The review pack has grades. It rarely has the attempt.

Programme-review problem

A polished submission hides the decision that the review needed.

Programme review already has grades and completion. It often lacks the attempt: the choice under constraint, the follow-up, the revision, the gap.

Shared Footprint is the shareable view of selected practice, including gaps. Recordings live with Study Sessions. Programme Leaders own keep-or-stop—this page is the evidence problem for that meeting.

Boundary: practice records for human review only—not certified competence, and not analytics packs sold as open assurance proof.

Fit check

Who review evidence is for — and who should walk away.

If your only success metric is “the pack has completion %,” stop here. Completion is cheap. An attempt trail with visible gaps is not.

• Programme leaders & quality leads

  People who open a review pack and still cannot see the decision or follow-up that grades flatten—and need a bounded share before the next panel.

• Module & assessment owners

  Faculty who already run Story Quests, Socratic AI Interviews, or Study Sessions and want selected footprints in the meeting, including what is still missing.

• Wrong buyer jobs

  Open analytics dashboards as assurance proof, LMS/SIS replacement, credential wallets as the primary deliverable, or automatic competence certificates for examiners.

The loop

Collect attempts. Bound the share. Interpret in the review.

• Name the review and share boundary

  Lock one module, capstone, or cohort whose pack currently lacks attempts. Name one reviewer and what may be shared—including whether gaps are in scope. Output: a one-page share rule for that review only; no campus-wide analytics claim.

• Run the practice you already attached

  Learners sit the Story Quest, Socratic AI Interview, or Study Session you already own. Require stated conditions. Look for choice, follow-up, and revision—not a polished submission pasted in after the fact.

• Share a bounded footprint set

  Build Shared Footprints for the sample the panel will open. Include gaps if the review needs them. Recordings stay with Study Sessions. Do not widen into an open analytics pack claim on this leaf.

• Interpret in the meeting and decide

  Staff open the footprints in the review. Ask whether attempts showed behaviour grades miss, and whether share load is tolerable. Keep the evidence loop, retune the sample rule, or stop. ProfilEd does not assign competence.

Records reviewers can open

Attempts and selected shares. Not an open analytics product.

• Shared Footprint

  Selected evidence, including gaps. Practice evidence only—not verified competence.

• Study Sessions

  Recordings belong here, not as a separate competence score or open dashboard.

• Story Quests

  The choice under constraint—visible when the grade alone hides the trade-off.

• Socratic AI Interviews

  The follow-up on the record: what held when the question moved.

What you can open

Material for the review meeting. Not an assurance dashboard.

• Attempts

  Choices, explanations, and revisions from the selected modes—enough for staff to discuss without inventing a brochure percentage.

• Share boundary

  What was shared and what stayed private. Gaps can be included when the learner selects them. Institutions still own the examiner pack.

• Review material. Not certified competence or open analytics proof.

  ProfilEd supplies practice records for human review. It does not certify competence, replace institutional assessment, treat analytics packs as open proof, or score programmes for external examiners.

Next step

Bring one review whose pack currently has only grades.

Plan a focused pilot