority, scope and date.

For qualification level and scope, the authority should test this safeguard against primary and contextual evidence. A qualification is important evidence, but its title alone does not establish professional authorisation, assignment fit or current competence for every education context. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

Review and public account is material because the level, volume, field and education function represented by the award cannot be inferred from a single certificate or workforce label. In this domain, similar titles can describe different depth, duration and professional purpose. The immediate safeguard is to compare documented learning and purpose rather than title alone.

A reasoned judgement should establish how a decision is reasoned, corrected and reported without overclaim and should retain evidence, reasons, scope, date and appeal route, recognising that aggregate reporting should not convert contextual decisions into universal status. Evidence should remain capable of correction by the awarding or competent authority.

For qualification level and scope, the authority should test this safeguard against primary and contextual evidence. Where the conclusion is conditional, the body should state the permitted role, support, supervision, evidence still required and review date rather than imply complete recognition or rejection. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

The relevant evidence concerns the prior education and selection conditions through which the holder entered preparation. The principal risk is that programme outcomes may be interpreted without the starting point and route that shaped them. Authorities should record entry basis and material alternative pathways.[REF-03]

The protected public interest in entry requirements and pathway concerns the prior education and selection conditions through which the holder entered preparation. If programme outcomes may be interpreted without the starting point and route that shaped them, appointment and workforce reporting can become misleading. The required course is to record entry basis and material alternative pathways.

Under decision purpose, review concerns which appointment, recognition, development or reporting decision the evidence informs. Authorities should state competent body, role and consequence, subject to the principle that evidence adequate for one purpose may be insufficient for another. Reasons should match the consequence of the decision for learners and the teacher.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 24. Decision purpose to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Differences in route or institutional form should not be treated automatically as deficiencies. The relevant question is the evidence of learning, practice and lawful status for the intended role. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

Interpretation of entry requirements and pathway should begin with the prior education and selection conditions through which the holder entered preparation. A foreseeable failure arises where programme outcomes may be interpreted without the starting point and route that shaped them. Institutions should record entry basis and material alternative pathways.

The primary evidence standard requires consideration of which authoritative award, transcript, licence or institutional record supports the claim. Decision-makers should prefer verifiable source records and preserve provenance, because a copied title or personal declaration should not be treated as complete evidence. Translation, conversion and verification rules should be documented.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 25. Primary evidence to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The decision should distinguish qualification comparability, professional recognition, employment selection and assignment. These may be connected but belong to different competent judgements. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

Entry requirements and pathway requires explicit analysis because it concerns the prior education and selection conditions through which the holder entered preparation. The risk is that programme outcomes may be interpreted without the starting point and route that shaped them. A competent body should record entry basis and material alternative pathways.

Review of comparability should determine which learning, level, volume and professional functions can responsibly be compared. It should identify substantial similarity and material difference and acknowledge that comparability is not identity and does not automatically determine recognition. Personal records should remain protected while the decision remains explainable to the holder.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 26. Comparability to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Correction should be timely. An unjustified delay can remove employment and education capacity, while unqualified acceptance can expose learners and the teacher to an unsuitable assignment. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

The public-interest purpose of entry requirements and pathway is the responsible use of the prior education and selection conditions through which the holder entered preparation. Where programme outcomes may be interpreted without the starting point and route that shaped them, apparently comparable counts or decisions can obscure material difference. Authorities should record entry basis and material alternative pathways.

For currency, bodies should identify which elements are enduring and which depend on current status or practice and should separate award validity, authorisation, recency and continuing learning. Any conclusion must respect that age of qualification alone neither proves nor disproves current competence.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 27. Currency to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The final account should state verified evidence, interpretation, limitation and required next action. It should not extend beyond the role, jurisdiction or reporting definition actually decided. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

In entry requirements and pathway, qualification evidence concerns the prior education and selection conditions through which the holder entered preparation. The principal risk is that programme outcomes may be interpreted without the starting point and route that shaped them. Responsible bodies should therefore record entry basis and material alternative pathways.

The context test asks how system, curriculum, language, phase and role affect relevance. Decision-makers should interpret evidence against the intended assignment. The governing proposition is that context should inform fit without becoming an unjustified barrier to mobility. The record should identify holder, evidence, role, authority, scope and date.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 28. Context to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A qualification is important evidence, but its title alone does not establish professional authorisation, assignment fit or current competence for every education context. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Authenticity and integrity is material because the prior education and selection conditions through which the holder entered preparation cannot be inferred from a single certificate or workforce label. In this domain, programme outcomes may be interpreted without the starting point and route that shaped them. The immediate safeguard is to record entry basis and material alternative pathways.

A reasoned judgement should establish which checks establish that evidence and holder are genuine and should use proportionate verification and protected records, recognising that difficulty of verification is not itself proof of fraud. Evidence should remain capable of correction by the awarding or competent authority.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 29. Authenticity and integrity to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Where the conclusion is conditional, the body should state the permitted role, support, supervision, evidence still required and review date rather than imply complete recognition or rejection. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 30. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The protected public interest in entry requirements and pathway concerns the prior education and selection conditions through which the holder entered preparation. If programme outcomes may be interpreted without the starting point and route that shaped them, appointment and workforce reporting can become misleading. The required course is to record entry basis and material alternative pathways. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Under evidence gap, review concerns what is missing, why it matters and which alternative evidence is feasible. Authorities should record uncertainty and use staged, bounded decisions where lawful, subject to the principle that absence of one document should not erase other credible evidence. Reasons should match the consequence of the decision for learners and the teacher.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 30. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Differences in route or institutional form should not be treated automatically as deficiencies. The relevant question is the evidence of learning, practice and lawful status for the intended role. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 31. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Interpretation of entry requirements and pathway should begin with the prior education and selection conditions through which the holder entered preparation. A foreseeable failure arises where programme outcomes may be interpreted without the starting point and route that shaped them. Institutions should record entry basis and material alternative pathways. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

The equity and access standard requires consideration of whether procedures disadvantage displaced, disabled, minority-language or other teachers unnecessarily. Decision-makers should make processes accessible and examine indirect barriers, because equal documentary demands can have unequal effects where records were lost through disruption. Translation, conversion and verification rules should be documented.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 31. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The decision should distinguish qualification comparability, professional recognition, employment selection and assignment. These may be connected but belong to different competent judgements. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 32. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Entry requirements and pathway requires explicit analysis because it concerns the prior education and selection conditions through which the holder entered preparation. The risk is that programme outcomes may be interpreted without the starting point and route that shaped them. A competent body should record entry basis and material alternative pathways. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Review of proportionality should determine how learner risk, teacher rights, shortage and feasible support shape the decision. It should compare recognition, adaptation, supervision and restriction options and acknowledge that shortage should not justify untested practice, and caution should not become automatic exclusion. Personal records should remain protected while the decision remains explainable to the holder.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 32. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Correction should be timely. An unjustified delay can remove employment and education capacity, while unqualified acceptance can expose learners and the teacher to an unsuitable assignment. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 33. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The public-interest purpose of entry requirements and pathway is the responsible use of the prior education and selection conditions through which the holder entered preparation. Where programme outcomes may be interpreted without the starting point and route that shaped them, apparently comparable counts or decisions can obscure material difference. Authorities should record entry basis and material alternative pathways. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

For review and public account, bodies should identify how a decision is reasoned, corrected and reported without overclaim and should retain evidence, reasons, scope, date and appeal route. Any conclusion must respect that aggregate reporting should not convert contextual decisions into universal status.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 33. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The final account should state verified evidence, interpretation, limitation and required next action. It should not extend beyond the role, jurisdiction or reporting definition actually decided. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

The relevant evidence concerns subject, pedagogy, assessment, inclusion and professional responsibilities addressed in preparation. The principal risk is that a completed programme may not cover the phase, subject or learner population of the intended post. Authorities should map documented learning to role requirements without assuming complete correspondence.[REF-04]

In curriculum and teacher knowledge, qualification evidence concerns subject, pedagogy, assessment, inclusion and professional responsibilities addressed in preparation. The principal risk is that a completed programme may not cover the phase, subject or learner population of the intended post. Responsible bodies should therefore map documented learning to role requirements without assuming complete correspondence.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 35. Decision purpose to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The decision purpose test asks which appointment, recognition, development or reporting decision the evidence informs. Decision-makers should state competent body, role and consequence. The governing proposition is that evidence adequate for one purpose may be insufficient for another. The record should identify holder, evidence, role, authority, scope and date. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 35. Decision purpose to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A qualification is important evidence, but its title alone does not establish professional authorisation, assignment fit or current competence for every education context. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

Primary evidence is material because subject, pedagogy, assessment, inclusion and professional responsibilities addressed in preparation cannot be inferred from a single certificate or workforce label. In this domain, a completed programme may not cover the phase, subject or learner population of the intended post. The immediate safeguard is to map documented learning to role requirements without assuming complete correspondence.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 36. Primary evidence to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A reasoned judgement should establish which authoritative award, transcript, licence or institutional record supports the claim and should prefer verifiable source records and preserve provenance, recognising that a copied title or personal declaration should not be treated as complete evidence. Evidence should remain capable of correction by the awarding or competent authority. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 36. Primary evidence to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Where the conclusion is conditional, the body should state the permitted role, support, supervision, evidence still required and review date rather than imply complete recognition or rejection. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

The protected public interest in curriculum and teacher knowledge concerns subject, pedagogy, assessment, inclusion and professional responsibilities addressed in preparation. If a completed programme may not cover the phase, subject or learner population of the intended post, appointment and workforce reporting can become misleading. The required course is to map documented learning to role requirements without assuming complete correspondence.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 37. Comparability to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Under comparability, review concerns which learning, level, volume and professional functions can responsibly be compared. Authorities should identify substantial similarity and material difference, subject to the principle that comparability is not identity and does not automatically determine recognition. Reasons should match the consequence of the decision for learners and the teacher. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 37. Comparability to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Differences in route or institutional form should not be treated automatically as deficiencies. The relevant question is the evidence of learning, practice and lawful status for the intended role. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

Interpretation of curriculum and teacher knowledge should begin with subject, pedagogy, assessment, inclusion and professional responsibilities addressed in preparation. A foreseeable failure arises where a completed programme may not cover the phase, subject or learner population of the intended post. Institutions should map documented learning to role requirements without assuming complete correspondence.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 38. Currency to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The currency standard requires consideration of which elements are enduring and which depend on current status or practice. Decision-makers should separate award validity, authorisation, recency and continuing learning, because age of qualification alone neither proves nor disproves current competence. Translation, conversion and verification rules should be documented. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 38. Currency to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The decision should distinguish qualification comparability, professional recognition, employment selection and assignment. These may be connected but belong to different competent judgements. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

Curriculum and teacher knowledge requires explicit analysis because it concerns subject, pedagogy, assessment, inclusion and professional responsibilities addressed in preparation. The risk is that a completed programme may not cover the phase, subject or learner population of the intended post. A competent body should map documented learning to role requirements without assuming complete correspondence.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 39. Context to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Review of context should determine how system, curriculum, language, phase and role affect relevance. It should interpret evidence against the intended assignment and acknowledge that context should inform fit without becoming an unjustified barrier to mobility. Personal records should remain protected while the decision remains explainable to the holder. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 39. Context to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Correction should be timely. An unjustified delay can remove employment and education capacity, while unqualified acceptance can expose learners and the teacher to an unsuitable assignment. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

The public-interest purpose of curriculum and teacher knowledge is the responsible use of subject, pedagogy, assessment, inclusion and professional responsibilities addressed in preparation. Where a completed programme may not cover the phase, subject or learner population of the intended post, apparently comparable counts or decisions can obscure material difference. Authorities should map documented learning to role requirements without assuming complete correspondence.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 40. Authenticity and integrity to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. For authenticity and integrity, bodies should identify which checks establish that evidence and holder are genuine and should use proportionate verification and protected records. Any conclusion must respect that difficulty of verification is not itself proof of fraud. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 40. Authenticity and integrity to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The final account should state verified evidence, interpretation, limitation and required next action. It should not extend beyond the role, jurisdiction or reporting definition actually decided. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 41. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. In curriculum and teacher knowledge, qualification evidence concerns subject, pedagogy, assessment, inclusion and professional responsibilities addressed in preparation. The principal risk is that a completed programme may not cover the phase, subject or learner population of the intended post. Responsible bodies should therefore map documented learning to role requirements without assuming complete correspondence. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 41. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The evidence gap test asks what is missing, why it matters and which alternative evidence is feasible. Decision-makers should record uncertainty and use staged, bounded decisions where lawful. The governing proposition is that absence of one document should not erase other credible evidence. The record should identify holder, evidence, role, authority, scope and date. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 41. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A qualification is important evidence, but its title alone does not establish professional authorisation, assignment fit or current competence for every education context. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

Equity and access is material because subject, pedagogy, assessment, inclusion and professional responsibilities addressed in preparation cannot be inferred from a single certificate or workforce label. In this domain, a completed programme may not cover the phase, subject or learner population of the intended post. The immediate safeguard is to map documented learning to role requirements without assuming complete correspondence.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 42. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A reasoned judgement should establish whether procedures disadvantage displaced, disabled, minority-language or other teachers unnecessarily and should make processes accessible and examine indirect barriers, recognising that equal documentary demands can have unequal effects where records were lost through disruption. Evidence should remain capable of correction by the awarding or competent authority. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 42. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Where the conclusion is conditional, the body should state the permitted role, support, supervision, evidence still required and review date rather than imply complete recognition or rejection. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 43. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The protected public interest in curriculum and teacher knowledge concerns subject, pedagogy, assessment, inclusion and professional responsibilities addressed in preparation. If a completed programme may not cover the phase, subject or learner population of the intended post, appointment and workforce reporting can become misleading. The required course is to map documented learning to role requirements without assuming complete correspondence. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 43. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Under proportionality, review concerns how learner risk, teacher rights, shortage and feasible support shape the decision. Authorities should compare recognition, adaptation, supervision and restriction options, subject to the principle that shortage should not justify untested practice, and caution should not become automatic exclusion. Reasons should match the consequence of the decision for learners and the teacher. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 43. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Differences in route or institutional form should not be treated automatically as deficiencies. The relevant question is the evidence of learning, practice and lawful status for the intended role. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 44. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Interpretation of curriculum and teacher knowledge should begin with subject, pedagogy, assessment, inclusion and professional responsibilities addressed in preparation. A foreseeable failure arises where a completed programme may not cover the phase, subject or learner population of the intended post. Institutions should map documented learning to role requirements without assuming complete correspondence. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 44. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The review and public account standard requires consideration of how a decision is reasoned, corrected and reported without overclaim. Decision-makers should retain evidence, reasons, scope, date and appeal route, because aggregate reporting should not convert contextual decisions into universal status. Translation, conversion and verification rules should be documented. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 44. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The decision should distinguish qualification comparability, professional recognition, employment selection and assignment. These may be connected but belong to different competent judgements. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

The relevant evidence concerns the setting, duration, responsibility, supervision and assessment of teaching practice. The principal risk is that nominal practicum credits can conceal observation, simulation or insufficient independent teaching. Authorities should verify authentic supervised practice and its assessed scope.[REF-05]

Supervised practice requires explicit analysis because it concerns the setting, duration, responsibility, supervision and assessment of teaching practice. The risk is that nominal practicum credits can conceal observation, simulation or insufficient independent teaching. A competent body should verify authentic supervised practice and its assessed scope.

Applied to supervised practice, this requirement has a distinct evidentiary consequence. Review of decision purpose should determine which appointment, recognition, development or reporting decision the evidence informs. It should state competent body, role and consequence and acknowledge that evidence adequate for one purpose may be insufficient for another. Personal records should remain protected while the decision remains explainable to the holder. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

For supervised practice, the authority should test this safeguard against primary and contextual evidence. Correction should be timely. An unjustified delay can remove employment and education capacity, while unqualified acceptance can expose learners and the teacher to an unsuitable assignment. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

The public-interest purpose of supervised practice is the responsible use of the setting, duration, responsibility, supervision and assessment of teaching practice. Where nominal practicum credits can conceal observation, simulation or insufficient independent teaching, apparently comparable counts or decisions can obscure material difference. Authorities should verify authentic supervised practice and its assessed scope.

Applied to supervised practice, this requirement has a distinct evidentiary consequence. For primary evidence, bodies should identify which authoritative award, transcript, licence or institutional record supports the claim and should prefer verifiable source records and preserve provenance. Any conclusion must respect that a copied title or personal declaration should not be treated as complete evidence. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

For supervised practice, the authority should test this safeguard against primary and contextual evidence. The final account should state verified evidence, interpretation, limitation and required next action. It should not extend beyond the role, jurisdiction or reporting definition actually decided. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

In supervised practice, qualification evidence concerns the setting, duration, responsibility, supervision and assessment of teaching practice. The principal risk is that nominal practicum credits can conceal observation, simulation or insufficient independent teaching. Responsible bodies should therefore verify authentic supervised practice and its assessed scope.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 48. Comparability to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The comparability test asks which learning, level, volume and professional functions can responsibly be compared. Decision-makers should identify substantial similarity and material difference. The governing proposition is that comparability is not identity and does not automatically determine recognition. The record should identify holder, evidence, role, authority, scope and date. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Applied to supervised practice, this requirement has a distinct evidentiary consequence. A qualification is important evidence, but its title alone does not establish professional authorisation, assignment fit or current competence for every education context. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Currency is material because the setting, duration, responsibility, supervision and assessment of teaching practice cannot be inferred from a single certificate or workforce label. In this domain, nominal practicum credits can conceal observation, simulation or insufficient independent teaching. The immediate safeguard is to verify authentic supervised practice and its assessed scope.

Applied to supervised practice, this requirement has a distinct evidentiary consequence. A reasoned judgement should establish which elements are enduring and which depend on current status or practice and should separate award validity, authorisation, recency and continuing learning, recognising that age of qualification alone neither proves nor disproves current competence. Evidence should remain capable of correction by the awarding or competent authority. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Applied to supervised practice, this requirement has a distinct evidentiary consequence. Where the conclusion is conditional, the body should state the permitted role, support, supervision, evidence still required and review date rather than imply complete recognition or rejection. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

The protected public interest in supervised practice concerns the setting, duration, responsibility, supervision and assessment of teaching practice. If nominal practicum credits can conceal observation, simulation or insufficient independent teaching, appointment and workforce reporting can become misleading. The required course is to verify authentic supervised practice and its assessed scope.

Applied to supervised practice, this requirement has a distinct evidentiary consequence. Under context, review concerns how system, curriculum, language, phase and role affect relevance. Authorities should interpret evidence against the intended assignment, subject to the principle that context should inform fit without becoming an unjustified barrier to mobility. Reasons should match the consequence of the decision for learners and the teacher. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Applied to supervised practice, this requirement has a distinct evidentiary consequence. Differences in route or institutional form should not be treated automatically as deficiencies. The relevant question is the evidence of learning, practice and lawful status for the intended role. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Interpretation of supervised practice should begin with the setting, duration, responsibility, supervision and assessment of teaching practice. A foreseeable failure arises where nominal practicum credits can conceal observation, simulation or insufficient independent teaching. Institutions should verify authentic supervised practice and its assessed scope.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 51. Authenticity and integrity to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The authenticity and integrity standard requires consideration of which checks establish that evidence and holder are genuine. Decision-makers should use proportionate verification and protected records, because difficulty of verification is not itself proof of fraud. Translation, conversion and verification rules should be documented. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 51. Authenticity and integrity to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The decision should distinguish qualification comparability, professional recognition, employment selection and assignment. These may be connected but belong to different competent judgements. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Applied to supervised practice, this requirement has a distinct evidentiary consequence. Supervised practice requires explicit analysis because it concerns the setting, duration, responsibility, supervision and assessment of teaching practice. The risk is that nominal practicum credits can conceal observation, simulation or insufficient independent teaching. A competent body should verify authentic supervised practice and its assessed scope. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Applied to supervised practice, this requirement has a distinct evidentiary consequence. Review of evidence gap should determine what is missing, why it matters and which alternative evidence is feasible. It should record uncertainty and use staged, bounded decisions where lawful and acknowledge that absence of one document should not erase other credible evidence. Personal records should remain protected while the decision remains explainable to the holder. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Applied to supervised practice, this requirement has a distinct evidentiary consequence. Correction should be timely. An unjustified delay can remove employment and education capacity, while unqualified acceptance can expose learners and the teacher to an unsuitable assignment. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 53. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The public-interest purpose of supervised practice is the responsible use of the setting, duration, responsibility, supervision and assessment of teaching practice. Where nominal practicum credits can conceal observation, simulation or insufficient independent teaching, apparently comparable counts or decisions can obscure material difference. Authorities should verify authentic supervised practice and its assessed scope. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Applied to supervised practice, this requirement has a distinct evidentiary consequence. For equity and access, bodies should identify whether procedures disadvantage displaced, disabled, minority-language or other teachers unnecessarily and should make processes accessible and examine indirect barriers. Any conclusion must respect that equal documentary demands can have unequal effects where records were lost through disruption. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 53. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The final account should state verified evidence, interpretation, limitation and required next action. It should not extend beyond the role, jurisdiction or reporting definition actually decided. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Applied to supervised practice, this requirement has a distinct evidentiary consequence. In supervised practice, qualification evidence concerns the setting, duration, responsibility, supervision and assessment of teaching practice. The principal risk is that nominal practicum credits can conceal observation, simulation or insufficient independent teaching. Responsible bodies should therefore verify authentic supervised practice and its assessed scope. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 54. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The proportionality test asks how learner risk, teacher rights, shortage and feasible support shape the decision. Decision-makers should compare recognition, adaptation, supervision and restriction options. The governing proposition is that shortage should not justify untested practice, and caution should not become automatic exclusion. The record should identify holder, evidence, role, authority, scope and date. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Within supervised practice, the principle bears on the qualification decision described in this part. A qualification is important evidence, but its title alone does not establish professional authorisation, assignment fit or current competence for every education context. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

Review and public account is material because the setting, duration, responsibility, supervision and assessment of teaching practice cannot be inferred from a single certificate or workforce label. In this domain, nominal practicum credits can conceal observation, simulation or insufficient independent teaching. The immediate safeguard is to verify authentic supervised practice and its assessed scope.

Applied to supervised practice, this requirement has a distinct evidentiary consequence. A reasoned judgement should establish how a decision is reasoned, corrected and reported without overclaim and should retain evidence, reasons, scope, date and appeal route, recognising that aggregate reporting should not convert contextual decisions into universal status. Evidence should remain capable of correction by the awarding or competent authority. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Within supervised practice, the principle bears on the qualification decision described in this part. Where the conclusion is conditional, the body should state the permitted role, support, supervision, evidence still required and review date rather than imply complete recognition or rejection. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

The relevant evidence concerns the evidence, standards and authority used to determine successful completion. The principal risk is that attendance or coursework completion can be mistaken for demonstrated professional competence. Authorities should identify assessment methods, decision rules and independent verification.[REF-06]

The protected public interest in assessment and award decision concerns the evidence, standards and authority used to determine successful completion. If attendance or coursework completion can be mistaken for demonstrated professional competence, appointment and workforce reporting can become misleading. The required course is to identify assessment methods, decision rules and independent verification.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 57. Decision purpose to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Under decision purpose, review concerns which appointment, recognition, development or reporting decision the evidence informs. Authorities should state competent body, role and consequence, subject to the principle that evidence adequate for one purpose may be insufficient for another. Reasons should match the consequence of the decision for learners and the teacher. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 57. Decision purpose to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Differences in route or institutional form should not be treated automatically as deficiencies. The relevant question is the evidence of learning, practice and lawful status for the intended role. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

Interpretation of assessment and award decision should begin with the evidence, standards and authority used to determine successful completion. A foreseeable failure arises where attendance or coursework completion can be mistaken for demonstrated professional competence. Institutions should identify assessment methods, decision rules and independent verification.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 58. Primary evidence to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The primary evidence standard requires consideration of which authoritative award, transcript, licence or institutional record supports the claim. Decision-makers should prefer verifiable source records and preserve provenance, because a copied title or personal declaration should not be treated as complete evidence. Translation, conversion and verification rules should be documented. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 58. Primary evidence to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The decision should distinguish qualification comparability, professional recognition, employment selection and assignment. These may be connected but belong to different competent judgements. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

Assessment and award decision requires explicit analysis because it concerns the evidence, standards and authority used to determine successful completion. The risk is that attendance or coursework completion can be mistaken for demonstrated professional competence. A competent body should identify assessment methods, decision rules and independent verification.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 59. Comparability to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Review of comparability should determine which learning, level, volume and professional functions can responsibly be compared. It should identify substantial similarity and material difference and acknowledge that comparability is not identity and does not automatically determine recognition. Personal records should remain protected while the decision remains explainable to the holder. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 59. Comparability to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Correction should be timely. An unjustified delay can remove employment and education capacity, while unqualified acceptance can expose learners and the teacher to an unsuitable assignment. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

The public-interest purpose of assessment and award decision is the responsible use of the evidence, standards and authority used to determine successful completion. Where attendance or coursework completion can be mistaken for demonstrated professional competence, apparently comparable counts or decisions can obscure material difference. Authorities should identify assessment methods, decision rules and independent verification.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 60. Currency to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. For currency, bodies should identify which elements are enduring and which depend on current status or practice and should separate award validity, authorisation, recency and continuing learning. Any conclusion must respect that age of qualification alone neither proves nor disproves current competence. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 60. Currency to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The final account should state verified evidence, interpretation, limitation and required next action. It should not extend beyond the role, jurisdiction or reporting definition actually decided. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

In assessment and award decision, qualification evidence concerns the evidence, standards and authority used to determine successful completion. The principal risk is that attendance or coursework completion can be mistaken for demonstrated professional competence. Responsible bodies should therefore identify assessment methods, decision rules and independent verification.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 61. Context to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The context test asks how system, curriculum, language, phase and role affect relevance. Decision-makers should interpret evidence against the intended assignment. The governing proposition is that context should inform fit without becoming an unjustified barrier to mobility. The record should identify holder, evidence, role, authority, scope and date. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 61. Context to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A qualification is important evidence, but its title alone does not establish professional authorisation, assignment fit or current competence for every education context. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

Authenticity and integrity is material because the evidence, standards and authority used to determine successful completion cannot be inferred from a single certificate or workforce label. In this domain, attendance or coursework completion can be mistaken for demonstrated professional competence. The immediate safeguard is to identify assessment methods, decision rules and independent verification.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 62. Authenticity and integrity to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A reasoned judgement should establish which checks establish that evidence and holder are genuine and should use proportionate verification and protected records, recognising that difficulty of verification is not itself proof of fraud. Evidence should remain capable of correction by the awarding or competent authority. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 62. Authenticity and integrity to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Where the conclusion is conditional, the body should state the permitted role, support, supervision, evidence still required and review date rather than imply complete recognition or rejection. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 63. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The protected public interest in assessment and award decision concerns the evidence, standards and authority used to determine successful completion. If attendance or coursework completion can be mistaken for demonstrated professional competence, appointment and workforce reporting can become misleading. The required course is to identify assessment methods, decision rules and independent verification. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 63. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Under evidence gap, review concerns what is missing, why it matters and which alternative evidence is feasible. Authorities should record uncertainty and use staged, bounded decisions where lawful, subject to the principle that absence of one document should not erase other credible evidence. Reasons should match the consequence of the decision for learners and the teacher. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 63. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Differences in route or institutional form should not be treated automatically as deficiencies. The relevant question is the evidence of learning, practice and lawful status for the intended role. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 64. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Interpretation of assessment and award decision should begin with the evidence, standards and authority used to determine successful completion. A foreseeable failure arises where attendance or coursework completion can be mistaken for demonstrated professional competence. Institutions should identify assessment methods, decision rules and independent verification. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 64. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The equity and access standard requires consideration of whether procedures disadvantage displaced, disabled, minority-language or other teachers unnecessarily. Decision-makers should make processes accessible and examine indirect barriers, because equal documentary demands can have unequal effects where records were lost through disruption. Translation, conversion and verification rules should be documented. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 64. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The decision should distinguish qualification comparability, professional recognition, employment selection and assignment. These may be connected but belong to different competent judgements. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 65. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Assessment and award decision requires explicit analysis because it concerns the evidence, standards and authority used to determine successful completion. The risk is that attendance or coursework completion can be mistaken for demonstrated professional competence. A competent body should identify assessment methods, decision rules and independent verification. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 65. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Review of proportionality should determine how learner risk, teacher rights, shortage and feasible support shape the decision. It should compare recognition, adaptation, supervision and restriction options and acknowledge that shortage should not justify untested practice, and caution should not become automatic exclusion. Personal records should remain protected while the decision remains explainable to the holder. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 65. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Correction should be timely. An unjustified delay can remove employment and education capacity, while unqualified acceptance can expose learners and the teacher to an unsuitable assignment. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 66. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The public-interest purpose of assessment and award decision is the responsible use of the evidence, standards and authority used to determine successful completion. Where attendance or coursework completion can be mistaken for demonstrated professional competence, apparently comparable counts or decisions can obscure material difference. Authorities should identify assessment methods, decision rules and independent verification. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 66. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. For review and public account, bodies should identify how a decision is reasoned, corrected and reported without overclaim and should retain evidence, reasons, scope, date and appeal route. Any conclusion must respect that aggregate reporting should not convert contextual decisions into universal status. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 66. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The final account should state verified evidence, interpretation, limitation and required next action. It should not extend beyond the role, jurisdiction or reporting definition actually decided. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

The relevant evidence concerns the relationship between an academic qualification and permission to teach in a jurisdiction or role. The principal risk is that qualification, registration, employment eligibility and current authorisation can be conflated. Authorities should state each decision, competent body, conditions and date separately.[REF-07]

In professional authorisation, qualification evidence concerns the relationship between an academic qualification and permission to teach in a jurisdiction or role. The principal risk is that qualification, registration, employment eligibility and current authorisation can be conflated. Responsible bodies should therefore state each decision, competent body, conditions and date separately.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 68. Decision purpose to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The decision purpose test asks which appointment, recognition, development or reporting decision the evidence informs. Decision-makers should state competent body, role and consequence. The governing proposition is that evidence adequate for one purpose may be insufficient for another. The record should identify holder, evidence, role, authority, scope and date. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

Applied to professional authorisation, this requirement has a distinct evidentiary consequence. A qualification is important evidence, but its title alone does not establish professional authorisation, assignment fit or current competence for every education context. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Primary evidence is material because the relationship between an academic qualification and permission to teach in a jurisdiction or role cannot be inferred from a single certificate or workforce label. In this domain, qualification, registration, employment eligibility and current authorisation can be conflated. The immediate safeguard is to state each decision, competent body, conditions and date separately.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 69. Primary evidence to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A reasoned judgement should establish which authoritative award, transcript, licence or institutional record supports the claim and should prefer verifiable source records and preserve provenance, recognising that a copied title or personal declaration should not be treated as complete evidence. Evidence should remain capable of correction by the awarding or competent authority. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

Applied to professional authorisation, this requirement has a distinct evidentiary consequence. Where the conclusion is conditional, the body should state the permitted role, support, supervision, evidence still required and review date rather than imply complete recognition or rejection. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

The protected public interest in professional authorisation concerns the relationship between an academic qualification and permission to teach in a jurisdiction or role. If qualification, registration, employment eligibility and current authorisation can be conflated, appointment and workforce reporting can become misleading. The required course is to state each decision, competent body, conditions and date separately.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 70. Comparability to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Under comparability, review concerns which learning, level, volume and professional functions can responsibly be compared. Authorities should identify substantial similarity and material difference, subject to the principle that comparability is not identity and does not automatically determine recognition. Reasons should match the consequence of the decision for learners and the teacher. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

Applied to professional authorisation, this requirement has a distinct evidentiary consequence. Differences in route or institutional form should not be treated automatically as deficiencies. The relevant question is the evidence of learning, practice and lawful status for the intended role. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Interpretation of professional authorisation should begin with the relationship between an academic qualification and permission to teach in a jurisdiction or role. A foreseeable failure arises where qualification, registration, employment eligibility and current authorisation can be conflated. Institutions should state each decision, competent body, conditions and date separately.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 71. Currency to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The currency standard requires consideration of which elements are enduring and which depend on current status or practice. Decision-makers should separate award validity, authorisation, recency and continuing learning, because age of qualification alone neither proves nor disproves current competence. Translation, conversion and verification rules should be documented. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

Applied to professional authorisation, this requirement has a distinct evidentiary consequence. The decision should distinguish qualification comparability, professional recognition, employment selection and assignment. These may be connected but belong to different competent judgements. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Professional authorisation requires explicit analysis because it concerns the relationship between an academic qualification and permission to teach in a jurisdiction or role. The risk is that qualification, registration, employment eligibility and current authorisation can be conflated. A competent body should state each decision, competent body, conditions and date separately.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 72. Context to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Review of context should determine how system, curriculum, language, phase and role affect relevance. It should interpret evidence against the intended assignment and acknowledge that context should inform fit without becoming an unjustified barrier to mobility. Personal records should remain protected while the decision remains explainable to the holder. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

Applied to professional authorisation, this requirement has a distinct evidentiary consequence. Correction should be timely. An unjustified delay can remove employment and education capacity, while unqualified acceptance can expose learners and the teacher to an unsuitable assignment. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

The public-interest purpose of professional authorisation is the responsible use of the relationship between an academic qualification and permission to teach in a jurisdiction or role. Where qualification, registration, employment eligibility and current authorisation can be conflated, apparently comparable counts or decisions can obscure material difference. Authorities should state each decision, competent body, conditions and date separately.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 73. Authenticity and integrity to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. For authenticity and integrity, bodies should identify which checks establish that evidence and holder are genuine and should use proportionate verification and protected records. Any conclusion must respect that difficulty of verification is not itself proof of fraud. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

Applied to professional authorisation, this requirement has a distinct evidentiary consequence. The final account should state verified evidence, interpretation, limitation and required next action. It should not extend beyond the role, jurisdiction or reporting definition actually decided. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Applied to professional authorisation, this requirement has a distinct evidentiary consequence. In professional authorisation, qualification evidence concerns the relationship between an academic qualification and permission to teach in a jurisdiction or role. The principal risk is that qualification, registration, employment eligibility and current authorisation can be conflated. Responsible bodies should therefore state each decision, competent body, conditions and date separately. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 74. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The evidence gap test asks what is missing, why it matters and which alternative evidence is feasible. Decision-makers should record uncertainty and use staged, bounded decisions where lawful. The governing proposition is that absence of one document should not erase other credible evidence. The record should identify holder, evidence, role, authority, scope and date. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 74. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A qualification is important evidence, but its title alone does not establish professional authorisation, assignment fit or current competence for every education context. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

Equity and access is material because the relationship between an academic qualification and permission to teach in a jurisdiction or role cannot be inferred from a single certificate or workforce label. In this domain, qualification, registration, employment eligibility and current authorisation can be conflated. The immediate safeguard is to state each decision, competent body, conditions and date separately.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 75. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A reasoned judgement should establish whether procedures disadvantage displaced, disabled, minority-language or other teachers unnecessarily and should make processes accessible and examine indirect barriers, recognising that equal documentary demands can have unequal effects where records were lost through disruption. Evidence should remain capable of correction by the awarding or competent authority. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 75. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Where the conclusion is conditional, the body should state the permitted role, support, supervision, evidence still required and review date rather than imply complete recognition or rejection. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

Applied to professional authorisation, this requirement has a distinct evidentiary consequence. The protected public interest in professional authorisation concerns the relationship between an academic qualification and permission to teach in a jurisdiction or role. If qualification, registration, employment eligibility and current authorisation can be conflated, appointment and workforce reporting can become misleading. The required course is to state each decision, competent body, conditions and date separately. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 76. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Under proportionality, review concerns how learner risk, teacher rights, shortage and feasible support shape the decision. Authorities should compare recognition, adaptation, supervision and restriction options, subject to the principle that shortage should not justify untested practice, and caution should not become automatic exclusion. Reasons should match the consequence of the decision for learners and the teacher. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 76. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Differences in route or institutional form should not be treated automatically as deficiencies. The relevant question is the evidence of learning, practice and lawful status for the intended role. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

Applied to professional authorisation, this requirement has a distinct evidentiary consequence. Interpretation of professional authorisation should begin with the relationship between an academic qualification and permission to teach in a jurisdiction or role. A foreseeable failure arises where qualification, registration, employment eligibility and current authorisation can be conflated. Institutions should state each decision, competent body, conditions and date separately. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 77. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The review and public account standard requires consideration of how a decision is reasoned, corrected and reported without overclaim. Decision-makers should retain evidence, reasons, scope, date and appeal route, because aggregate reporting should not convert contextual decisions into universal status. Translation, conversion and verification rules should be documented. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 77. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The decision should distinguish qualification comparability, professional recognition, employment selection and assignment. These may be connected but belong to different competent judgements. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

The relevant evidence concerns the age, level, curriculum, language, subject and inclusion context for which evidence is relevant. The principal risk is that general teacher status can be extended beyond the holder’s preparation and experience. Authorities should assess fit with the intended assignment and define support or limits.[REF-08]

Subject, phase and learner context requires explicit analysis because it concerns the age, level, curriculum, language, subject and inclusion context for which evidence is relevant. The risk is that general teacher status can be extended beyond the holder’s preparation and experience. A competent body should assess fit with the intended assignment and define support or limits.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 79. Decision purpose to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Review of decision purpose should determine which appointment, recognition, development or reporting decision the evidence informs. It should state competent body, role and consequence and acknowledge that evidence adequate for one purpose may be insufficient for another. Personal records should remain protected while the decision remains explainable to the holder. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 79. Decision purpose to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Correction should be timely. An unjustified delay can remove employment and education capacity, while unqualified acceptance can expose learners and the teacher to an unsuitable assignment. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

The public-interest purpose of subject, phase and learner context is the responsible use of the age, level, curriculum, language, subject and inclusion context for which evidence is relevant. Where general teacher status can be extended beyond the holder’s preparation and experience, apparently comparable counts or decisions can obscure material difference. Authorities should assess fit with the intended assignment and define support or limits.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 80. Primary evidence to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. For primary evidence, bodies should identify which authoritative award, transcript, licence or institutional record supports the claim and should prefer verifiable source records and preserve provenance. Any conclusion must respect that a copied title or personal declaration should not be treated as complete evidence. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 80. Primary evidence to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The final account should state verified evidence, interpretation, limitation and required next action. It should not extend beyond the role, jurisdiction or reporting definition actually decided. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

In subject, phase and learner context, qualification evidence concerns the age, level, curriculum, language, subject and inclusion context for which evidence is relevant. The principal risk is that general teacher status can be extended beyond the holder’s preparation and experience. Responsible bodies should therefore assess fit with the intended assignment and define support or limits.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 81. Comparability to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The comparability test asks which learning, level, volume and professional functions can responsibly be compared. Decision-makers should identify substantial similarity and material difference. The governing proposition is that comparability is not identity and does not automatically determine recognition. The record should identify holder, evidence, role, authority, scope and date. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 81. Comparability to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A qualification is important evidence, but its title alone does not establish professional authorisation, assignment fit or current competence for every education context. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

Currency is material because the age, level, curriculum, language, subject and inclusion context for which evidence is relevant cannot be inferred from a single certificate or workforce label. In this domain, general teacher status can be extended beyond the holder’s preparation and experience. The immediate safeguard is to assess fit with the intended assignment and define support or limits.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 82. Currency to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A reasoned judgement should establish which elements are enduring and which depend on current status or practice and should separate award validity, authorisation, recency and continuing learning, recognising that age of qualification alone neither proves nor disproves current competence. Evidence should remain capable of correction by the awarding or competent authority. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 82. Currency to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Where the conclusion is conditional, the body should state the permitted role, support, supervision, evidence still required and review date rather than imply complete recognition or rejection. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

The protected public interest in subject, phase and learner context concerns the age, level, curriculum, language, subject and inclusion context for which evidence is relevant. If general teacher status can be extended beyond the holder’s preparation and experience, appointment and workforce reporting can become misleading. The required course is to assess fit with the intended assignment and define support or limits.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 83. Context to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Under context, review concerns how system, curriculum, language, phase and role affect relevance. Authorities should interpret evidence against the intended assignment, subject to the principle that context should inform fit without becoming an unjustified barrier to mobility. Reasons should match the consequence of the decision for learners and the teacher. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 83. Context to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Differences in route or institutional form should not be treated automatically as deficiencies. The relevant question is the evidence of learning, practice and lawful status for the intended role. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

Interpretation of subject, phase and learner context should begin with the age, level, curriculum, language, subject and inclusion context for which evidence is relevant. A foreseeable failure arises where general teacher status can be extended beyond the holder’s preparation and experience. Institutions should assess fit with the intended assignment and define support or limits.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 84. Authenticity and integrity to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The authenticity and integrity standard requires consideration of which checks establish that evidence and holder are genuine. Decision-makers should use proportionate verification and protected records, because difficulty of verification is not itself proof of fraud. Translation, conversion and verification rules should be documented. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 84. Authenticity and integrity to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The decision should distinguish qualification comparability, professional recognition, employment selection and assignment. These may be connected but belong to different competent judgements. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 85. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Subject, phase and learner context requires explicit analysis because it concerns the age, level, curriculum, language, subject and inclusion context for which evidence is relevant. The risk is that general teacher status can be extended beyond the holder’s preparation and experience. A competent body should assess fit with the intended assignment and define support or limits. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 85. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Review of evidence gap should determine what is missing, why it matters and which alternative evidence is feasible. It should record uncertainty and use staged, bounded decisions where lawful and acknowledge that absence of one document should not erase other credible evidence. Personal records should remain protected while the decision remains explainable to the holder. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 85. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Correction should be timely. An unjustified delay can remove employment and education capacity, while unqualified acceptance can expose learners and the teacher to an unsuitable assignment. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 86. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The public-interest purpose of subject, phase and learner context is the responsible use of the age, level, curriculum, language, subject and inclusion context for which evidence is relevant. Where general teacher status can be extended beyond the holder’s preparation and experience, apparently comparable counts or decisions can obscure material difference. Authorities should assess fit with the intended assignment and define support or limits. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 86. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. For equity and access, bodies should identify whether procedures disadvantage displaced, disabled, minority-language or other teachers unnecessarily and should make processes accessible and examine indirect barriers. Any conclusion must respect that equal documentary demands can have unequal effects where records were lost through disruption. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 86. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The final account should state verified evidence, interpretation, limitation and required next action. It should not extend beyond the role, jurisdiction or reporting definition actually decided. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 87. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. In subject, phase and learner context, qualification evidence concerns the age, level, curriculum, language, subject and inclusion context for which evidence is relevant. The principal risk is that general teacher status can be extended beyond the holder’s preparation and experience. Responsible bodies should therefore assess fit with the intended assignment and define support or limits. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 87. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The proportionality test asks how learner risk, teacher rights, shortage and feasible support shape the decision. Decision-makers should compare recognition, adaptation, supervision and restriction options. The governing proposition is that shortage should not justify untested practice, and caution should not become automatic exclusion. The record should identify holder, evidence, role, authority, scope and date. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 87. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A qualification is important evidence, but its title alone does not establish professional authorisation, assignment fit or current competence for every education context. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Review and public account is material because the age, level, curriculum, language, subject and inclusion context for which evidence is relevant cannot be inferred from a single certificate or workforce label. In this domain, general teacher status can be extended beyond the holder’s preparation and experience. The immediate safeguard is to assess fit with the intended assignment and define support or limits.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 88. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A reasoned judgement should establish how a decision is reasoned, corrected and reported without overclaim and should retain evidence, reasons, scope, date and appeal route, recognising that aggregate reporting should not convert contextual decisions into universal status. Evidence should remain capable of correction by the awarding or competent authority. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 88. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Where the conclusion is conditional, the body should state the permitted role, support, supervision, evidence still required and review date rather than imply complete recognition or rejection. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

The relevant evidence concerns verified teaching roles, duration, conditions and professional evidence following qualification. The principal risk is that years recorded may not show workload, subject, responsibility or quality of practice. Authorities should use contextualised service evidence and avoid treating duration as competence alone.[REF-09]

The protected public interest in experience and demonstrated practice concerns verified teaching roles, duration, conditions and professional evidence following qualification. If years recorded may not show workload, subject, responsibility or quality of practice, appointment and workforce reporting can become misleading. The required course is to use contextualised service evidence and avoid treating duration as competence alone.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 90. Decision purpose to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Under decision purpose, review concerns which appointment, recognition, development or reporting decision the evidence informs. Authorities should state competent body, role and consequence, subject to the principle that evidence adequate for one purpose may be insufficient for another. Reasons should match the consequence of the decision for learners and the teacher. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 90. Decision purpose to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Differences in route or institutional form should not be treated automatically as deficiencies. The relevant question is the evidence of learning, practice and lawful status for the intended role. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Interpretation of experience and demonstrated practice should begin with verified teaching roles, duration, conditions and professional evidence following qualification. A foreseeable failure arises where years recorded may not show workload, subject, responsibility or quality of practice. Institutions should use contextualised service evidence and avoid treating duration as competence alone.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 91. Primary evidence to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The primary evidence standard requires consideration of which authoritative award, transcript, licence or institutional record supports the claim. Decision-makers should prefer verifiable source records and preserve provenance, because a copied title or personal declaration should not be treated as complete evidence. Translation, conversion and verification rules should be documented. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 91. Primary evidence to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The decision should distinguish qualification comparability, professional recognition, employment selection and assignment. These may be connected but belong to different competent judgements. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Experience and demonstrated practice requires explicit analysis because it concerns verified teaching roles, duration, conditions and professional evidence following qualification. The risk is that years recorded may not show workload, subject, responsibility or quality of practice. A competent body should use contextualised service evidence and avoid treating duration as competence alone.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 92. Comparability to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Review of comparability should determine which learning, level, volume and professional functions can responsibly be compared. It should identify substantial similarity and material difference and acknowledge that comparability is not identity and does not automatically determine recognition. Personal records should remain protected while the decision remains explainable to the holder. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 92. Comparability to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Correction should be timely. An unjustified delay can remove employment and education capacity, while unqualified acceptance can expose learners and the teacher to an unsuitable assignment. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

The public-interest purpose of experience and demonstrated practice is the responsible use of verified teaching roles, duration, conditions and professional evidence following qualification. Where years recorded may not show workload, subject, responsibility or quality of practice, apparently comparable counts or decisions can obscure material difference. Authorities should use contextualised service evidence and avoid treating duration as competence alone.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 93. Currency to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. For currency, bodies should identify which elements are enduring and which depend on current status or practice and should separate award validity, authorisation, recency and continuing learning. Any conclusion must respect that age of qualification alone neither proves nor disproves current competence. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 93. Currency to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The final account should state verified evidence, interpretation, limitation and required next action. It should not extend beyond the role, jurisdiction or reporting definition actually decided. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

In experience and demonstrated practice, qualification evidence concerns verified teaching roles, duration, conditions and professional evidence following qualification. The principal risk is that years recorded may not show workload, subject, responsibility or quality of practice. Responsible bodies should therefore use contextualised service evidence and avoid treating duration as competence alone.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 94. Context to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The context test asks how system, curriculum, language, phase and role affect relevance. Decision-makers should interpret evidence against the intended assignment. The governing proposition is that context should inform fit without becoming an unjustified barrier to mobility. The record should identify holder, evidence, role, authority, scope and date. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 94. Context to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A qualification is important evidence, but its title alone does not establish professional authorisation, assignment fit or current competence for every education context. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

Authenticity and integrity is material because verified teaching roles, duration, conditions and professional evidence following qualification cannot be inferred from a single certificate or workforce label. In this domain, years recorded may not show workload, subject, responsibility or quality of practice. The immediate safeguard is to use contextualised service evidence and avoid treating duration as competence alone.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 95. Authenticity and integrity to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A reasoned judgement should establish which checks establish that evidence and holder are genuine and should use proportionate verification and protected records, recognising that difficulty of verification is not itself proof of fraud. Evidence should remain capable of correction by the awarding or competent authority. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 95. Authenticity and integrity to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Where the conclusion is conditional, the body should state the permitted role, support, supervision, evidence still required and review date rather than imply complete recognition or rejection. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 96. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The protected public interest in experience and demonstrated practice concerns verified teaching roles, duration, conditions and professional evidence following qualification. If years recorded may not show workload, subject, responsibility or quality of practice, appointment and workforce reporting can become misleading. The required course is to use contextualised service evidence and avoid treating duration as competence alone. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 96. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Under evidence gap, review concerns what is missing, why it matters and which alternative evidence is feasible. Authorities should record uncertainty and use staged, bounded decisions where lawful, subject to the principle that absence of one document should not erase other credible evidence. Reasons should match the consequence of the decision for learners and the teacher. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 96. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Differences in route or institutional form should not be treated automatically as deficiencies. The relevant question is the evidence of learning, practice and lawful status for the intended role. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 97. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Interpretation of experience and demonstrated practice should begin with verified teaching roles, duration, conditions and professional evidence following qualification. A foreseeable failure arises where years recorded may not show workload, subject, responsibility or quality of practice. Institutions should use contextualised service evidence and avoid treating duration as competence alone. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 97. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The equity and access standard requires consideration of whether procedures disadvantage displaced, disabled, minority-language or other teachers unnecessarily. Decision-makers should make processes accessible and examine indirect barriers, because equal documentary demands can have unequal effects where records were lost through disruption. Translation, conversion and verification rules should be documented. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 97. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The decision should distinguish qualification comparability, professional recognition, employment selection and assignment. These may be connected but belong to different competent judgements. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 98. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Experience and demonstrated practice requires explicit analysis because it concerns verified teaching roles, duration, conditions and professional evidence following qualification. The risk is that years recorded may not show workload, subject, responsibility or quality of practice. A competent body should use contextualised service evidence and avoid treating duration as competence alone. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 98. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Review of proportionality should determine how learner risk, teacher rights, shortage and feasible support shape the decision. It should compare recognition, adaptation, supervision and restriction options and acknowledge that shortage should not justify untested practice, and caution should not become automatic exclusion. Personal records should remain protected while the decision remains explainable to the holder. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 98. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Correction should be timely. An unjustified delay can remove employment and education capacity, while unqualified acceptance can expose learners and the teacher to an unsuitable assignment. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 99. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The public-interest purpose of experience and demonstrated practice is the responsible use of verified teaching roles, duration, conditions and professional evidence following qualification. Where years recorded may not show workload, subject, responsibility or quality of practice, apparently comparable counts or decisions can obscure material difference. Authorities should use contextualised service evidence and avoid treating duration as competence alone. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 99. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. For review and public account, bodies should identify how a decision is reasoned, corrected and reported without overclaim and should retain evidence, reasons, scope, date and appeal route. Any conclusion must respect that aggregate reporting should not convert contextual decisions into universal status. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 99. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The final account should state verified evidence, interpretation, limitation and required next action. It should not extend beyond the role, jurisdiction or reporting definition actually decided. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

The relevant evidence concerns whether knowledge, authorisation and practice remain current for the intended role. The principal risk is that an older award may remain valid while policy, curriculum, technology or professional status changes. Authorities should distinguish enduring award status from current professional requirements and support.[REF-10]

In currency and continuing learning, qualification evidence concerns whether knowledge, authorisation and practice remain current for the intended role. The principal risk is that an older award may remain valid while policy, curriculum, technology or professional status changes. Responsible bodies should therefore distinguish enduring award status from current professional requirements and support.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 101. Decision purpose to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The decision purpose test asks which appointment, recognition, development or reporting decision the evidence informs. Decision-makers should state competent body, role and consequence. The governing proposition is that evidence adequate for one purpose may be insufficient for another. The record should identify holder, evidence, role, authority, scope and date. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 101. Decision purpose to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A qualification is important evidence, but its title alone does not establish professional authorisation, assignment fit or current competence for every education context. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

Primary evidence is material because whether knowledge, authorisation and practice remain current for the intended role cannot be inferred from a single certificate or workforce label. In this domain, an older award may remain valid while policy, curriculum, technology or professional status changes. The immediate safeguard is to distinguish enduring award status from current professional requirements and support.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 102. Primary evidence to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A reasoned judgement should establish which authoritative award, transcript, licence or institutional record supports the claim and should prefer verifiable source records and preserve provenance, recognising that a copied title or personal declaration should not be treated as complete evidence. Evidence should remain capable of correction by the awarding or competent authority. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 102. Primary evidence to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Where the conclusion is conditional, the body should state the permitted role, support, supervision, evidence still required and review date rather than imply complete recognition or rejection. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

The protected public interest in currency and continuing learning concerns whether knowledge, authorisation and practice remain current for the intended role. If an older award may remain valid while policy, curriculum, technology or professional status changes, appointment and workforce reporting can become misleading. The required course is to distinguish enduring award status from current professional requirements and support.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 103. Comparability to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Under comparability, review concerns which learning, level, volume and professional functions can responsibly be compared. Authorities should identify substantial similarity and material difference, subject to the principle that comparability is not identity and does not automatically determine recognition. Reasons should match the consequence of the decision for learners and the teacher. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 103. Comparability to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Differences in route or institutional form should not be treated automatically as deficiencies. The relevant question is the evidence of learning, practice and lawful status for the intended role. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

Interpretation of currency and continuing learning should begin with whether knowledge, authorisation and practice remain current for the intended role. A foreseeable failure arises where an older award may remain valid while policy, curriculum, technology or professional status changes. Institutions should distinguish enduring award status from current professional requirements and support.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 104. Currency to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The currency standard requires consideration of which elements are enduring and which depend on current status or practice. Decision-makers should separate award validity, authorisation, recency and continuing learning, because age of qualification alone neither proves nor disproves current competence. Translation, conversion and verification rules should be documented. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 104. Currency to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The decision should distinguish qualification comparability, professional recognition, employment selection and assignment. These may be connected but belong to different competent judgements. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

Currency and continuing learning requires explicit analysis because it concerns whether knowledge, authorisation and practice remain current for the intended role. The risk is that an older award may remain valid while policy, curriculum, technology or professional status changes. A competent body should distinguish enduring award status from current professional requirements and support.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 105. Context to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Review of context should determine how system, curriculum, language, phase and role affect relevance. It should interpret evidence against the intended assignment and acknowledge that context should inform fit without becoming an unjustified barrier to mobility. Personal records should remain protected while the decision remains explainable to the holder. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 105. Context to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Correction should be timely. An unjustified delay can remove employment and education capacity, while unqualified acceptance can expose learners and the teacher to an unsuitable assignment. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

The public-interest purpose of currency and continuing learning is the responsible use of whether knowledge, authorisation and practice remain current for the intended role. Where an older award may remain valid while policy, curriculum, technology or professional status changes, apparently comparable counts or decisions can obscure material difference. Authorities should distinguish enduring award status from current professional requirements and support.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 106. Authenticity and integrity to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. For authenticity and integrity, bodies should identify which checks establish that evidence and holder are genuine and should use proportionate verification and protected records. Any conclusion must respect that difficulty of verification is not itself proof of fraud. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 106. Authenticity and integrity to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The final account should state verified evidence, interpretation, limitation and required next action. It should not extend beyond the role, jurisdiction or reporting definition actually decided. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 107. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. In currency and continuing learning, qualification evidence concerns whether knowledge, authorisation and practice remain current for the intended role. The principal risk is that an older award may remain valid while policy, curriculum, technology or professional status changes. Responsible bodies should therefore distinguish enduring award status from current professional requirements and support. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 107. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The evidence gap test asks what is missing, why it matters and which alternative evidence is feasible. Decision-makers should record uncertainty and use staged, bounded decisions where lawful. The governing proposition is that absence of one document should not erase other credible evidence. The record should identify holder, evidence, role, authority, scope and date. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 107. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A qualification is important evidence, but its title alone does not establish professional authorisation, assignment fit or current competence for every education context. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Equity and access is material because whether knowledge, authorisation and practice remain current for the intended role cannot be inferred from a single certificate or workforce label. In this domain, an older award may remain valid while policy, curriculum, technology or professional status changes. The immediate safeguard is to distinguish enduring award status from current professional requirements and support.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 108. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A reasoned judgement should establish whether procedures disadvantage displaced, disabled, minority-language or other teachers unnecessarily and should make processes accessible and examine indirect barriers, recognising that equal documentary demands can have unequal effects where records were lost through disruption. Evidence should remain capable of correction by the awarding or competent authority. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 108. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Where the conclusion is conditional, the body should state the permitted role, support, supervision, evidence still required and review date rather than imply complete recognition or rejection. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 109. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The protected public interest in currency and continuing learning concerns whether knowledge, authorisation and practice remain current for the intended role. If an older award may remain valid while policy, curriculum, technology or professional status changes, appointment and workforce reporting can become misleading. The required course is to distinguish enduring award status from current professional requirements and support. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 109. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Under proportionality, review concerns how learner risk, teacher rights, shortage and feasible support shape the decision. Authorities should compare recognition, adaptation, supervision and restriction options, subject to the principle that shortage should not justify untested practice, and caution should not become automatic exclusion. Reasons should match the consequence of the decision for learners and the teacher. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 109. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Differences in route or institutional form should not be treated automatically as deficiencies. The relevant question is the evidence of learning, practice and lawful status for the intended role. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 110. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Interpretation of currency and continuing learning should begin with whether knowledge, authorisation and practice remain current for the intended role. A foreseeable failure arises where an older award may remain valid while policy, curriculum, technology or professional status changes. Institutions should distinguish enduring award status from current professional requirements and support. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 110. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The review and public account standard requires consideration of how a decision is reasoned, corrected and reported without overclaim. Decision-makers should retain evidence, reasons, scope, date and appeal route, because aggregate reporting should not convert contextual decisions into universal status. Translation, conversion and verification rules should be documented. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 110. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The decision should distinguish qualification comparability, professional recognition, employment selection and assignment. These may be connected but belong to different competent judgements. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

The relevant evidence concerns recognition, records, language and lawful employment for teachers moving across systems. The principal risk is that missing documents or unfamiliar titles can produce automatic exclusion or untested appointment. Authorities should use proportionate alternative evidence and competent, reviewable decisions.[REF-11]

Cross-border and displaced teachers requires explicit analysis because it concerns recognition, records, language and lawful employment for teachers moving across systems. The risk is that missing documents or unfamiliar titles can produce automatic exclusion or untested appointment. A competent body should use proportionate alternative evidence and competent, reviewable decisions.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 112. Decision purpose to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Review of decision purpose should determine which appointment, recognition, development or reporting decision the evidence informs. It should state competent body, role and consequence and acknowledge that evidence adequate for one purpose may be insufficient for another. Personal records should remain protected while the decision remains explainable to the holder. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 112. Decision purpose to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Correction should be timely. An unjustified delay can remove employment and education capacity, while unqualified acceptance can expose learners and the teacher to an unsuitable assignment. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

The public-interest purpose of cross-border and displaced teachers is the responsible use of recognition, records, language and lawful employment for teachers moving across systems. Where missing documents or unfamiliar titles can produce automatic exclusion or untested appointment, apparently comparable counts or decisions can obscure material difference. Authorities should use proportionate alternative evidence and competent, reviewable decisions.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 113. Primary evidence to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. For primary evidence, bodies should identify which authoritative award, transcript, licence or institutional record supports the claim and should prefer verifiable source records and preserve provenance. Any conclusion must respect that a copied title or personal declaration should not be treated as complete evidence. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 113. Primary evidence to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The final account should state verified evidence, interpretation, limitation and required next action. It should not extend beyond the role, jurisdiction or reporting definition actually decided. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

In cross-border and displaced teachers, qualification evidence concerns recognition, records, language and lawful employment for teachers moving across systems. The principal risk is that missing documents or unfamiliar titles can produce automatic exclusion or untested appointment. Responsible bodies should therefore use proportionate alternative evidence and competent, reviewable decisions.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 114. Comparability to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The comparability test asks which learning, level, volume and professional functions can responsibly be compared. Decision-makers should identify substantial similarity and material difference. The governing proposition is that comparability is not identity and does not automatically determine recognition. The record should identify holder, evidence, role, authority, scope and date. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 114. Comparability to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A qualification is important evidence, but its title alone does not establish professional authorisation, assignment fit or current competence for every education context. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

Currency is material because recognition, records, language and lawful employment for teachers moving across systems cannot be inferred from a single certificate or workforce label. In this domain, missing documents or unfamiliar titles can produce automatic exclusion or untested appointment. The immediate safeguard is to use proportionate alternative evidence and competent, reviewable decisions.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 115. Currency to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A reasoned judgement should establish which elements are enduring and which depend on current status or practice and should separate award validity, authorisation, recency and continuing learning, recognising that age of qualification alone neither proves nor disproves current competence. Evidence should remain capable of correction by the awarding or competent authority. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 115. Currency to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Where the conclusion is conditional, the body should state the permitted role, support, supervision, evidence still required and review date rather than imply complete recognition or rejection. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

The protected public interest in cross-border and displaced teachers concerns recognition, records, language and lawful employment for teachers moving across systems. If missing documents or unfamiliar titles can produce automatic exclusion or untested appointment, appointment and workforce reporting can become misleading. The required course is to use proportionate alternative evidence and competent, reviewable decisions.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 116. Context to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Under context, review concerns how system, curriculum, language, phase and role affect relevance. Authorities should interpret evidence against the intended assignment, subject to the principle that context should inform fit without becoming an unjustified barrier to mobility. Reasons should match the consequence of the decision for learners and the teacher. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 116. Context to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Differences in route or institutional form should not be treated automatically as deficiencies. The relevant question is the evidence of learning, practice and lawful status for the intended role. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

Interpretation of cross-border and displaced teachers should begin with recognition, records, language and lawful employment for teachers moving across systems. A foreseeable failure arises where missing documents or unfamiliar titles can produce automatic exclusion or untested appointment. Institutions should use proportionate alternative evidence and competent, reviewable decisions.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 117. Authenticity and integrity to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The authenticity and integrity standard requires consideration of which checks establish that evidence and holder are genuine. Decision-makers should use proportionate verification and protected records, because difficulty of verification is not itself proof of fraud. Translation, conversion and verification rules should be documented. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 117. Authenticity and integrity to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The decision should distinguish qualification comparability, professional recognition, employment selection and assignment. These may be connected but belong to different competent judgements. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 118. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Cross-border and displaced teachers requires explicit analysis because it concerns recognition, records, language and lawful employment for teachers moving across systems. The risk is that missing documents or unfamiliar titles can produce automatic exclusion or untested appointment. A competent body should use proportionate alternative evidence and competent, reviewable decisions. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 118. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Review of evidence gap should determine what is missing, why it matters and which alternative evidence is feasible. It should record uncertainty and use staged, bounded decisions where lawful and acknowledge that absence of one document should not erase other credible evidence. Personal records should remain protected while the decision remains explainable to the holder. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 118. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Correction should be timely. An unjustified delay can remove employment and education capacity, while unqualified acceptance can expose learners and the teacher to an unsuitable assignment. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 119. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The public-interest purpose of cross-border and displaced teachers is the responsible use of recognition, records, language and lawful employment for teachers moving across systems. Where missing documents or unfamiliar titles can produce automatic exclusion or untested appointment, apparently comparable counts or decisions can obscure material difference. Authorities should use proportionate alternative evidence and competent, reviewable decisions. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 119. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. For equity and access, bodies should identify whether procedures disadvantage displaced, disabled, minority-language or other teachers unnecessarily and should make processes accessible and examine indirect barriers. Any conclusion must respect that equal documentary demands can have unequal effects where records were lost through disruption. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 119. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The final account should state verified evidence, interpretation, limitation and required next action. It should not extend beyond the role, jurisdiction or reporting definition actually decided. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 120. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. In cross-border and displaced teachers, qualification evidence concerns recognition, records, language and lawful employment for teachers moving across systems. The principal risk is that missing documents or unfamiliar titles can produce automatic exclusion or untested appointment. Responsible bodies should therefore use proportionate alternative evidence and competent, reviewable decisions. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 120. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The proportionality test asks how learner risk, teacher rights, shortage and feasible support shape the decision. Decision-makers should compare recognition, adaptation, supervision and restriction options. The governing proposition is that shortage should not justify untested practice, and caution should not become automatic exclusion. The record should identify holder, evidence, role, authority, scope and date. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 120. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A qualification is important evidence, but its title alone does not establish professional authorisation, assignment fit or current competence for every education context. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

Review and public account is material because recognition, records, language and lawful employment for teachers moving across systems cannot be inferred from a single certificate or workforce label. In this domain, missing documents or unfamiliar titles can produce automatic exclusion or untested appointment. The immediate safeguard is to use proportionate alternative evidence and competent, reviewable decisions.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 121. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A reasoned judgement should establish how a decision is reasoned, corrected and reported without overclaim and should retain evidence, reasons, scope, date and appeal route, recognising that aggregate reporting should not convert contextual decisions into universal status. Evidence should remain capable of correction by the awarding or competent authority. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 121. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Where the conclusion is conditional, the body should state the permitted role, support, supervision, evidence still required and review date rather than imply complete recognition or rejection. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

The relevant evidence concerns cases where records are lost, institutions inaccessible or authenticity unresolved. The principal risk is that administrative uncertainty can be converted either into denial or unqualified acceptance. Authorities should separate verified fact, plausible evidence, unresolved question and permitted interim action.[REF-12]

The protected public interest in incomplete or contested evidence concerns cases where records are lost, institutions inaccessible or authenticity unresolved. If administrative uncertainty can be converted either into denial or unqualified acceptance, appointment and workforce reporting can become misleading. The required course is to separate verified fact, plausible evidence, unresolved question and permitted interim action.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 123. Decision purpose to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Under decision purpose, review concerns which appointment, recognition, development or reporting decision the evidence informs. Authorities should state competent body, role and consequence, subject to the principle that evidence adequate for one purpose may be insufficient for another. Reasons should match the consequence of the decision for learners and the teacher. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 123. Decision purpose to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Differences in route or institutional form should not be treated automatically as deficiencies. The relevant question is the evidence of learning, practice and lawful status for the intended role. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

Interpretation of incomplete or contested evidence should begin with cases where records are lost, institutions inaccessible or authenticity unresolved. A foreseeable failure arises where administrative uncertainty can be converted either into denial or unqualified acceptance. Institutions should separate verified fact, plausible evidence, unresolved question and permitted interim action.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 124. Primary evidence to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The primary evidence standard requires consideration of which authoritative award, transcript, licence or institutional record supports the claim. Decision-makers should prefer verifiable source records and preserve provenance, because a copied title or personal declaration should not be treated as complete evidence. Translation, conversion and verification rules should be documented. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 124. Primary evidence to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The decision should distinguish qualification comparability, professional recognition, employment selection and assignment. These may be connected but belong to different competent judgements. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

Incomplete or contested evidence requires explicit analysis because it concerns cases where records are lost, institutions inaccessible or authenticity unresolved. The risk is that administrative uncertainty can be converted either into denial or unqualified acceptance. A competent body should separate verified fact, plausible evidence, unresolved question and permitted interim action.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 125. Comparability to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Review of comparability should determine which learning, level, volume and professional functions can responsibly be compared. It should identify substantial similarity and material difference and acknowledge that comparability is not identity and does not automatically determine recognition. Personal records should remain protected while the decision remains explainable to the holder. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 125. Comparability to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Correction should be timely. An unjustified delay can remove employment and education capacity, while unqualified acceptance can expose learners and the teacher to an unsuitable assignment. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

The public-interest purpose of incomplete or contested evidence is the responsible use of cases where records are lost, institutions inaccessible or authenticity unresolved. Where administrative uncertainty can be converted either into denial or unqualified acceptance, apparently comparable counts or decisions can obscure material difference. Authorities should separate verified fact, plausible evidence, unresolved question and permitted interim action.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 126. Currency to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. For currency, bodies should identify which elements are enduring and which depend on current status or practice and should separate award validity, authorisation, recency and continuing learning. Any conclusion must respect that age of qualification alone neither proves nor disproves current competence. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 126. Currency to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The final account should state verified evidence, interpretation, limitation and required next action. It should not extend beyond the role, jurisdiction or reporting definition actually decided. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

In incomplete or contested evidence, qualification evidence concerns cases where records are lost, institutions inaccessible or authenticity unresolved. The principal risk is that administrative uncertainty can be converted either into denial or unqualified acceptance. Responsible bodies should therefore separate verified fact, plausible evidence, unresolved question and permitted interim action.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 127. Context to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The context test asks how system, curriculum, language, phase and role affect relevance. Decision-makers should interpret evidence against the intended assignment. The governing proposition is that context should inform fit without becoming an unjustified barrier to mobility. The record should identify holder, evidence, role, authority, scope and date. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 127. Context to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A qualification is important evidence, but its title alone does not establish professional authorisation, assignment fit or current competence for every education context. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

Authenticity and integrity is material because cases where records are lost, institutions inaccessible or authenticity unresolved cannot be inferred from a single certificate or workforce label. In this domain, administrative uncertainty can be converted either into denial or unqualified acceptance. The immediate safeguard is to separate verified fact, plausible evidence, unresolved question and permitted interim action.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 128. Authenticity and integrity to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A reasoned judgement should establish which checks establish that evidence and holder are genuine and should use proportionate verification and protected records, recognising that difficulty of verification is not itself proof of fraud. Evidence should remain capable of correction by the awarding or competent authority. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 128. Authenticity and integrity to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Where the conclusion is conditional, the body should state the permitted role, support, supervision, evidence still required and review date rather than imply complete recognition or rejection. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 129. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The protected public interest in incomplete or contested evidence concerns cases where records are lost, institutions inaccessible or authenticity unresolved. If administrative uncertainty can be converted either into denial or unqualified acceptance, appointment and workforce reporting can become misleading. The required course is to separate verified fact, plausible evidence, unresolved question and permitted interim action. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 129. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Under evidence gap, review concerns what is missing, why it matters and which alternative evidence is feasible. Authorities should record uncertainty and use staged, bounded decisions where lawful, subject to the principle that absence of one document should not erase other credible evidence. Reasons should match the consequence of the decision for learners and the teacher. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 129. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Differences in route or institutional form should not be treated automatically as deficiencies. The relevant question is the evidence of learning, practice and lawful status for the intended role. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 130. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Interpretation of incomplete or contested evidence should begin with cases where records are lost, institutions inaccessible or authenticity unresolved. A foreseeable failure arises where administrative uncertainty can be converted either into denial or unqualified acceptance. Institutions should separate verified fact, plausible evidence, unresolved question and permitted interim action. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 130. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The equity and access standard requires consideration of whether procedures disadvantage displaced, disabled, minority-language or other teachers unnecessarily. Decision-makers should make processes accessible and examine indirect barriers, because equal documentary demands can have unequal effects where records were lost through disruption. Translation, conversion and verification rules should be documented. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 130. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The decision should distinguish qualification comparability, professional recognition, employment selection and assignment. These may be connected but belong to different competent judgements. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 131. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Incomplete or contested evidence requires explicit analysis because it concerns cases where records are lost, institutions inaccessible or authenticity unresolved. The risk is that administrative uncertainty can be converted either into denial or unqualified acceptance. A competent body should separate verified fact, plausible evidence, unresolved question and permitted interim action. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 131. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Review of proportionality should determine how learner risk, teacher rights, shortage and feasible support shape the decision. It should compare recognition, adaptation, supervision and restriction options and acknowledge that shortage should not justify untested practice, and caution should not become automatic exclusion. Personal records should remain protected while the decision remains explainable to the holder. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 131. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Correction should be timely. An unjustified delay can remove employment and education capacity, while unqualified acceptance can expose learners and the teacher to an unsuitable assignment. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 132. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The public-interest purpose of incomplete or contested evidence is the responsible use of cases where records are lost, institutions inaccessible or authenticity unresolved. Where administrative uncertainty can be converted either into denial or unqualified acceptance, apparently comparable counts or decisions can obscure material difference. Authorities should separate verified fact, plausible evidence, unresolved question and permitted interim action. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 132. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. For review and public account, bodies should identify how a decision is reasoned, corrected and reported without overclaim and should retain evidence, reasons, scope, date and appeal route. Any conclusion must respect that aggregate reporting should not convert contextual decisions into universal status. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 132. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The final account should state verified evidence, interpretation, limitation and required next action. It should not extend beyond the role, jurisdiction or reporting definition actually decided. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

The relevant evidence concerns the definitions used to count qualified, trained, authorised, temporary and appropriately deployed teachers. The principal risk is that one aggregate category can conceal different standards, routes and assignment fit. Authorities should publish definitions, source, date, distribution and unclassified cases.[REF-13]

In workforce data and public reporting, qualification evidence concerns the definitions used to count qualified, trained, authorised, temporary and appropriately deployed teachers. The principal risk is that one aggregate category can conceal different standards, routes and assignment fit. Responsible bodies should therefore publish definitions, source, date, distribution and unclassified cases.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 134. Decision purpose to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The decision purpose test asks which appointment, recognition, development or reporting decision the evidence informs. Decision-makers should state competent body, role and consequence. The governing proposition is that evidence adequate for one purpose may be insufficient for another. The record should identify holder, evidence, role, authority, scope and date. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 134. Decision purpose to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A qualification is important evidence, but its title alone does not establish professional authorisation, assignment fit or current competence for every education context. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

Primary evidence is material because the definitions used to count qualified, trained, authorised, temporary and appropriately deployed teachers cannot be inferred from a single certificate or workforce label. In this domain, one aggregate category can conceal different standards, routes and assignment fit. The immediate safeguard is to publish definitions, source, date, distribution and unclassified cases.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 135. Primary evidence to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A reasoned judgement should establish which authoritative award, transcript, licence or institutional record supports the claim and should prefer verifiable source records and preserve provenance, recognising that a copied title or personal declaration should not be treated as complete evidence. Evidence should remain capable of correction by the awarding or competent authority. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 135. Primary evidence to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Where the conclusion is conditional, the body should state the permitted role, support, supervision, evidence still required and review date rather than imply complete recognition or rejection. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

The protected public interest in workforce data and public reporting concerns the definitions used to count qualified, trained, authorised, temporary and appropriately deployed teachers. If one aggregate category can conceal different standards, routes and assignment fit, appointment and workforce reporting can become misleading. The required course is to publish definitions, source, date, distribution and unclassified cases.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 136. Comparability to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Under comparability, review concerns which learning, level, volume and professional functions can responsibly be compared. Authorities should identify substantial similarity and material difference, subject to the principle that comparability is not identity and does not automatically determine recognition. Reasons should match the consequence of the decision for learners and the teacher. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 136. Comparability to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Differences in route or institutional form should not be treated automatically as deficiencies. The relevant question is the evidence of learning, practice and lawful status for the intended role. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

Interpretation of workforce data and public reporting should begin with the definitions used to count qualified, trained, authorised, temporary and appropriately deployed teachers. A foreseeable failure arises where one aggregate category can conceal different standards, routes and assignment fit. Institutions should publish definitions, source, date, distribution and unclassified cases.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 137. Currency to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The currency standard requires consideration of which elements are enduring and which depend on current status or practice. Decision-makers should separate award validity, authorisation, recency and continuing learning, because age of qualification alone neither proves nor disproves current competence. Translation, conversion and verification rules should be documented. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 137. Currency to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The decision should distinguish qualification comparability, professional recognition, employment selection and assignment. These may be connected but belong to different competent judgements. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

Workforce data and public reporting requires explicit analysis because it concerns the definitions used to count qualified, trained, authorised, temporary and appropriately deployed teachers. The risk is that one aggregate category can conceal different standards, routes and assignment fit. A competent body should publish definitions, source, date, distribution and unclassified cases.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 138. Context to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Review of context should determine how system, curriculum, language, phase and role affect relevance. It should interpret evidence against the intended assignment and acknowledge that context should inform fit without becoming an unjustified barrier to mobility. Personal records should remain protected while the decision remains explainable to the holder. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 138. Context to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Correction should be timely. An unjustified delay can remove employment and education capacity, while unqualified acceptance can expose learners and the teacher to an unsuitable assignment. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

The public-interest purpose of workforce data and public reporting is the responsible use of the definitions used to count qualified, trained, authorised, temporary and appropriately deployed teachers. Where one aggregate category can conceal different standards, routes and assignment fit, apparently comparable counts or decisions can obscure material difference. Authorities should publish definitions, source, date, distribution and unclassified cases.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 139. Authenticity and integrity to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. For authenticity and integrity, bodies should identify which checks establish that evidence and holder are genuine and should use proportionate verification and protected records. Any conclusion must respect that difficulty of verification is not itself proof of fraud. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

evidence, learner, interest, protected require ### 139. Authenticity and integrity to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The final account should state verified evidence, interpretation, limitation and required next action. It should not extend beyond the role, jurisdiction or reporting definition actually decided. Any departure should be justified by evidence and the learner interest protected.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 140. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. In workforce data and public reporting, qualification evidence concerns the definitions used to count qualified, trained, authorised, temporary and appropriately deployed teachers. The principal risk is that one aggregate category can conceal different standards, routes and assignment fit. Responsible bodies should therefore publish definitions, source, date, distribution and unclassified cases. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 140. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The evidence gap test asks what is missing, why it matters and which alternative evidence is feasible. Decision-makers should record uncertainty and use staged, bounded decisions where lawful. The governing proposition is that absence of one document should not erase other credible evidence. The record should identify holder, evidence, role, authority, scope and date. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 140. Evidence gap to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A qualification is important evidence, but its title alone does not establish professional authorisation, assignment fit or current competence for every education context. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

Equity and access is material because the definitions used to count qualified, trained, authorised, temporary and appropriately deployed teachers cannot be inferred from a single certificate or workforce label. In this domain, one aggregate category can conceal different standards, routes and assignment fit. The immediate safeguard is to publish definitions, source, date, distribution and unclassified cases.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 141. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. A reasoned judgement should establish whether procedures disadvantage displaced, disabled, minority-language or other teachers unnecessarily and should make processes accessible and examine indirect barriers, recognising that equal documentary demands can have unequal effects where records were lost through disruption. Evidence should remain capable of correction by the awarding or competent authority. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 141. Equity and access to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Where the conclusion is conditional, the body should state the permitted role, support, supervision, evidence still required and review date rather than imply complete recognition or rejection. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 142. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The protected public interest in workforce data and public reporting concerns the definitions used to count qualified, trained, authorised, temporary and appropriately deployed teachers. If one aggregate category can conceal different standards, routes and assignment fit, appointment and workforce reporting can become misleading. The required course is to publish definitions, source, date, distribution and unclassified cases. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 142. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Under proportionality, review concerns how learner risk, teacher rights, shortage and feasible support shape the decision. Authorities should compare recognition, adaptation, supervision and restriction options, subject to the principle that shortage should not justify untested practice, and caution should not become automatic exclusion. Reasons should match the consequence of the decision for learners and the teacher. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 142. Proportionality to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Differences in route or institutional form should not be treated automatically as deficiencies. The relevant question is the evidence of learning, practice and lawful status for the intended role. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 143. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. Interpretation of workforce data and public reporting should begin with the definitions used to count qualified, trained, authorised, temporary and appropriately deployed teachers. A foreseeable failure arises where one aggregate category can conceal different standards, routes and assignment fit. Institutions should publish definitions, source, date, distribution and unclassified cases. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

appointment, review, should, recorded require ### 143. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The review and public account standard requires consideration of how a decision is reasoned, corrected and reported without overclaim. Decision-makers should retain evidence, reasons, scope, date and appeal route, because aggregate reporting should not convert contextual decisions into universal status. Translation, conversion and verification rules should be documented. The implication for comparability, appointment and review should be recorded.

retain, material, limitation, competent require ### 143. Review and public account to distinguish authority, delivery, distribution and remedy. The decision should distinguish qualification comparability, professional recognition, employment selection and assignment. These may be connected but belong to different competent judgements. The conclusion should retain the material limitation and competent body.

Every decision should state the role and purpose, evidence verified, comparison made, material difference, professional status, condition, support and review. It should not imply authority or equivalence beyond the actual judgement.

Where records are lost or unfamiliar, bodies should use proportionate verification and alternative evidence. A supervised or conditional route may protect learners and teacher rights where immediate full recognition is not supported.

Teacher qualification evidence is credible when provenance, learning, practice, status, currency and context remain visible. Comparability should support fair and protective decisions without collapsing different systems into identical labels or converting difference into automatic exclusion.