Map
Tie each item to the exact CORE-100, pathway or defined-offering clause it supports. A document may support several clauses, but map each relationship explicitly.
Applicant evidence guide · Review preparation Operational guidance
Prepare evidence a reviewer can trace, verify and understand.
CHSPS evidence review is clause-based. The goal is not to upload the largest file set; it is to show, with current controlled evidence, that the required system exists, operates as documented and can be independently verified.
Rule hierarchy: the applicable published standard and controlled accreditation policies govern. Examples on this page are preparation guidance and do not replace clause-level evidence expectations.
The preparation model
Map → identify → protect → prove
These four controls make evidence faster to review and easier to defend later.
Identify
Use stable filenames and make the current source, owner, effective date and version unambiguous. Superseded documents should be included only when history is relevant.
Protect
Redact personal, confidential and restricted content that is unnecessary to verify the requirement. Preserve enough context to keep the evidence authentic and traceable.
Prove
Where the requirement concerns an operating process, show implementation. A policy plus an actual record of the policy being followed is stronger than a policy alone.
Evidence vocabulary
What can count as evidence?
Different artifacts prove different things. Strong submissions usually combine the controlled rule with operational proof where appropriate.
| Evidence type | What it can demonstrate | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Policy | What the organization requires | Conflict-of-interest policy |
| Procedure | How a process is intended to operate | Accommodation review procedure |
| Controlled form | What information or authorization is required | Reviewer conflict disclosure |
| Completed record | That the procedure was actually used | Redacted completed disclosure |
| Minutes / decision record | Governance, consideration and authorization | Committee minutes or decision log |
| Report / analysis | Monitoring, technical evaluation or outcomes | Annual psychometric or quality report |
| System screenshot | Current configuration or workflow | Role-based access configuration |
| Export / audit log | Recorded system activity | Periodic access-review log |
| Public artifact | What candidates, learners or the public actually see | Candidate handbook or public webpage |
| Contract / agreement | Assigned third-party responsibilities | Proctoring or platform agreement |
| Training / qualification record | Competence or authorization | Reviewer orientation completion |
| Representative operational sample | Actual execution of a controlled process | Redacted complaint or accommodation case |
Weak when used alonePolicy
→StrongerImplementation record
→Stronger stillMonitoring / oversight
→When relevantCorrective action
Preparation guidance: not every clause requires every layer. Use the clause-level evidence expectations to determine what is necessary.
My CHSPS workflow
Upload once. Map where it applies.
The secure applicant workflow is designed around a controlled evidence library rather than duplicate uploads.
Open the requirement
Read the normative clause, interpretive guidance and evidence expectations in the applicable standard.
Add or select evidence
Upload a controlled item or select an existing item from the applicant evidence library.
Map the relationship
Associate the item with every clause it legitimately supports. Do not make reviewers infer the relationship.
Add location & context
Identify the relevant page, section, worksheet, row, timestamp or record and briefly state what it demonstrates.
Review the package
Before submission, confirm the mapped evidence is current, readable, appropriately redacted and internally consistent.
Example of reuse
CandidateHandbook_v8.pdf may support several requirements. Upload it once, then map the same controlled file to each applicable clause rather than creating multiple copies with different filenames.
Naming & metadata
Make the evidence self-identifying.
Recommended filename pattern
ClauseID_DocumentName_vXCORE4.6_AccessControlPolicy_v3.pdfCORE4.6_Q2AccessReview_2026_v1.pdfCERT3.2_PracticeAnalysisReport_2026_v2.pdfCERT9.1_CutScoreStudy2026_v1.pdfAvoid ambiguous filenames
final.pdfscan001.pdfdocument2.pdfnew-final-FINAL.pdfEvidence metadata
A reviewer should know the provenance.
The information may be inherent in the controlled document or maintained in the My CHSPS evidence record; the objective is unambiguous source and version control.
Worked example
CORE 4.6 — Periodic role-based access review
Controlled rule
CORE4.6_AccessControlPolicy_v3.pdfEstablishes the access-review requirement.
Current configuration
CORE4.6_AccessMatrix_2026Q2.xlsxIdentifies authorized roles and permissions.
Operational proof
CORE4.6_AccessReview_2026Q2.pdfShows the periodic review occurred.
Follow-up
CORE4.6_Remediation_26-041_Redacted.pdfShows an identified access issue was corrected.
Applicant context note: Q2 access review completed June 30, 2026. One obsolete account was identified and disabled. See review report pages 3–5 and remediation record 26-041.
Tell the reviewer where to look.
For long files, identify a page, section, worksheet, row, dashboard, timestamp or record whenever practical. Example: CERT 3.4 · PracticeAnalysisReport2026.pdf · pp. 42–47 · approved update-cycle recommendation.
Sampling & sufficiency
Submit enough to demonstrate the control — not your entire archive.
CHSPS may request representative operational samples to verify that documented processes actually run.
Complaint handling
Useful initial package: complaint procedure, complaint register, representative redacted cases, and trend or management review where applicable.
Usually unnecessary: hundreds of complete complaint files at initial submission.
Accommodation handling
Useful initial package: accommodation policy, workflow, representative redacted completed cases and any relevant decision/monitoring record.
Key principle: preserve the process and decision evidence; redact identity and unnecessary medical detail.
Governance
Useful initial package: charter, roster, qualification evidence, conflict records, representative minutes, decision log and follow-up records.
Minutes need not be transcripts, but should preserve enough information to reconstruct material decisions.
Additional samples may be requested.
Sample depth can increase when volume, risk, inconsistency, unusual patterns or the need to verify implementation warrants additional review.
Redaction & confidentiality
Protect what reviewers do not need. Preserve what proves the control.
Identity is rarely necessary to establish that a process exists, was followed and produced a controlled decision.
| Record | Usually redact | Keep visible when relevant |
|---|---|---|
| Candidate complaint | Name, personal email, ID | Date, category, process, decision, response time |
| Accommodation record | Diagnosis/details not necessary to review | Request date, review process, decision, implementation |
| SME/personnel file | Home address, personal phone, unrelated identifiers | Role, qualifications, relevant expertise, authorization |
| Learner record | Name and unique ID where unnecessary | Completion status, course/version, date, decision rule |
| Access review | User identity where unnecessary | Role, permission, reviewer, date, disposition |
| Vendor record | Commercial terms unrelated to the clause | Responsibilities, service controls and oversight provisions |
Do not include identifiable patient information merely because the process occurs in healthcare.
Use de-identified or appropriately redacted clinical records whenever they can demonstrate the control. Coordinate with CHSPS before transmitting more sensitive information when a requirement cannot reasonably be verified otherwise.
Do not submit secure exam items or answer keys with the normal application.
Where assessment-content review is necessary, CHSPS arranges a separate secure channel and confirms the handling method in writing.
Evidence reviewers usually do not need at initial submission
- Entire candidate or learner databases
- Full HR files
- Passwords, authentication credentials or API secrets
- Payment-card information or government identifiers
- Entire examination item banks or answer keys
- Unnecessarily identifiable patient information
- Full email inboxes or massive exports where a controlled representative extract proves the same point
Special evidence situations
How to handle files that need more context
Screenshots & system evidence
Submit screenshots as PDF where practical, with visible date or URL/context. Identify the system, environment, capture date and purpose. Avoid unexplained cropped images.
CORE12.3_LMSAdminRoleConfiguration_2026-08-20.pdfReports, exports & spreadsheets
Preserve headings and relevant formulas. Identify source system, reporting period, generation date and material filters. Explain calculated fields when the interpretation is not self-evident.
Vendors & outsourced activities
Outsourcing does not remove applicant responsibility. Use contracts, SLAs/control specifications, due-diligence records, performance reports and incident/CAPA evidence to demonstrate oversight.
“Our vendor handles this” is not, by itself, evidence of controlled oversight.
Translations
Evidence should be in English or accompanied by a translation the organization attests is accurate. Clearly associate the original and translation.
CORE1.1_BusinessRegistration_Original.pdfCORE1.1_BusinessRegistration_EnglishTranslation.pdfNot Applicable with Justification
A bare “N/A” is not enough. Explain why the clause does not apply to the approved scope and point to supporting scope evidence where useful.
Example: Not Applicable. The organization does not use remote proctoring for assessments within the proposed scope. All examinations are administered at organization-controlled testing locations. See Scope Statement v2, §3.1.
Contradictory or superseded evidence
Do not hide conflicts. Identify the current authoritative version, explain the discrepancy and provide the corrective or transition record where applicable.
Example: Handbook v7 contained superseded appeal timing. Policy v4 is authoritative; Handbook v8 was published August 5, 2026 to correct the discrepancy.
Preparation examples by pathway
What might belong in your evidence library?
Choose a pathway for illustrative evidence categories. These examples are not a substitute for the applicable standard or its clause-level evidence expectations.
CERT
Certification Program Accreditation
- Governance charters, committee rosters and conflict disclosures
- Practice/job analysis technical report and approval record
- Examination blueprint, form specifications and controlled change records
- SME qualification criteria and representative qualification records
- Standard-setting or cut-score technical documentation
- Candidate handbook, accommodations procedure and communication templates
- Psychometric monitoring, score quality-control and security records
- Appeal, complaint, disciplinary and recertification records as applicable
Use the applicable standard for the actual clause-by-clause evidence expectations.
After submission
What reviewers do with the evidence
Traceability
Can the evidence be connected to the exact requirement?
Authenticity
Is the source, owner, date and authoritative version identifiable?
Implementation
Does the evidence show the required process operating, where operation is required?
Consistency
Do different sources agree, or are discrepancies explained?
Clarification
If the record is incomplete or ambiguous, the review team may request clarification or additional samples.
Review findings are made against the applicable published requirements and findings taxonomy, not against the examples on this page.
Pre-submission checklist
Run this check before formal submission.
Use it as preparation guidance. The applicable standards remain the authoritative requirement set.
Confidentiality lifecycle
Your evidence stays inside the accreditation process.
Application materials are restricted to the conflict-cleared review team and used for accreditation purposes. Reviewers complete confidentiality and conflict attestations; recusals are recorded. Retention and disposition follow the published records schedule, and applicant evidence is separated from CHSPS education functions.
Applicant-controlled source→Secure CHSPS workspace→Conflict-cleared review→Controlled retention / disposition