Assessment and Evidence Principles

Purpose

This standard explains the principles LII applies when it accepts and judges evidence for professional certification. It tells candidates what makes evidence strong, what makes it weak, and how assessors reach their judgement.

Scope

These principles apply to all evidence in all four assessment components (Portfolio, Professional Practice Review, Strategic Project and Assessment Panel) at every professional level, CEL to CXL.

The central principle: demonstrated, not described

LII distinguishes between two kinds of evidence.

• Described evidence is the candidate's own account of what they did, thought or achieved, without independent substantiation.
• Demonstrated evidence shows what happened through means that do not depend only on the candidate's account. It includes documents produced at the time, independent judgements by people with relevant perspective and no stake in the outcome, measurable outcomes that can be verified, and work the candidate produced as part of their leadership: plans, decisions, communications and reports.

Assessors base their judgement primarily on demonstrated evidence. A submission made up mainly of description does not meet the standard, however well written. Description still has value: it gives context and shows reflection. It supports demonstrated evidence; it cannot replace it.

No format is automatically one or the other. A testimony letter that contains the writer's own independent judgement is demonstrated evidence; one that repeats the candidate's account is not.

Four tests of evidence quality

Every item of evidence is judged against four tests. Strong evidence meets all four. They are cumulative: strength on one does not make up for weakness on another.

1. Authenticated. The evidence belongs to the candidate's own leadership, in a real professional context, with no fabrication, ghostwriting or use of other people's work. Evidence that cannot be authenticated carries no weight.
2. Recent. The evidence reflects the candidate's current capability. Evidence must come mainly from the 36 months before the readiness check, with most of it from the last 24 months. Evidence more than 72 months old can be used only as background and is not weighted. Some levels set narrower windows. Evidence is dated by when the leadership happened, not when the document was written.
3. Outcome-focused. The evidence shows what changed because of the candidate's leadership: in other people's capability, team effectiveness, organisational performance or stakeholder engagement. Activity logs, attendance records and task lists are not outcome evidence.
4. Corroborated. The evidence is supported by independent substantiation: testimony from people who saw the leadership directly, documents produced at the time, measurable outcomes or third-party verification. Exceptional claims without corroboration carry less weight.

Sufficiency

Before a decision can be made, a submission must:

• address all five capability domains;
• include all four assessment components;
• consist mainly of demonstrated evidence;
• include independent corroboration of the main claims in each domain.

Meeting these requirements allows assessment to proceed. It does not determine the result. Where a submission falls short in a way that more evidence could fix, the assessor issues a request for specified further evidence. This is not a fail.

The candidate's own accountability

Evidence must relate to the candidate's own leadership accountability, at the scope of the level applied for. Evidence of a team's success shows the candidate's capability only where it shows the candidate's part in it. Candidates identify and evidence leadership they have already exercised; they are not expected to create leadership experiences for the assessment.

Confidential material

Candidates may redact evidence for reasons of confidentiality, personal data, commercial sensitivity, legal restriction or organisational policy. Redaction does not reduce the weight of an item, provided the item still shows what it is, when it happened, its context, the candidate's role and contribution, its relevance and its outcome. Where redaction affects verification, LII may ask for confirmation from the organisation, a witness or another approved route. Candidates are not required to disclose more confidential information than is needed.

How assessors judge

• Evidence only. Assessors judge only the evidence submitted against the published standard. They may not use personal knowledge of the candidate, their employer or any programme, for or against the candidate.
• Level-specific. Evidence is judged at the level applied for. Evidence that would be strong at a lower level is not enough for a higher one unless it shows the higher scope.
• Professional judgement. Where evidence sits near a boundary between levels, assessors use structured professional judgement against the level descriptors.
• Consistency. Every judgement must be explainable by reference to the evidence and the standard. Decisions are moderated and monitored for consistency.
• Human decisions. AI tools may support administrative and checking tasks. They never decide a readiness outcome, a grade or a certification. Any flag a tool raises is a prompt for the assessor to check the evidence, not a finding.

What makes evidence strong or weak

Governance

These principles are derived from Clauses 6 and 7 of the LII Leadership Capability Standard (LII-STD-001) and the LII Leadership Capability Assessment Specification (LII-ASM-001). Detailed scoring criteria are maintained as controlled assessment documents to protect the integrity of assessment.

Status of this public edition

This public edition states the requirements communicated to candidates and users of LII certification. LII maintains more detailed controlled documents for assessment administration and quality assurance. Those documents must be consistent with this public edition. If LII identifies a material inconsistency between this public edition and a controlled document, the inconsistency is resolved before the disputed provision is relied on in any assessment decision. No requirement is applied retrospectively to a candidate.

Related public documents

• Leadership Certification Framework
• Certification Level Descriptors
• Quality Assurance and Moderation