Standard pilote v0.9 · Pilier 3

La gouvernance commence après l’approbation de la politique.

Je peux voir qui est responsable, savoir que les engagements disposent de ressources, influencer les décisions en sécurité et faire confiance au contrôle exercé par la direction.

Proposition de travail complète — pas encore un standard de certification approuvé.

Les exigences nécessitent une revue de gouvernance, athlète, finance, clinique, protection, vie privée, juridique, mesure et opérations. P3.5 reste une proposition de taxonomie contrôlée.

Examiner la méthode

Traduction experte encore requise

La navigation et les résultats attendus sont traduits. Le texte normatif détaillé reste en anglais jusqu’à validation clinique et juridique de la traduction.

Mise à jour candidate · revue du Toolkit du CIO

Ce que le delta v0.3 proposé change ici

Cette couche de modification contrôlée complète la banque de rédaction v0.2. Elle renforce la littératie, les parcours, la planification, le retour sûr, les garanties du dépistage, l’entourage, l’inclusion et les transitions sans rendre obligatoire un outil du CIO.

Source primaire retrouvée et contrôléeRevue experte nominative encore requise

modifications proposées

nouvelles questions notées

questions révisées

exigences ajustées

Projet uniquement : aucun de ces éléments ne peut servir à la certification avant la traçabilité des revues clinique, expérience vécue, vie privée, accessibilité, mesure et gouvernance.

Ouvrir la source du CIO

Le texte source contrôlé est actuellement en anglais. La traduction normative française reste un flux d’approbation distinct.

Examiner les éléments contrôlés proposés

MM-IOC-07P3 · P3.1Proposed

Require one understandable map of the full prevention-to-care pathway.

Modification proposée

The operating framework should show how prevention and education connect to routine support, recognition, referral, urgent response, specialist care and follow-up. Each step should have an owner, a practical route and a clear handoff. This is a map of the system, not one combined clinical/safeguarding procedure.

Libellé de la question

Which statement best describes whether the organisation has mapped the full pathway from prevention and athlete education through routine support, referral, urgent response and follow-up, with clear owners and handoffs?

Routage / applicabilité

Universal; the depth and format scale with organisation size.

Impact preuves / audit

Add pathway map, responsibility table, routine/urgent branch cross-references and one traced example.

Revue requise

Clinical; safeguarding; operational; small-organisation review.

Pages source

37, 49-51

MM-IOC-08P3 · P3.5Proposed

Make the organisational mental-health action plan explicit.

Modification proposée

Leadership should review a current action plan showing priorities, owners, resources, timeframes, progress measures, known gaps, overdue actions and decisions. Do not create a second parallel planning document if the existing P3.5 implementation/risk/action overview can hold these fields.

Libellé de la question

Which statement best describes the current mental-health and wellbeing action plan reviewed by leadership, including priorities, owners, resources, timeframes, measures, known gaps and overdue actions?

Routage / applicabilité

Universal; small organisations may use a short action table rather than a formal strategy document.

Impact preuves / audit

Current plan, leadership review record, overdue-action escalation and evidence that measures affect decisions.

Revue requise

Governance; operational; measurement.

Pages source

49-51

MM-IOC-09P3 · P3.4Proposed

Add qualified multidisciplinary input where proportionate, without forcing a committee on small clubs.

Modification proposée

For larger, multi-site or governing organisations, the participation plan should include athlete input and access to suitably qualified mental-health, medical, public-health or safeguarding advice. Small organisations may meet this through external consultation rather than a standing committee.

Libellé de la question

Which statement best describes whether athlete and workforce participation is complemented by the qualified advice needed for the decisions being made?

Routage / applicabilité

Higher depth for federations, NOCs, large multi-site organisations and organisations providing clinical services.

Impact preuves / audit

Terms of reference or consultation record; expertise and conflict checks; leadership response.

Revue requise

Governance; clinical; lived experience.

Pages source

50, 52

condition préalable

règles transversales

indicateurs de travail

exigences cumulatives

modules selon le risque

Objectif

Politique, gouvernance et responsabilité

La santé mentale et le bien-être sont gouvernés comme de vraies responsabilités organisationnelles, avec des propriétaires, des droits de décision, des ressources, de la participation, une supervision et des actions correctives.

Architecture de travail approuvée

P3.5 est approuvé dans l’architecture de travail. Il gouverne la réception des preuves, le risque et les actions correctives, tandis que P5.5 porte la mesure du climat et l’amélioration culturelle.

Condition préalable

AP-01 · Governance scope, legal authority and accountability map

Before MindsMelt can assess governance, the organisation must show exactly what it governs, who has legal and practical authority, where responsibility is delegated, who can make decisions, what is resourced and how leadership receives protected evidence.

Preuves minimales

Scope statement
constitution or authority basis
organisation and committee charts
responsibility and decision-rights matrix
delegation terms
reporting calendar
conflict and recusal process
finance and resource ownership
update record

Non suffisant

An organisation chart without decision rights
a list of committees
“the board is responsible” without a named owner
a group-wide claim where subsidiaries or member bodies are not controlled

Conséquence proposée : Major where authority, scope or accountability is materially unclear. Critical where deliberate misrepresentation, concealment or conflicted control creates serious current risk.

CR-01

Purpose, scope and decision rights

Every policy, report and public claim must relate to a defined scope, owner and decision authority.

CR-02

Accountability cannot be delegated away

The governing body and executive leadership may delegate tasks, but remain accountable for ensuring the system functions.

CR-03

Proportionality by function

Small organisations may combine roles or use external support; essential ownership, oversight, participation and continuity functions still apply.

CR-04

Independence and conflict control

Commercial, coaching, selection, employment, political or provider interests must not improperly control clinical, safeguarding, complaints, audit or athlete-voice decisions.

CR-05

Participation without tokenism or retaliation

Athlete and workforce participation must be voluntary, accessible, representative enough for the purpose and connected to decisions and feedback.

CR-06

Protected information for governance

Leadership receives the minimum system-level information needed to govern. Raw clinical, case or identity data are not routine governance material.

CR-07

Evidence over policy; action over reporting

Documents, dashboards and meetings do not demonstrate conformity unless responsibilities, decisions and improvements are visible in practice.

CR-08

Credible resource commitments

The organisation must match commitments to realistic people, time, finance, systems and backup; lack of resources is not proof that a responsibility is inapplicable.

CR-09

Controlled “not applicable”

A requirement may be routed out only through verified scope facts and a recorded rationale, not organisational preference or convenience.

P3.1

Conservé · remappé

Cadre politique et opérationnel de bien-être

Les engagements sont clairs, actuels et reliés à des responsabilités, des parcours et des actions réels.

Construit

Policy quality, operating coherence, implementation ownership and change control.

Obligation centrale

The organisation shall maintain and implement a current mental-health and wellbeing policy and operating framework for the assessed scope, defining commitments, responsibilities, boundaries, connections to other systems, communication, implementation and review.

Limite

P3.1 owns the governing framework and its implementation connection. Pillars 1, 2, 4 and 5 own the substantive support, competence, safety and culture controls. P3.5 owns performance oversight and corrective action.

Bronze

P3.1-BR

Bronze — Current, accessible policy and operating framework

Operating governance baseline

Universal foundationMandatory operating-baseline requirementAll organisations; content and form are proportionate to scope, risk and jurisdiction.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall maintain an approved, current and accessible mental-health and wellbeing policy and operating framework for the assessed scope. It shall define purpose, populations and activities covered, principles, responsibilities and decision rights, routine support and crisis/safeguarding connections, confidentiality and information boundaries, provider and contractor responsibilities, communication, approval, review triggers and routes for raising concerns or proposing improvement.

Intention : To ensure that people and leaders can understand what the organisation has committed to, who owns each part and how the policy connects to usable systems.

Preuves minimales acceptables

approved policy and operating framework
exact scope and exclusions
responsibility matrix
links to support, training, crisis, safeguarding, privacy and culture procedures
accessible athlete/staff versions
approval and version history
communication evidence

Preuves non suffisantes

a generic wellbeing statement
a copied policy with another organisation’s language
policy covering employees but not athletes
old names and contacts
a document stored only in a board folder
values without decision rights or operating links

Méthodes d’audit

Document review · compare policy with AP-01 and operational procedures · route-finding test with staff/athletes · verify approval and named owners · check that public descriptions match the framework.

Validité

Policy and framework reviewed within the previous 12 months as a pilot default and after a serious incident, material legal/clinical change, leadership change or scope change.

Écart proposé

Major if absent, materially incomplete, inaccessible or inconsistent with the assessed scope. Critical where the organisation deliberately misrepresents the framework or the policy authorises or conceals serious harmful practice.

CAPA et décision

Major corrected before any badge. Closure requires approved wording, current ownership, communication and operating links — not only a newly drafted document.

Revue experte

Governance, clinical/safeguarding boundary, legal/privacy, operational, accessibility and lived-experience review.

Sources

[S01–S04, S07–S12, S17, S18]

Argent

P3.1-SI

Silver — Implemented framework with owners, plans and records

Implementation records exist

Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; implementation detail scales with organisational complexity.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall implement the policy through a controlled plan that assigns accountable and responsible owners, actions, resources, deadlines, communication, dependencies and evidence of completion. The framework shall be integrated into onboarding, provider and partner arrangements, operational planning and relevant decision processes, with version control and a defined method for managing exceptions and overdue actions.

Intention : To demonstrate that the policy drives organised work rather than relying on informal enthusiasm or one individual’s memory.

Preuves minimales acceptables

implementation plan
RACI or responsibility matrix
action and dependency tracker
onboarding and communication records
procedure/contract updates
exception and overdue-action log
meeting decisions
implementation evidence from multiple parts of scope

Preuves non suffisantes

a launch presentation
a list of aspirations without owners or dates
every action assigned to one wellbeing lead
plans not reflected in provider contracts or team operations
actions marked complete without evidence

Méthodes d’audit

Sample implementation actions from policy to evidence · interview accountable and responsible owners · test an overdue action and exception · compare sites or teams · verify that changes reached affected people.

Validité

Current operating cycle; plan updated after material decisions and reviewed at a defined cadence, normally at least quarterly for active implementation during the pilot.

Écart proposé

Major for systemic non-implementation, unclear ownership, unmanaged overdue safety actions or framework/operation contradiction. Minor for isolated record gaps where implementation is otherwise demonstrated.

CAPA et décision

Major closed before Silver/Gold/Diamond. Closure requires completed or safely re-planned implementation with evidence and leadership acceptance of residual risk.

Revue experte

Governance, operations/programme management, clinical/safeguarding, procurement/contract and audit review.

Sources

[S01–S06, S09–S12]

P3.1-GO

Gold — Evidence-led policy review and controlled improvement

The framework is monitored and improved

Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold or Diamond; review must cover the full assessed scope and routed contexts.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall review and improve its policy and operating framework using protected evidence from implementation, access, competence, incidents, complaints, athlete/workforce participation, culture findings, provider performance, audits and legal or professional changes. It shall record the rationale for changes, assess unintended effects, control versions and verify that revised requirements are implemented across the assessed scope.

Intention : To ensure that the framework changes when evidence shows it is incomplete, inaccessible, conflicting or ineffective.

Preuves minimales acceptables

formal policy review
evidence and stakeholder inputs
change log and decision rationale
legal/clinical review where needed
impact and accessibility assessment
implementation plan for revisions
withdrawal of superseded versions
cross-site verification

Preuves non suffisantes

reapproving the same policy with a new date
changing wording without investigating the underlying failure
consultation with only senior staff
version history without proof that old practice stopped
reacting only after reputational pressure

Méthodes d’audit

Trace at least one material finding through review, decision, policy change, communication and implementation · compare versions · sample affected groups/sites · assess whether unintended effects and conflicts were considered.

Validité

At least annual evidence-led review and after serious incidents, repeated findings, major service or scope change, new jurisdiction or material legal/professional development.

Écart proposé

Major for repeated evidence ignored, obsolete framework retained, material inconsistency across scope or changes not implemented. Critical for deliberate concealment or policy manipulation intended to protect reputation or powerful individuals over safety.

CAPA et décision

Major requires evidence-led review, approved changes, implementation and effectiveness checking before Gold/Diamond.

Revue experte

Governance, measurement, legal/privacy, clinical/safeguarding, accessibility, lived-experience and audit review.

Sources

[S01–S06, S09–S12, S16–S18]

Diamond

P3.1-DI

Diamond — Independently verified policy-to-practice coherence

Embedded and independently corroborated

Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; sampling proportionate to size, structure, jurisdictions and delegated delivery.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall demonstrate through independent audit that the wellbeing policy and operating framework are consistently implemented across the certified scope, understood by relevant people, connected to operational systems and updated in response to evidence. The review shall sample governance decisions, implementation, provider and member-body arrangements, protected athlete/workforce experience and the closure of material policy gaps. No open major or critical finding may remain.

Intention : To substantiate that Diamond governance is more than sophisticated documentation and that the same framework operates beyond the headquarters or flagship programme.

Preuves minimales acceptables

independent cross-scope sample
protected athlete/staff interviews
decision and version records
implementation evidence
member/provider samples
material-change and corrective-action trail
independent closure of major findings

Preuves non suffisantes

auditor reliance on policy review alone
interviews selected or observed by management
sampling only the best-resourced team
no testing of delegated bodies
perfect documents contradicted by people who cannot explain the framework

Méthodes d’audit

Independent document and implementation sampling · protected interviews · trace policy-to-practice across sites/roles · test a material change · review controls over delegated and outsourced delivery.

Validité

Normally previous 12–24 months, adjusted for operating history and change volume; framework, appointments and material arrangements current at decision date.

Écart proposé

Major for inconsistent implementation, inaccessible framework or unreliable change control. Critical for falsification, obstruction, retaliation or deliberate concealment of material governance failure.

CAPA et décision

All major and critical findings independently closed before certification; effectiveness must be demonstrated across the relevant scope.

Revue experte

Independent governance/audit reviewer, lived-experience reviewer, clinical/safeguarding and legal/privacy expertise as routed.

Sources

[S01–S06, S07–S12, S16–S18]

P3.2

Conservé · remappé

Responsabilité de la direction, autorité et gestion des conflits

Les dirigeants assument le système et les décisions protégées ne sont pas contrôlées par des intérêts de performance, commerciaux ou politiques.

Construit

Governing-body and executive accountability, decision authority, escalation, independence and conflict management.

Obligation centrale

The organisation shall assign clear governing-body and executive accountability for mental wellbeing and Standard conformity, provide operational owners with sufficient authority and access, and identify, declare and manage conflicts that could distort safety, support, complaints, clinical judgement, athlete voice or assurance.

Limite

P3.2 owns governance accountability and conflict controls. P4 owns safeguarding/crisis case decisions; P1 owns clinical independence; scheme rules own MindsMelt auditor and certification-decision independence.

Bronze

P3.2-BR

Bronze — Named governing-body and executive accountability

Operating governance baseline

Universal foundationMandatory operating-baseline requirementAll organisations; one person may hold multiple roles only where authority, competence, capacity and conflicts are controlled.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall designate a named governing-body member or equivalent and a named executive owner who are accountable for mental-health and wellbeing governance and Standard conformity. Their responsibilities, authority, reporting access, backup, escalation rights and relationship with clinical, safeguarding, operational and athlete-representation functions shall be documented and communicated. Conflicts and recusal routes shall be defined.

Intention : To prevent diffuse accountability and ensure that the people expected to act can reach decision-makers and obtain resources.

Preuves minimales acceptables

appointment or terms of reference
role descriptions
decision-rights and escalation matrix
reporting line
backup arrangement
conflict and recusal declaration
communication to staff/athletes
current contact information

Preuves non suffisantes

“the board is accountable” without a named owner
a wellbeing lead with no executive access
the same person as only safeguarding route and subject of complaint
honorary patron
responsibility assigned to a consultant without internal authority

Méthodes d’audit

Verify appointments and authority · interview governing-body and executive owners · test escalation from an operational owner · review conflicts and backup · compare role description with actual decisions.

Validité

Appointments and authority current at decision date and updated promptly after change; conflict declarations reviewed at least annually and when circumstances change.

Écart proposé

Major if no accountable owner, no viable backup, no escalation authority or unmanaged structural conflict exists. Critical where a conflict is knowingly used to suppress safety action, care, reporting or evidence.

CAPA et décision

Major corrected before any badge. Closure requires valid appointment, authority, conflict control and demonstrated access — not only a name added to an organigram.

Revue experte

Governance, legal/conflict, safeguarding/clinical independence, operational and lived-experience review.

Sources

[S01, S02, S05, S07–S12, S16, S18]

Argent

P3.2-SI

Silver — Operating leadership oversight and escalation cycle

Leadership receives and acts on protected information

Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; cadence and form are proportionate to risk and operating cycle.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall operate a documented leadership oversight cycle in which accountable owners receive protected information on implementation, risks, serious incidents, complaints, access barriers, capacity, athlete/workforce participation, audits and overdue actions; make or escalate decisions; assign resources and corrective action; and record rationale, conflicts, recusal and follow-up. Operational owners shall have direct access for urgent or materially unresolved matters.

Intention : To demonstrate that named accountability results in informed decisions rather than ceremonial ownership.

Preuves minimales acceptables

board/committee calendar
protected dashboard or reports
agendas and minutes
decision and action records
escalation examples
conflict/recusal logs
follow-up
evidence of direct urgent access

Preuves non suffisantes

wellbeing appears once a year as an awareness update
raw clinical or case files sent to the board
minutes say “noted” with no decision
executive owner never meets operational owners
all information filtered by performance leadership

Méthodes d’audit

Sample reports to decisions and follow-up · interview leadership and operational owners · test an escalation scenario · assess whether information is sufficient but minimised · review conflicts and recusal in practice.

Validité

Evidence from current operating year, normally at least two governance cycles during the pilot; urgent escalation arrangements current and tested through real or simulated use.

Écart proposé

Major for absent or ineffective oversight, blocked escalation, repeated non-decisions or unmanaged conflicts. Critical for deliberate interference, retaliation or suppression of material information.

CAPA et décision

Major closed before Silver/Gold/Diamond through a functioning cycle and evidence of decisions, not only a new meeting schedule.

Revue experte

Governance, privacy/data minimisation, safeguarding/clinical, operational and audit review.

Sources

[S01, S02, S05–S12, S16–S18]

P3.2-GO

Gold — Risk-based challenge, conflict control and accountability review

Leadership tests whether its own governance is effective

Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold or Diamond; includes delegated bodies and material commercial or performance conflicts.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The governing body shall actively challenge the organisation’s mental-wellbeing risks, implementation, resources, serious patterns and corrective actions; test whether delegated accountability and escalation work; review conflicts involving leadership, selection, employment, providers, sponsors and reputation; and evaluate the effectiveness, workload and independence of accountable roles. Material unresolved risks shall be recorded, owned and time-bound.

Intention : To move from receiving reports to exercising informed judgement and holding powerful functions accountable.

Preuves minimales acceptables

board challenge recorded in minutes
risk and conflict reviews
accountability/role evaluation
escalation or recusal decisions
unresolved-risk register
member/provider oversight
leadership development or role changes following review

Preuves non suffisantes

minutes that repeat management reports
board discussion only after public controversy
no review of powerful conflicts
accepting “no incidents” as evidence of safety
evaluating the wellbeing lead without asking whether leadership enabled the role

Méthodes d’audit

Trace board challenge on a material issue · examine conflicts and recusal · sample delegated/member oversight · interview chair, executive and operational owner separately · review whether unresolved risks received decisions and resources.

Validité

At least annual effectiveness and conflict review, with more frequent review of serious active risks, material change or repeated findings.

Écart proposé

Major for passive oversight, repeated ignored risk, ineffective accountability or unmanaged material conflict. Critical for leadership interference, concealment, retaliation or knowing continuation of serious unsafe practice.

CAPA et décision

Major requires demonstrated governing-body challenge, conflict treatment, clear ownership and verified follow-up before Gold/Diamond.

Revue experte

Senior governance, risk, legal/conflict, athlete/lived-experience and assurance review.

Sources

[S01, S05–S12, S15–S18]

Diamond

P3.2-DI

Diamond — Independently verified leadership accountability and independence

Embedded and independently corroborated

Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; sampling includes the governing body, executive, operational owners and protected stakeholder evidence.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall demonstrate through independent audit that the governing body and executive leadership exercise effective accountability for mental wellbeing, provide authority and resources, receive appropriately protected information, challenge material risks and maintain conflict-safe separation from clinical, safeguarding, complaints, athlete-voice and assurance decisions. Protected participants shall be able to confirm that escalation and non-retaliation operate in practice. No open major or critical finding may remain.

Intention : To verify that leadership accountability survives power, reputation and performance pressure and is trusted beyond the boardroom.

Preuves minimales acceptables

independent board/governance review
protected interviews
decision and escalation samples
conflict and recusal records
leadership response to serious findings
delegated-body sample
independent closure of major findings

Preuves non suffisantes

self-evaluation only
auditor interviews only the chief executive
no testing of a conflict involving senior leadership
athlete representatives coached or monitored
board minutes supplied without decision evidence

Méthodes d’audit

Independent interviews and records · test escalation and recusal · compare leadership claims with operational and athlete evidence · sample a serious or uncomfortable decision · assess independence across the certified scope.

Validité

Normally previous 12–24 months; appointments, conflicts and material governance arrangements current at certification decision.

Écart proposé

Major for ineffective accountability, unreliable escalation or material conflict. Critical for witness interference, retaliation, falsification, obstruction or grave leadership-controlled harm.

CAPA et décision

All major and critical findings independently closed before certification; leadership effectiveness must be demonstrated through action and corroboration.

Revue experte

Independent governance/assurance reviewer, legal/conflict expertise, lived-experience and clinical/safeguarding expertise as routed.

Sources

[S01, S05–S12, S13–S18]

P3.3

Conservé · remappé

Ressources, capacité et résilience de mise en œuvre

Les engagements reposent sur des personnes, du temps, des financements, des systèmes et une continuité suffisants.

Construit

Resource adequacy, workforce capacity, operational resilience, equitable allocation and continuity.

Obligation centrale

The organisation shall assess and provide the financial, human, technical, contractual and time capacity required to deliver its wellbeing commitments across the assessed scope, monitor material gaps and maintain continuity when people, providers, funding or conditions change.

Limite

P3.3 owns whether delivery capacity exists and is governed. Pillar 1 tests support access; Pillar 2 tests competence; Pillar 4 tests safety readiness; P5 tests workload and environmental impact.

Bronze

P3.3-BR

Bronze — Minimum resource and capacity assessment

Operating governance baseline

Universal foundationMandatory operating-baseline requirementAll organisations; no fixed budget percentage or staffing model is required.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall identify the minimum people, competence, time, finance, technology, facilities, providers and backup required to meet its Pillar 1–5 and Minimum Safety Foundation commitments across the assessed scope. It shall record current capacity, known gaps, ownership, immediate priorities and how essential functions continue during absence, turnover, travel, funding interruption or provider failure.

Intention : To prevent organisations from making commitments that no one has the time, authority or practical means to deliver.

Preuves minimales acceptables

resource/capacity assessment
role time allocations
budget or equivalent resource decisions
provider and system costs
critical-function backup
vacancy/absence plan
gap and priority record
governing approval

Preuves non suffisantes

a total “wellbeing spend” without link to commitments
unpaid labour assumed indefinitely
a grant application treated as secured capacity
one clinician or safeguarding lead with no backup
budget approved but inaccessible to owners

Méthodes d’audit

Compare commitments to capacity · interview responsible owners · inspect time, finance and provider access · test a key-person absence scenario · assess unresourced gaps and leadership decisions.

Validité

Current operating year and updated after material scope, funding, workforce or provider change; key-person and provider continuity current at decision date.

Écart proposé

Major where essential commitments are materially unfunded, unstaffed or dependent on an unavailable person. Critical where leadership knowingly leaves a live safety function without viable capacity or conceals the gap.

CAPA et décision

Major corrected before any badge through real allocation, a proportionate external arrangement or a reduced and accurately described scope — not only future fundraising intent.

Revue experte

Finance/operations, workforce, clinical/safeguarding, small-organisation and lived-experience review.

Sources

[S01–S05, S07–S12, S17, S18]

Argent

P3.3-SI

Silver — Operational resourcing plan, workload and continuity

Resources are managed through the operating cycle

Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; includes paid staff, volunteers, contractors and delegated delivery.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall operate a resourcing and continuity plan linked to the assessed scope, implementation plan and risk profile. It shall define budget or equivalent resources, workload and role capacity, procurement and provider arrangements, systems and facilities, backups, vacancy and leave coverage, escalation for unmet demand and responsibility for monitoring delivery gaps. Material overload or capacity failure shall trigger action rather than informal absorption.

Intention : To demonstrate that capacity is actively managed and that continuity does not rely on personal sacrifice or undisclosed waiting and failure.

Preuves minimales acceptables

approved resourcing plan
budget/resource ledger
workload and role-capacity review
provider/service-level arrangements
rota/backup
vacancy and leave coverage
demand/capacity records
escalation and decisions
continuity test

Preuves non suffisantes

annual budget alone
overtime or volunteer goodwill as the continuity model
repeated waiting or missed actions with no escalation
provider contract with no capacity commitment
responsibility distributed without time allocation

Méthodes d’audit

Sample resource decisions and delivery records · compare workload/demand to capacity · test leave or provider failure · review procurement and backups · interview role holders about actual time and authority.

Validité

Current operating cycle; resource and continuity review normally at least twice yearly and after material failure or change during the pilot.

Écart proposé

Major for systemic overload, no viable continuity, repeated capacity failure or hidden scope inequality. Minor for isolated documentation gaps where capacity and backup remain demonstrated.

CAPA et décision

Major closed before Silver/Gold/Diamond through capacity, scope, provider or workflow change and evidence that the route now operates.

Revue experte

Finance, workforce, operations, procurement, clinical/safeguarding and audit review.

Sources

[S01–S05, S09–S12]

P3.3-GO

Gold — Demand, equity, resilience and resource improvement

Capacity is monitored and improved across the scope

Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold or Diamond; analysis must address differences between teams, roles, sites and participant groups.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall evaluate whether resources and delivery capacity remain adequate, equitable and resilient by analysing demand, waiting, workload, turnover, provider failure, accessibility, utilisation boundaries, serious incidents, unmet need, site or programme variation and future risk. Leadership shall reallocate resources, redesign delivery or limit scope where evidence shows commitments cannot be met, and shall verify whether the action improved access, safety and reliability.

Intention : To ensure that resources follow real need and risk rather than organisational prestige, historical allocation or the loudest team.

Preuves minimales acceptables

annual capacity and equity review
demand/waiting and workload data
provider failure/continuity trends
cross-site comparison
future-demand forecast
resource reallocations
business-continuity testing
effectiveness review

Preuves non suffisantes

spend increasing without service improvement
comparing only utilisation
flagship-team provision masking other gaps
no analysis of volunteer burnout
carrying unfunded commitments year after year
reducing access without transparent scope change

Méthodes d’audit

Review analysis and allocation decisions · compare groups/sites · trace a capacity failure to corrective action · interview finance/operations and affected roles · test whether reduced or changed scope was communicated honestly.

Validité

At least annual capacity/resilience review and after major funding, provider, workforce, scope or demand change; trend evidence normally previous 12 months.

Écart proposé

Major for persistent inequity, ignored overload, repeated continuity failure or knowingly unrealistic commitments. Critical where deliberate resource withdrawal or conflict creates grave danger or retaliation.

CAPA et décision

Major requires verified resource, delivery or scope correction and an effectiveness check before Gold/Diamond.

Revue experte

Finance/operations, workforce wellbeing, accessibility/equity, clinical/safeguarding, risk and lived-experience review.

Sources

[S01–S06, S09–S12, S16–S18]

Diamond

P3.3-DI

Diamond — Independently verified adequacy and delivery resilience

Embedded and independently corroborated

Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; sampling reflects scale, operating model, funding and risk.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall demonstrate through independent audit that wellbeing commitments across the certified scope are matched by adequate and resilient people, time, finance, systems, providers and backups; that resource decisions respond to evidence and do not create unjustified inequality or performance-based disadvantage; and that continuity arrangements work during realistic disruption. Protected role-holder and athlete evidence shall be included. No open major or critical resource finding may remain.

Intention : To verify that Diamond commitments remain usable when funding, personnel, provider or operational pressure changes.

Preuves minimales acceptables

independent capacity/resource sample
protected interviews with role holders and users
finance and workload decisions
continuity exercise
provider and site comparison
allocation rationale
independent closure and effectiveness evidence

Preuves non suffisantes

high total expenditure
budget labels without access to funds
auditor reviews only central functions
no evidence from overloaded roles or lower-status squads
resilience assumed because no disruption occurred

Méthodes d’audit

Independent financial/operational and cross-scope sampling · continuity scenario · compare commitments to delivery · protected interviews · examine difficult allocation decisions and resource changes.

Validité

Normally previous 12–24 months, including at least one current resource cycle; critical arrangements current at certification decision.

Écart proposé

Major for material inadequacy, inequity or unreliable continuity. Critical for concealment, falsification, retaliation or knowing operation without essential safety capacity.

CAPA et décision

All major and critical findings independently closed before certification; adequacy and resilience must be demonstrated in operation.

Revue experte

Independent governance/finance/operations reviewer, workforce and lived-experience input, clinical/safeguarding expertise as routed.

Sources

[S01–S06, S07–S12, S16–S18]

P3.4

Conservé · remappé

Voix des athlètes et du personnel, participation et co-conception

Les personnes concernées peuvent influencer le système de façon sûre, significative et sans représailles.

Construit

Safe and meaningful stakeholder participation, representation, co-design, feedback closure and protection from tokenism or retaliation.

Obligation centrale

The organisation shall provide accessible, voluntary and conflict-safe ways for athletes and relevant workforce groups to participate in the design, implementation and review of wellbeing policy and systems, ensure representation is appropriate to the decision, protect participants and record leadership response.

Limite

P3.4 owns participation in governance and design. P5.5 owns culture/climate assessment; P4 owns protected reporting; scheme rules own protected MindsMelt audit participation.

Bronze

P3.4-BR

Bronze — Safe and accessible participation route

Operating governance baseline

Universal foundationMandatory operating-baseline requirementAll organisations; methods must fit age, language, disability, status, scale and power dynamics.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall provide at least one accessible and voluntary route through which athletes and relevant staff or volunteers can contribute to the design or review of mental-health and wellbeing policy and systems. It shall explain the purpose, decision boundary, confidentiality and anonymity limits, how views will be used, how retaliation or performance disadvantage is prohibited and how participants will receive feedback.

Intention : To ensure that people affected by the system can influence it without having to make a complaint or rely on personal access to senior leaders.

Preuves minimales acceptables

participation route and guidance
invitation/communication
accessibility and conflict-safe alternatives
non-retaliation statement
purpose and decision boundary
feedback method
record of at least one current engagement or credible scheduled cycle

Preuves non suffisantes

a generic contact email
only coaches invited to speak for athletes
a survey with no feedback
representative appointed solely by management
mandatory “wellbeing feedback”
consultation linked to selection meetings

Méthodes d’audit

Walk through the route from athlete/staff perspective · review invitations and protections · interview organiser and participants where safe · verify feedback · assess whether powerful or excluded groups can participate.

Validité

Route current and continuously available or scheduled within the current operating year; refreshed after material change and communicated to new participants.

Écart proposé

Major where no safe participation route exists or participation is materially inaccessible or controlled by conflicted leadership. Critical for retaliation, intimidation, compelled participation or deliberate exposure of participants.

CAPA et décision

Major corrected before any badge through a functioning route, clear protections and evidence of use or a tested planned cycle.

Revue experte

Athlete/lived-experience, safeguarding, accessibility, governance and privacy review.

Sources

[S01–S04, S07, S09–S15, S17, S20]

Argent

P3.4-SI

Silver — Planned consultation, co-design and feedback closure

Participation influences real work

Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; engagement plan proportionate to scope and decision significance.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall operate a stakeholder participation plan that identifies when athlete and workforce input is required, which groups are affected, how participants are selected or recruited, what support or compensation may be appropriate, how minority and dissenting views are protected, who receives findings and how leadership records decisions and closes the feedback loop. Participation shall occur early enough to influence material design and review.

Intention : To move participation from occasional listening to a predictable part of policy and service decisions.

Preuves minimales acceptables

engagement plan
stakeholder map
selection/recruitment method
agendas/materials
consent and protection information
accessible formats
records of views and leadership response
“you said / we did / we did not” feedback
support/compensation decisions

Preuves non suffisantes

consultation after the decision is already made
only senior or medal-winning athletes
edited minutes that remove disagreement
participation counted by attendance only
no response where advice was rejected

Méthodes d’audit

Trace a material policy/service decision through participation, leadership consideration and feedback · review representation and dissent · interview participants separately · assess timing, support and confidentiality.

Validité

Current participation plan and evidence from the previous 12 months or current operating cycle; material decisions since last review must show participation rationale.

Écart proposé

Major for systematic tokenism, exclusion, unsafe recruitment or failure to respond. Critical for retaliation, coercion, witness manipulation or using participation to identify critics.

CAPA et décision

Major closed before Silver/Gold/Diamond through repeated or re-opened participation where necessary and documented leadership response.

Revue experte

Lived-experience/athlete representation, governance, safeguarding, accessibility, youth participation and audit review.

Sources

[S01, S07, S09–S15, S17, S20]

P3.4-GO

Gold — Representative participation with reach and influence reviewed

The organisation tests who is heard and what changes

Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold or Diamond; representation analysis is proportionate and does not require disclosure of unnecessary sensitive characteristics.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall evaluate whether athlete and workforce participation is representative enough for its decisions, reaches lower-power and underrepresented groups, is trusted and accessible, and influences outcomes. It shall identify participation gaps, power or retaliation concerns, repeated unresolved themes and decision areas lacking input; take corrective action; and verify whether participation and feedback improved.

Intention : To prevent highly visible consultation mechanisms from masking silence, exclusion or lack of influence.

Preuves minimales acceptables

participation reach and barrier review
protected demographic or role analysis where lawful
feedback on safety and influence
themes and dissent log
corrective actions
leadership decisions changed or explained
independent/alternative routes for senior-conflict issues

Preuves non suffisantes

high response rate without checking who could not respond
publishing identifiable comments
assuming low criticism means trust
counting an athlete commission that has no access to decisions
no analysis of repeated rejected recommendations

Méthodes d’audit

Review participation data and protections · compare groups/teams/sites · sample a dissenting recommendation · protected interviews · verify corrective action and leadership feedback · test independent route.

Validité

At least annual participation-effectiveness review and after material controversy, leadership change, serious complaint or major policy redesign.

Écart proposé

Major for persistent exclusion, untrusted mechanisms, ignored systemic themes or ineffective alternatives. Critical for retaliation, surveillance, manipulation or deliberate silencing.

CAPA et décision

Major requires redesigned participation, protected re-engagement and evidence of improved reach or influence before Gold/Diamond.

Revue experte

Lived-experience, representation/inclusion, safeguarding, privacy/measurement and governance review.

Sources

[S01, S06–S15, S17, S20]

Diamond

P3.4-DI

Diamond — Independently corroborated athlete voice integrated into governance

Embedded and independently verified

Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; age-appropriate and conflict-safe models permitted, including external or federation-level mechanisms for small organisations.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall demonstrate through independent audit that athlete voice is meaningfully integrated into governance through a representative mechanism with defined access, information, support, confidentiality and retaliation protection; that leadership responds to recommendations; and that protected athletes and workforce participants confirm they can raise differing views and influence decisions without performance or employment disadvantage. No unresolved major or critical participation finding may remain.

Intention : To substantiate that Diamond organisations share governance power sufficiently for affected people to shape the systems intended to protect them.

Preuves minimales acceptables

athlete/workforce mechanism terms
election or selection method
rights and access
support/compensation
protected interview sample
recommendations and leadership response
conflict/recusal
evidence of changed decisions
independent closure

Preuves non suffisantes

organisation-selected testimonials
representative dependent on coach approval
management present in interviews
athlete commission with no wellbeing remit or decision access
only successful recommendations sampled

Méthodes d’audit

Independent protected interviews · review representation and mechanism independence · trace recommendations · test access to governing body · assess retaliation protection and alternative routes · sample excluded or lower-power groups.

Validité

Normally previous 12–24 months; mechanism, representation and protections current at certification decision.

Écart proposé

Major for hollow, unrepresentative or unsafe participation. Critical for retaliation, manipulation, interference with interviews or deliberate exposure of participants.

CAPA et décision

All major and critical findings independently closed before certification; effective participation must be corroborated, not merely redesigned on paper.

Revue experte

Independent lived-experience/athlete-governance reviewer, safeguarding, youth participation, accessibility and assurance expertise.

Sources

[S01, S07–S15, S17, S20]

P3.5

Indicateur de travail approuvé

Supervision, risque, action corrective et transparence

La direction surveille les faiblesses, agit sur les preuves et explique honnêtement les progrès et limites.

Construit

Implementation oversight, psychosocial and organisational risk governance, performance evaluation, corrective action, effectiveness and transparent reporting.

Obligation centrale

The organisation shall monitor and evaluate the implementation, risks and effectiveness of its mental-health and wellbeing system; maintain accountable corrective action; escalate material findings; and communicate appropriate scope, progress, limitations and learning without exposing personal or protected information.

Limite

P3.5 owns the governance process that receives and acts on evidence. P5.5 owns culture/climate measurement; P4 owns incident review; each pillar owns its operational performance. Scheme rules control MindsMelt public award claims.

Bronze

P3.5-BR

Bronze — Implementation, risk and action oversight

Operating governance baseline

Universal foundationMandatory operating-baseline requirementAll organisations; format is proportionate to scale but must cover the assessed scope.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall maintain a current implementation, risk and action overview for its mental-health and wellbeing commitments. It shall identify material obligations, owners, status, known risks and gaps, serious dependencies, complaints or findings requiring governance attention, corrective actions, deadlines and escalation. Leadership shall review the overview at a defined cadence using protected system-level information.

Intention : To ensure that leadership can see whether commitments are on track and where action is overdue or risk is increasing.

Preuves minimales acceptables

implementation/action register
wellbeing or psychosocial risk entries
owners and deadlines
protected governance report
review schedule
overdue/escalation record
evidence of leadership decisions
links to incidents, complaints and audits without unnecessary identities

Preuves non suffisantes

traffic-light dashboard with no definitions
“all green” based on self-report
risk register that omits wellbeing
raw case details
actions without owners or due dates
issues repeatedly carried forward as “noted”

Méthodes d’audit

Review register quality and governance use · sample an overdue or material risk · compare with known incidents/findings · interview owner and leader · check data minimisation and escalation.

Validité

Current and updated at defined intervals; normally reviewed at least quarterly during the pilot and promptly after serious incident or material finding.

Écart proposé

Major if no meaningful oversight exists, material known risks are absent or overdue safety actions are unmanaged. Critical for deliberate concealment, falsification or suppression of serious information.

CAPA et décision

Major corrected before any badge through a functioning register, governance review and action on material gaps.

Revue experte

Governance, risk, measurement, privacy, clinical/safeguarding and audit review.

Sources

[S01–S06, S07–S12, S16–S18]

Argent

P3.5-SI

Silver — Operating measurement, reporting and corrective-action cycle

Leadership tests implementation and closes findings

Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; indicators and reporting burden proportionate to scope and risk.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall operate a defined monitoring, measurement and corrective-action cycle. It shall use relevant leading and lagging indicators to test implementation and access, document data definitions and limitations, analyse material exceptions, assign root and contributing-factor review where needed, approve corrective action, verify closure and report unresolved major risks to the governing body. Measures shall avoid unnecessary personal or clinical data and shall not treat low complaint or service-use numbers as proof of safety.

Intention : To distinguish genuine performance evaluation from activity counting and ensure that findings are independently challenged and closed.

Preuves minimales acceptables

indicator definitions
monitoring plan
protected reports
data-quality checks
exception analysis
finding/CAPA records
contributing-factor review
closure/effectiveness evidence
governing escalation
privacy/minimisation decisions

Preuves non suffisantes

training completion and utilisation as the whole dashboard
no denominator or scope
closing actions because a new policy exists
low complaint numbers presented as success
unverified self-reported closure
collecting diagnoses for board reporting

Méthodes d’audit

Sample indicators and source evidence · trace finding to contributing factors, action and closure · review data limitations · compare report with operational evidence · interview leadership and action owners.

Validité

Current reporting cycle; evidence normally previous 12 months; open actions current and overdue status visible.

Écart proposé

Major for unreliable reporting, ineffective CAPA, repeated overdue major actions or misleading indicators. Critical for falsification, evidence destruction, concealment or deliberate manipulation of findings.

CAPA et décision

Major closed before Silver/Gold/Diamond through corrected measurement, independently verified action and effectiveness evidence.

Revue experte

Measurement, audit/CAPA, governance, privacy and clinical/safeguarding review.

Sources

[S01–S06, S09–S12, S16–S18]

P3.5-GO

Gold — System evaluation, trend analysis and transparent improvement

Leadership evaluates effectiveness and communicates learning

Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold or Diamond; analysis must cover relevant groups, sites, providers and time periods.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall evaluate whether its wellbeing governance and systems achieve intended results by combining implementation, access, competence, culture, incident, complaint, participation, resource, provider and audit evidence; analysing trends, differences and unintended effects; testing corrective-action effectiveness; and reviewing emerging risks. It shall publish or communicate a proportionate system-level summary of scope, progress, material limitations and improvement without exposing personal, clinical, safeguarding or legally restricted information.

Intention : To create honest organisational learning and prevent dashboards from becoming internal reassurance or public marketing.

Preuves minimales acceptables

annual or equivalent system evaluation
triangulated evidence
trend and disparity analysis
emerging-risk review
effectiveness testing
leadership decisions
protected stakeholder feedback
public/participant summary
limitations and future actions

Preuves non suffisantes

only positive metrics
comparison without context
public report that omits material limitations
anonymisation too weak for small groups
annual report produced by communications without governance challenge
actions repeated without effectiveness review

Méthodes d’audit

Review evaluation design and evidence triangulation · sample a difficult or negative finding · compare public summary with internal evidence · test privacy and materiality decisions · assess leadership action and effectiveness.

Validité

At least annual evaluation and after serious systemic failure or major scope change; trend period normally sufficient to detect change, often 12–24 months.

Écart proposé

Major for misleading evaluation, ignored patterns, ineffective repeated CAPA or material omission from stakeholder communication. Critical for deliberate public deception, concealment or exposure of protected individuals.

CAPA et décision

Major requires corrected evaluation, leadership decision, effective action and proportionate correction of misleading communication before Gold/Diamond.

Revue experte

Measurement/evaluation, governance, communications, privacy/legal, lived-experience and audit review.

Sources

[S01–S06, S07–S12, S16–S19]

Diamond

P3.5-DI

Diamond — Independently verified governance effectiveness and accountability

Embedded, transparent and independently corroborated

Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; sampling covers governance, evidence quality, corrective action, public transparency and affected people.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall demonstrate through independent audit that its oversight and evaluation system produces reliable, protected and decision-useful evidence; identifies material risk and inequality; results in effective corrective action; and supports accurate communication of scope, progress and limitations. Auditors shall test data definitions, governance challenge, difficult findings, closure effectiveness, stakeholder experience and public statements. No open major or critical governance finding may remain.

Intention : To substantiate that Diamond leadership can detect, admit and correct weaknesses — including those that are uncomfortable or reputationally difficult.

Preuves minimales acceptables

independent performance/risk review
data and indicator sample
difficult finding and CAPA trace
protected participant evidence
public/internal consistency check
governing-body challenge
external or internal assurance results
independent closure

Preuves non suffisantes

self-assessment only
auditor tests only successful actions
public profile written without evidence reconciliation
no negative findings
indicators chosen solely because they improve
unresolved major actions hidden behind future plans

Méthodes d’audit

Independent evidence and data sampling · interview governing body, owners and protected participants · trace serious findings · compare public claims · test member/site consistency and corrective-action effectiveness.

Validité

Normally previous 12–24 months and current decision information; public scope/status accurate at certification decision.

Écart proposé

Major for unreliable evaluation, ineffective governance action or misleading transparency. Critical for falsification, obstruction, retaliation, evidence manipulation or deliberate concealment of material harm.

CAPA et décision

All major and critical findings independently closed before certification; any misleading public information corrected and effectiveness verified.

Revue experte

Independent governance/assurance and measurement reviewer, privacy/legal, communications, lived-experience and clinical/safeguarding expertise as routed.

Sources

[S01–S06, S07–S12, S16–S19]

Preuves et assurance

Les documents du conseil montrent l’intention. L’audit trace les décisions dans la pratique.

Governance scope, authority and appointments

Current at decision date and updated promptly after leadership, legal-entity, delegation or scope change.

Wellbeing policy and operating framework

Reviewed within 12 months and after serious incident, material finding, legal/clinical change or major scope change.

Implementation plans and action registers

Current; active actions reviewed at a defined cadence, normally at least quarterly during the pilot.

Governing-body and executive oversight

Representative records from the previous 12 months, including difficult decisions and escalation where available.

Resource and capacity review

Current operating year and after material funding, workforce, provider or scope change.

Athlete/workforce participation

Current participation route plus evidence from the previous 12 months or current operating cycle.

Risk, performance and CAPA records

Current status visible; normally previous 12–24 months for Gold/Diamond trend and effectiveness review.

Public or stakeholder reporting

Most recent reporting cycle and corrected promptly after material change or identified inaccuracy.

Diamond corroboration

Normally covers 12–24 months, adjusted for organisational history, size, evidence volume and material change.

Document and decision review

Whether policies, terms, reports, minutes, resources and actions are coherent and attributable.

Trace test

Whether a commitment, risk, recommendation or finding led to an actual decision, implementation and effectiveness check.

Leadership and owner interviews

Whether accountability, authority, challenge, information boundaries and escalation work in practice.

Protected athlete/workforce interviews

Whether participation, non-retaliation, implementation and access to decision processes are trusted.

Cross-scope sampling

Whether member bodies, sites, squads, countries and lower-profile programmes receive the same applicable governance floor.

Resource and continuity test

Whether commitments remain deliverable during realistic absence, funding or provider disruption.

Public-claim reconciliation

Whether published scope, progress and limitations match internal evidence and pathway/certification status.

Principes de participation protégée

Participants are invited through a route that does not depend solely on coaching, selection or line-management approval.
The organisation does not choose every interviewee, receive raw answers or attend protected interviews.
Participation is voluntary and people understand confidentiality limits, including immediate safety or legal exceptions.
Sampling considers lower-power, temporary, development, injured, deselected, remote, volunteer and underrepresented groups where relevant.
A single credible disclosure of current danger overrides numerical corroboration rules and activates the appropriate safeguarding or crisis route.
Minors and young people require an expert-approved, age-appropriate consent, assent and safeguarding protocol.
The audit records system-level findings and minimises identifiable personal information.
Retaliation or attempts to identify, coach, influence or penalise participants are critical scheme-integrity concerns.

Validité des preuves

La preuve expire lorsque l’autorité, le périmètre ou le risque change.

Governance scope, authority and appointments

Current at decision date and updated promptly after leadership, legal-entity, delegation or scope change.

Wellbeing policy and operating framework

Reviewed within 12 months and after serious incident, material finding, legal/clinical change or major scope change.

Implementation plans and action registers

Current; active actions reviewed at a defined cadence, normally at least quarterly during the pilot.

Governing-body and executive oversight

Representative records from the previous 12 months, including difficult decisions and escalation where available.

Resource and capacity review

Current operating year and after material funding, workforce, provider or scope change.

Athlete/workforce participation

Current participation route plus evidence from the previous 12 months or current operating cycle.

Risk, performance and CAPA records

Current status visible; normally previous 12–24 months for Gold/Diamond trend and effectiveness review.

Public or stakeholder reporting

Most recent reporting cycle and corrected promptly after material change or identified inaccuracy.

Diamond corroboration

Normally covers 12–24 months, adjusted for organisational history, size, evidence volume and material change.

Classification des écarts

Les conséquences suivent le risque réel.

Observation

The requirement is met, but a credible improvement opportunity exists.

Conséquence type : Does not block the stage.

Minor

An isolated or limited governance lapse that does not materially undermine accountability or create immediate risk.

Conséquence type : Time-bound correction or monitoring under approved scheme rules.

Major

A missing or ineffective governance control, systemic non-implementation, significant capacity or participation failure, unmanaged conflict or unreliable oversight.

Conséquence type : Blocks the relevant stage until independently closed where required.

Critical

Current serious danger, retaliation, deliberate concealment, evidence falsification, witness interference, unlawful harmful disclosure or leadership-controlled obstruction.

Conséquence type : Immediate safety/scheme action; normally refuse, suspend or revoke pending approved process.

Routage contrôlé

Un socle de responsabilité, des preuves proportionnées au contexte.

RA-01

Small and volunteer-led organisations

May combine roles and use external expertise, but must demonstrate governing access, realistic workload, conflict-safe alternatives, continuity and an exact scope. A one-page policy may be acceptable; absent authority or capacity is not.

RA-02

Federations, member bodies, franchises and multiple sites

Must define which entity controls what, minimum delegated requirements, local accountability, central monitoring, escalation, corrective action and public scope. Membership alone does not prove control.

RA-03

Public bodies, Olympic committees and sport governing bodies

Must map statutory, ministerial, electoral, public-funding and sports-autonomy interfaces; protect operational and clinical decisions from improper political or commercial influence; and meet applicable transparency duties.

RA-04

Minors, youth academies and age-appropriate participation

Must provide meaningful youth participation with consent/assent and safeguarding protections, avoid adult tokenism, define guardian roles and preserve confidential alternatives appropriate to age and law.

RA-05

Outsourced providers, partners and joint delivery

Contracts must define responsibilities, governance information, qualifications, complaints, data, service levels, incidents, audit access, failure and termination. Outsourcing delivery does not outsource accountability.

RA-06

In-house or commissioned clinical services

Requires clinical-governance authority, professional independence, supervision, adverse-event oversight, data separation and clear limits on what governing bodies receive.

RA-07

Digital systems, athlete data and artificial intelligence

Requires athlete-centric data governance, purpose and lawful basis, DPIA or equivalent where appropriate, vendor/algorithm oversight, access and retention controls, bias review, human accountability and no covert selection use.

RA-08

Events, short programmes and temporary workforces

Requires a time-bounded governance map, host/partner responsibilities, temporary role induction, rapid escalation, current resources, incident and complaint transfer, and post-event review.

RA-09

Funding, sponsorship and commercial dependency

Must record restricted funds, continuity risk, sponsor/provider conflicts, influence over priorities and what happens when funding ends. Commercial support cannot control protected decisions or assurance.

RA-10

Material change, leadership turnover and organisational crisis

Requires a controlled review after merger, restructuring, leadership change, major funding loss, serious incident, litigation, provider failure or scope expansion; responsibilities and public claims must be updated promptly.

Modèles organisationnels proportionnés

Small community club

Committee-approved framework; one accountable trustee or committee member and one operational owner; documented external advice; realistic resource plan; member/athlete feedback route; simple risk/action register.

Échouerait encore : No named owner; only the coach receives concerns; policy copied but unused; one volunteer carries every duty; no backup or feedback route.

Professional team or academy

Board/executive accountability; clinical/safeguarding independence; defined budget and workload; player/staff participation; provider and data governance; regular protected reporting and CAPA.

Échouerait encore : Performance leadership controls care or complaints; academy players excluded from voice; resources depend on selection status; raw health information reaches executives.

National federation

Central minimum requirements; member-body delegation and monitoring; athlete commission or representation; risk and resource comparison across pathways; escalation and corrective powers.

Échouerait encore : Claims cover clubs it does not oversee; only national-team provision is assessed; member failures not escalated; athlete commission has no access or protection.

International federation or Olympic body

Multi-jurisdiction governance and addenda; independent representation; conflict and political/commercial controls; global resource and implementation oversight; transparent scope and limitations.

Échouerait encore : Headquarters policy assumed to operate globally; language and regional gaps ignored; decision-makers conflicted; public claims exceed sampled scope.

Event organiser or short programme

Defined temporary governance, owners, host/partner duties, budget, reporting, participant input, handover and post-event review.

Échouerait encore : Reliance on venue or federation without agreement; temporary workforce excluded; no ownership after the event; no review or transfer of open concerns.

Plan du questionnaire

Le formulaire candidat n’est pas l’audit.

Questionnaire responses route evidence and audit work; they do not replace governance records, protected interviews or independent sampling.

Fourchette : 24–32 organisation-facing items for Pillar 3 within the controlled 120-item master bank, plus conditional routing and separate audit protocols.

Eligibility and scope

4–6 items

Confirm entity authority, assessed scope, delegation, accountable owners and material-change flags.

Core stage claims

10–12 items

Test the active-stage obligations across policy, authority, resources, participation and oversight.

Evidence and exceptions

5–7 items

Capture named records, validity dates, gaps, conflicts, overdue actions and controlled not-applicable rationales.

Risk routing

5–7 conditional items

Activate federation, youth, clinical, data/AI, outsourcing, funding, event or material-change addenda.

01 · Document request list

02 · Auditor trace-test plan

03 · Protected athlete/workforce interview protocol

04 · Finding and CAPA record

Revues requises

Governance and sport-governance

Indicator boundaries, governing-body duties, delegation, conflicts and proportionality.

Athlete and lived experience

Participation safety, representation, power, retaliation, feedback and real-world credibility.

Finance and operations

Resource adequacy, workload, continuity, small-organisation feasibility and provider governance.

Clinical, safeguarding and privacy

Information boundaries, independence, serious incidents, board reporting and routed clinical/data controls.

Measurement and audit

Indicators, evidence validity, performance evaluation, sampling, severity and corrective-action closure.

Legal and jurisdiction

Entity authority, public bodies, employment/volunteer duties, data, minors and local governance requirements.

Cognitive walkthrough

Test the model with 3–5 different organisations before loading it as a formal framework version.

Décisions ouvertes

01
Validate the approved P3.5/P5.5 boundary during governance and measurement review.
02
Set a proportionate minimum governing-body reporting cadence.
03
Decide the Diamond athlete-representation model and acceptable small-organisation equivalent.
04
Define when participation time, expenses, training, accessibility and independent advice are funded.
05
Create a resource-adequacy judgement method without arbitrary budget percentages or staffing models.
06
Set conflict thresholds for disclosure, mitigation, recusal and structural separation.
07
Define public-transparency content and privacy/materiality boundaries.
08
Validate the proposed 12-month, quarterly and 12–24-month evidence periods.
09
Set federation/member-body scope and sampling controls.
10
Calibrate major and critical governance failures and same-application closure rules.

Liste de préparation

L’organisation peut-elle prouver que la responsabilité atteint la pratique ?

20 références soutiennent ce modèle de travail. Leur utilisation reste soumise aux revues indiquées pour chaque exigence.

We can state exactly which entity, programmes, sites, countries and delegated bodies are included and excluded.
Our wellbeing policy is current, accessible and connected to operational procedures and responsibilities.
People can find the policy or a plain-language version and understand how it affects them.
A named governing-body owner and executive owner have authority, backup and direct escalation routes.
Conflicts involving leadership, selection, employment, providers, sponsors or reputation are declared and managed.
Leadership receives protected system-level evidence and records decisions and follow-up.
We have assessed the people, time, finance, systems, providers and backup needed for every stated commitment.
Critical functions do not depend on one unavailable or overloaded person.
Capacity and continuity are reviewed after material funding, workforce, provider or scope change.
Athletes and relevant staff have a voluntary, accessible and conflict-safe way to influence policy and systems.
We engage people early enough to influence decisions and explain what changed, what did not and why.
We test whose voices are missing and protect lower-power, dissenting and underrepresented participants.
We maintain a current implementation, risk and action overview with owners, dates and escalation.
Our indicators test implementation and effectiveness, not only activity or low complaint numbers.
Corrective actions address contributing factors, are independently challenged where needed and include effectiveness checks.
Public statements match the assessed scope, pathway stage and actual evidence.
We communicate material limitations and improvements without exposing personal or protected information.
Independent reviewers could sample governance beyond headquarters or the flagship team.
Protected athletes, staff and role holders could describe how accountability, participation and escalation work in practice.
There are no open major or critical Pillar 3 findings.

Le pilier 3 est désormais structurellement complet.

P3.5 et sa frontière avec P5.5 sont approuvés dans l’architecture de travail. Les vingt exigences sont reliées au framework v1.2 ; viennent ensuite la revue experte et le développement contrôlé de l’instrument.

Aider à revoir le modèle Toutes les exigences