A badge nobody can interrogate is worth nothing. So here is the rubric, the rules that are enforced in software rather than merely stated, and the things vetting does not do. Argue with any of it.
Version 2026-07-30
At least one piece of evidence must have been checked and confirmed before anyone is admitted. This is enforced in software: the admit action refuses if nothing is verified. It is the rule the whole register rests on, because a badge awarded for filling in a form is worth nothing to the person reading it.
A practitioner rates their own ability. A reviewer records a separate assessed level against the evidence. Both are stored. Where only the self-rating exists, a hirer sees the claim labelled as a claim, every time.
You will not get a form rejection. The reason is written down, stored against the application, and has to be at least a sentence. The software refuses a decline without one.
Assessing ten claims properly is not possible, and a register that pretends otherwise is a directory. Pick the ones you can evidence.
At least one piece is required to apply. One solid item beats five vague ones, and a reference we can actually call beats a link to a landing page.
Every admission carries a date when the evidence is looked at again, twelve months out. Evidence goes stale, people change what they work on, and a register that never re-checks is a snapshot pretending to be current.
Specialists are never charged a fee, for anything, so there is no mechanism by which anyone could pay for a better place in a shortlist. Ordering comes from the fit score and nothing else.
The fit score reports unknowns rather than averaging them away. A hirer sees where the confidence is thin, and can disagree with the reading.
Overclaiming what a check means is the same defect as inventing a statistic, so this list matters as much as the one above.
Vetting is evidence checked against these rules by a person. People get things wrong, evidence can be misleading, and a good practitioner can still be wrong for your particular job. Nothing here promises an outcome.
We do not run criminal record checks, credit checks, or right to work checks, and we do not collect the data that would be needed to. That is the hirer employer duty, and it stays there.
Where a reference is offered as evidence, we confirm it exists and that the person stands behind it. We do not conduct a full reference interview on your behalf.
Only demonstrable competence in a named discipline. Whether someone will work well with your people is something only you can judge, and a platform that claims otherwise is guessing.
Say so. Every decision records the rubric version it was made under and the reason it was made, so there is something specific to disagree with. Use the contact form and quote the criterion.
Challenge a decision