Substantive comments assigned disposition
Preferred100%
Watch98.0–99.9%
Review< 98.0%
Every material comment should leave a trace.
Public Comment Disposition Registry
How CHSPS will publish the outcome of standards comments, including clause, disposition category, change made and rationale.
Current cycle
Current 2026.1 feedback cycle: open through October 30, 2026
The pre-adoption record for Edition 2026.1 is published below. The standing feedback window remains open through October 30, 2026; those comments are dispositioned in the next revision record (2027.1).
Submit Public CommentDisposition record fields
- Comment ID and date
- Standard and clause
- Comment theme
- Accepted / accepted in part / not accepted
- Change made, if any
- Published rationale
Published record
Edition 2026.1 pre-adoption disposition record
Nine substantive comments were received on the founding publication between August 12 and August 16, 2026. Each was reviewed and dispositioned by the CHSPS Standards Council before Edition 2026.1 was approved on August 18, 2026; the adopted edition incorporates the accepted changes. Comments received after adoption are logged for the standing maintenance cycle and the 2027.1 revision.
| Comment | Standard · clause | Theme | Disposition | Change made | Published rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PC-2026-001 Aug 12, 2026 | CORE-100 · 2.3 (Impartiality) | Require annual conflict-of-interest attestations from all reviewers, not only at assignment | Accepted | Clause 2.3 revised to require assignment-time screening plus annual attestation. | Annual attestation strengthens the existing assignment-time screen without adding applicant burden. |
| PC-2026-002 Aug 13, 2026 | CERT-200 · 9.1 (Standard setting) | Permit documented modified-Angoff variants for small-volume examinations | Accepted in part | Clause 9.1 guidance note added permitting justified variants; core criterion-referenced requirement unchanged. | Method flexibility is appropriate where volume limits data, but the defensibility requirement is not relaxed. |
| PC-2026-003 Aug 13, 2026 | CORE-100 · 5.2 (Public information) | Publish reviewer identities for each application | Not accepted | No change. | Publishing per-application reviewer identities would expose reviewers to pressure and undermine impartiality; aggregate roster disclosure remains. |
| PC-2026-004 Aug 14, 2026 | EDP-300 · 4.4 (Faculty) | Clarify whether volunteer subject-matter experts fall under faculty competence requirements | Resolved by clarification | No text change; published FAQ clarifies volunteers performing faculty functions are in scope. | The existing definition already covers the function regardless of employment status. |
| PC-2026-005 Aug 14, 2026 | CERT-200 · 11.1 (Identity verification) | Require biometric identity verification for all remote examinations | Not accepted | No change. | Mandating a single technology class would exceed the standard's technology-neutral design; REA-220 governs remote administration controls. |
| PC-2026-006 Aug 15, 2026 | COURSE-400 · 6.2 (Completion integrity) | Align completion-record retention with EDP-300 record retention periods | Accepted | Clause 6.2 revised to reference the common retention schedule. | Alignment removes an unintended inconsistency between the two standards. |
| PC-2026-007 Aug 15, 2026 | CORE-100 · 7.1 (Complaints) | Allow anonymous complaints | Accepted | Clause 7.1 revised: complaints may be submitted without identifying the complainant; investigability criteria added. | Anonymity can be essential for safety-sensitive complaints; the investigability test preserves fairness. |
| PC-2026-008 Aug 16, 2026 | CERT-200 · 15 (AI & continuous quality) | Duplicate of PC-2026-005 concerning remote biometric requirements | Duplicate / consolidated | Consolidated into PC-2026-005. | Same request and rationale; recorded once. |
| PC-2026-009 Aug 16, 2026 | EDP-300 · 12.1 (Improvement) | Require publication of aggregate learner-outcome data | Accepted in part | Guidance added encouraging publication; requirement records internal review of outcome data. | Mandatory publication is premature ahead of the CPDS validated-data framework; internal review is required now. |
Disposition record standard
How CHSPS records and publishes comment decisions
| Disposition | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Accepted | The comment results in the requested or substantively equivalent change. |
| Accepted in part | Part of the comment is incorporated; the record explains what changed and why. |
| Not accepted | The requirement is not changed; the record provides the technical or governance rationale. |
| Resolved by clarification | The issue is addressed through explanatory text without changing the normative requirement. |
| Duplicate / consolidated | Substantively similar comments are linked to one disposition while preserving the original record. |
CHSPS reference criteria
Quantitative operating targets for this function
These CHSPS reference criteria define the current operating and interpretation ranges for this function. They support consistent review and quality monitoring without replacing clause-level professional judgment.
Dispositions with rationale
Preferred100%
Watch98.0–99.9%
Review< 98.0%
Dispositions traceable to clause/project
Preferred100%
Watch98.0–99.9%
Review< 98.0%
Accepted changes reflected in controlled draft
Preferred100%
Watch—
Review< 100%