Name the basis
Connect the decision to observable criteria and the project’s actual eligibility requirements.
How we qualify
Qualification belongs to the study, not a universal badge.
A useful qualification decision shows the criteria used, evidence reviewed, checks performed, unresolved limits, and review date. It should never ask a client to rely on a vague badge.
Scope of the decision
Qualification answers a bounded question.
Does the evidence available support the observable eligibility criteria for this study? It is not a universal promise about identity, employment, expertise, or credentials.
Illustrative qualification record
Study Q-024DecisionStudy qualified
SelectionPending
- Study criteria
- Responsibility, operating context, experience, recency, and stated exclusions
- Evidence reviewed
- Profile context, screener responses, and follow-up notes tied to the criteria
- Disclosure
- Named checks, unresolved limits, and the date of review
- Project-specific
- The criteria follow the research question, audience, method, and exclusions.
- Check-specific
- Self-reported, screened, confirmed, and externally validated information stay distinct.
- Time-specific
- Useful dates and unresolved limits remain visible when the record is presented.
01
02
03
Evidence path
Build the record before making the claim.
Six steps move from target definition to participation. The three phases keep the evidence, decision, and handoffs easy to inspect.
01 Define
Turn the research need into a target and a realistic sourcing plan.
- 01
Translate the brief
Convert the research question into observable eligibility criteria, useful disqualifiers, and clear areas of uncertainty.
- 02
Choose the sourcing mix
Use the professional community, targeted recruitment, or both according to incidence, timing, and audience behavior.
- 01
02 Evaluate
Gather study-specific evidence and resolve ambiguity through human review.
- 03
Screen for the study
Ask questions that test responsibilities, experience, recency, and fit rather than relying on a job title.
- 04
Review the evidence
A human reviewer resolves ambiguous answers and determines what further confirmation is appropriate.
- 03
03 Disclose
Present the decision with its evidence, limits, and participation status.
- 05
Disclose what was checked
Present qualified profiles with a plain-language record of the checks performed and any relevant limits.
- 06
Confirm participation
Coordinate expectations, scheduling, confidentiality reminders, attendance, and agreed replacement support.
- 05
Use precise labels
Use the narrowest accurate label.
Profile confirmed, identity validated, study qualified, and client selected answer different questions. A label should appear only when the corresponding process exists.
| Term | What it can mean | What it does not imply |
|---|---|---|
| Profile confirmed | The professional reviewed or updated named self-reported profile information. | A current title alone does not establish project eligibility. |
| Identity validated | A defined identity check was completed using an approved method. | It does not confirm employment, expertise, or study fit unless those checks are also stated. |
| Background validated | Relevant employment or professional history was checked to a stated standard. | The source, scope, date, and unresolved limits should remain visible. |
| Study qualified | Available evidence supports the observable eligibility criteria for this specific project. | Qualification is project-specific and does not guarantee client selection or participation. |
| Credential verified | A named license, certification, or credential was confirmed through an appropriate source. | Only the named credential and verification scope should be represented. |
| Client selected | The client selected the professional from the profiles available for the study. | Selection is distinct from screening, validation, and confirmed attendance. |
Disclosure standard
Make the decision inspectable.
Evidence should travel with the profile. A client should be able to see what supports the decision, what was checked, and what remains unresolved.
Name the check
Distinguish self-reported information, screening evidence, direct confirmation, and external validation.
Name the limit
Keep ambiguity and unavailable evidence visible so the client can evaluate the record appropriately.
Define the evidence
Tell us what the research must be able to rely on.
Share the audience, decision, method, and risk. We will use that context to frame observable criteria, useful checks, and open questions for review.