Why AI-written competency examples are a risk, and why the desk writes nothing
Because the example is evidence of your own competence, and the regulators treat it that way. Engineers and Geoscientists BC's April 2024 guide forbids using AI or third parties to create or embellish workplace examples and warns of investigation and discipline. Ontario's August 2026 guide requires examples prepared by you and makes anyone using AI tools responsible for accuracy and authenticity. The desk therefore writes nothing.
What each regulator says
- Shared system: EGBC's guide forbids using AI tools or other people to write or dress up your workplace examples, and warns that a fraudulent application can lead to an investigation and discipline.
- Ontario: PEO requires every example to be your own, truthful and accurate, and says that anyone who uses AI or other tools to help draft carries full responsibility for accuracy and authenticity.
- Alberta: APEGA's guide asks for clear, specific examples from your own work and says that copying a job description or repeating the indicators is not enough. It does not address AI tools directly.
Summaries in our own words of the guides named under Sources. The shared system's statement comes from the section on selecting, drafting and saving examples; Ontario's from the section on providing work examples; Alberta's from the section on providing examples.
Why generated text fails even when it is allowed
An assessor reads dozens of examples. Generated text tends toward the same shape: general claims, the competency's own vocabulary played back, outcomes with no number and no owner. That is exactly what the guides warn against when they ask for specific actions, your own decisions and no repetition of the indicators.
Your validator also has to confirm the example. A paragraph you did not write is one they may not recognise as your work, and a validator who hesitates is a bigger problem than an example that is a little plain.
What the desk does instead
It counts characters against the limit, flags blank lines, checks ratings, averages, months and validator rules with the rule cited, and lays your own text out for printing and pasting. It has no AI, no phrase bank, no sample paragraphs, no autocomplete and no rewrite button, and the browser's own autocomplete is switched off on every example box. The checklist beside each competency describes structure only. Open the competency desk to see it.
Worked example: what the desk will and will not do
| Task | The desk | You |
|---|---|---|
| Choose the situation | Shows which records and validators are free | Decide |
| Write the Action | Counts characters, flags blank lines and bullets | Write every word |
| Check the limit | Compares with 1,800 in Alberta, or your own number | Cut to fit |
| Rate the competency | Compares with the minimum and the category average | Choose the rating |
| Improve the wording | Nothing | Rewrite, or ask your validator for feedback |
Common mistakes
- Pasting a job description into a chatbot and submitting what comes back.
- Paying a writing service to draft examples in a jurisdiction that forbids third-party help.
- Assuming a tool that rephrases is safer than one that writes. The shared system's guide covers embellishing too.
- Treating Ontario's responsibility rule as permission: the text still has to describe your real work accurately.
Draft and check your own examples
The desk holds your experience records, validators and a Situation, Action and Outcome editor for every competency, with live counts against the limit and the rating, category and validator checks, each with its rule cited. Everything stays in this browser.
Frequently asked questions
Can I use a spell checker?
The guides we read do not address spell checkers. The desk leaves your browser's spell check on and does nothing else to your text; if you are unsure, ask your regulator.
Can a mentor review my examples?
Feedback from a validator or supervisor is part of the process, and the shared system's guide suggests agreeing with your validators that each example meets the minimum. Having someone else write or embellish the example is what the shared system forbids.
Will the desk ever add an AI feature?
No. It would conflict with the shared system's rule and with the purpose of the assessment.
Sources
Last reviewed 27 September 2026 against:
- Competency Assessment Guide for Engineering Applicants and Trainees, Engineers and Geoscientists BC, revised April 2024. Used for: the prohibition on AI and third parties creating or embellishing examples, and the disciplinary warning
- Applicant Guide: Navigating Competency-Based Assessment, Professional Engineers Ontario, August 2026. Used for: examples prepared by you and responsibility for accuracy when AI tools are used
- APEGA Competency-Based Assessment Guide for Professional Engineering Applicants, APEGA, V7.4, 18 July 2026. Used for: specific examples of your own work; copying job descriptions or indicators is not enough
This guide is our own summary of the published documents, not legal advice and not a finding about your application; the regulator's assessors decide. If it disagrees with the current documents, the documents win. Competency Desk is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected to Professional Engineers Ontario, APEGA, Engineers and Geoscientists BC, Engineers Canada or any other engineering regulator.