# Competency Desk, full text

> Draft your competency-based assessment examples offline: Situation, Action and Outcome boxes with live character counts, rating and validator checks, and printable validator packets. Private, in your browser.

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. Competency Desk does not determine your assessment outcome; the regulator's assessors decide. Competency Desk never writes, rewrites or suggests example text. There is no AI, no phrase bank and no autocomplete: every word is yours. Everything below is our own summary of the published regulator guides; the guides and the live portals win if they differ. Site: https://competencydesk.app/

# The regulator profiles, as checked

Last reviewed 27 September 2026. Competency names and numeric minimums are the regulators'; the summaries are our own words, not the regulators' indicator text.

## Ontario (34 competencies)

Regulators: Professional Engineers Ontario. Last reviewed 27 September 2026.

### Experience

- Minimum 24 months, counted from the degree conferral date. PEO applicant guide (Aug 2026), Provide Experience Information: 24 months of engineering experience, counted from the date the four-year engineering degree was conferred.
- Pre-graduation months toward the minimum: 0 (confirmed). PEO applicant guide (Aug 2026), How Study-Related Experience is Considered: co-op and other undergraduate work before the degree is conferred does not count toward the 24 months, though it may support examples; eligible work during graduate study may count.

### Validators

- PEO applicant guide (Aug 2026), Assign Validators: several validators are allowed, but only one per competency, and every work example needs one.
- PEO applicant and validator guides (Aug 2026), Validator: for work done in Canada the validator must have held a P.Eng. licence in Canada, and been entitled to practise, when the work was done.
- PEO applicant guide (Aug 2026), Validator: for work outside Canada the validator should be a senior practitioner licensed in their own jurisdiction who can prove their qualifications.
- PEO applicant guide (Aug 2026), Validator: PEO assessors decide whether a family member is acceptable, case by case.
- PEO applicant guide (Aug 2026), Assign Validators: once validators are notified, the experience information can no longer be changed.

### Field limits

- Situation: 300 characters including spaces (confirmed). PEO CBA application form (Feb 2026) prints 300 / 1,650 / 300 per competency: a maximum of 300 characters for the Situation. The form does not say how line breaks count, so if the portal's counter differs, set the two-character line break or your own number in Settings.
- Action: 1,650 characters including spaces (confirmed). PEO CBA application form (Feb 2026) prints 300 / 1,650 / 300 per competency: a maximum of 1,650 characters for the Action taken. The form does not say how line breaks count, so if the portal's counter differs, set the two-character line break or your own number in Settings.
- Outcome: 300 characters including spaces (confirmed). PEO CBA application form (Feb 2026) prints 300 / 1,650 / 300 per competency: a maximum of 300 characters for the Outcome. The form does not say how line breaks count, so if the portal's counter differs, set the two-character line break or your own number in Settings.

### Position on AI and third-party help

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.

### Category 1: Technical competence (minimum average 3)

| Id | Competency | Minimum rating | What it is about (our summary) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1.1 | Regulations, codes and standards | 3 | Working knowledge of the codes, standards and regulations that govern your work, Canadian or an international counterpart, shown by using them in a real decision. |
| 1.2 | Technical and design constraints | 1 | Recognising the limits a design has to live within, such as materials, operations, cost, time and other disciplines, and shaping the design to fit them. |
| 1.3 | Risk management for technical work | 1 | Finding technical risks, their causes and their consequences, and putting measures in place to reduce them, kept separate from general public safety. |
| 1.4 | Application of theory | 1 | Using engineering theory and calculation to arrive at a design or a technical solution. |
| 1.5 | Solution techniques and results verification | 1 | Understanding the method behind a result, including software output, and checking that result independently before it is relied on. |
| 1.6 | Safety awareness | 3 | Knowing the safety rules that apply to your work and building safety into design, operation, maintenance and site activity. |
| 1.7 | Systems and their components | 1 | Understanding how the parts of a technical system interact and limit each other, and managing the system to get the result wanted. |
| 1.8 | Project and process life cycle | 1 | Exposure to the stages of a project or asset, from the first idea and feasibility through design, delivery, operation and retirement. |
| 1.9 | Peer review and quality control | 3 | Using checks, peer review and quality systems to confirm engineering work is right before anyone relies on it. |
| 1.10 | Engineering documentation | 1 | Turning design intent into drawings, specifications and reports, and reviewing documents that others prepared. |

### Category 2: Communication (minimum average 3)

| Id | Competency | Minimum rating | What it is about (our summary) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2.1 | Oral communication | 1 | Explaining technical and non-technical matters clearly out loud to colleagues, clients, contractors or members of the public. |
| 2.2 | Written communication | 1 | Writing technical documents, memos and reports that suit the person who has to read them. |
| 2.3 | Reading and comprehension | 3 | Reading technical material such as specifications, standards or contracts, working out what it requires, and acting on it. |

### Category 3: Project and financial management (minimum average 2)

| Id | Competency | Minimum rating | What it is about (our summary) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 3.1 | Project management principles | 1 | Awareness of scope, schedule, budget, resources and change on a project, and of what internal and external clients expect. |
| 3.2 | Level of responsibility | 1 | Taking on growing responsibility for planning and carrying out project work over time. |
| 3.3 | Expectations versus resources | 1 | Keeping schedule and budget expectations realistic for the people, money and materials actually available. |
| 3.4 | Finances and budgets | 1 | Understanding the money side of engineering work: budgets, estimates, cost comparisons, business cases and contracts. |
| 3.5 | Response to feedback | 1 | Asking for feedback, accepting criticism, and changing course when feedback or a scope change calls for it. |

### Category 4: Team effectiveness (minimum average 3)

| Id | Competency | Minimum rating | What it is about (our summary) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 4.1 | Working respectfully with others | 1 | Working respectfully with people from other disciplines and bringing their input into your engineering work. |
| 4.2 | Resolving differences | 1 | Helping a team through a disagreement toward a shared goal. |

### Category 5: Professional accountability (minimum average 3)

| Id | Competency | Minimum rating | What it is about (our summary) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 5.1 | Code of ethics | 3 | Applying the professional code of ethics in your jurisdiction, or its international counterpart, to a real decision at work. |
| 5.2 | Awareness of limitations | 1 | Knowing where your competence ends and asking for help, guidance or review when you reach that point. |
| 5.3 | Conflict of interest | 1 | Recognising a real or perceived conflict of interest and handling it properly. |
| 5.4 | Professional accountability | 1 | Understanding that engineers answer for their work through design, construction and inspection. |
| 5.5 | Use of stamp and seal | 1 | Understanding when an engineer's stamp or seal may be applied and what applying it means. |
| 5.6 | Strengths and weaknesses | 1 | Knowing your own strengths and weaknesses and how they affect the work you do. |

### Category 6: Social, economic, environmental and sustainability (minimum average 2)

| Id | Competency | Minimum rating | What it is about (our summary) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 6.1 | Public impacts and safeguards | 1 | Knowing the safeguards that protect the public and the ways to reduce a project's harm, including effects of a changing climate. |
| 6.2 | Engineering and the public | 2 | Understanding how engineering work benefits and affects the public, and responding to public concerns. |
| 6.3 | Role of regulatory bodies | 1 | Understanding why regulators and neighbouring professions exist and how they shape engineering practice, including regional and Indigenous requirements. |
| 6.4 | Sustainability and practice guidelines | 1 | Awareness of the sustainability provisions in the practice guidelines that apply to your field. |
| 6.5 | Promotion of sustainability | 1 | Considering sustainable options in your own engineering work and making the case for them. |

### Category 7: Personal continuing professional development (minimum average 3)

| Id | Competency | Minimum rating | What it is about (our summary) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 7.1 | Professional development activities | 1 | Taking part in formal and self-directed learning and in professional or technical activities. |
| 7.2 | Identifying training needs | 1 | Recognising the gaps in your knowledge and skills that need development. |
| 7.3 | Professional development plan | 1 | Having a plan to close your knowledge gaps and stay current in your field, and following it. |

### Notes

- The August 2026 guide sets a 24 month minimum from the degree conferral date. Earlier guides, and most advice online, still say 48 months with up to 12 pre-graduation months; the August 2026 guide replaces that.
- PEO's assessors alone decide readiness; your self-ratings and your validators' ratings are supporting information.
- The character limits (300, 1,650 and 300) are printed on PEO's CBA P.Eng. application form (February 2026); the guides mention a limit without a number. The form does not say how line breaks count.

### Sources

- [Applicant Guide: Navigating Competency-Based Assessment](https://www.peo.on.ca/sites/default/files/2026-04/cba-guide.pdf), Professional Engineers Ontario, August 2026, read 27 September 2026.
- [Validator Guide: Navigating Competency-Based Assessment](https://www.peo.on.ca/sites/default/files/2026-04/cba-validator.pdf), Professional Engineers Ontario, August 2026, read 27 September 2026.
- [Competency-Based Assessment P.Eng. Application Form](https://www.peo.on.ca/sites/default/files/2026-04/cba-application.pdf), Professional Engineers Ontario, February 2026, read 27 September 2026.

## Alberta (22 competencies)

Regulators: APEGA. Last reviewed 27 September 2026.

### Experience

- Minimum 48 months. APEGA CBA guide V7.4, Work Record Validator List and FAQ: at least 48 months of engineering experience supported by references; applications with less are declined.
- Pre-graduation months toward the minimum: 12 (unverified). APEGA's CBA guide says to leave out education and non-engineering periods but states no pre-graduation allowance. 12 months is an unverified default you can change in Settings.
- Recency: 7 years (required). APEGA CBA guide V7.4, Work Record Validator List: without acceptable experience in the last seven years, the Board of Examiners will require more experience.

### Validators

- APEGA CBA guide V7.4, FAQ on validators: at least three validators must be assigned in the CBAT or the application is declined; each must be used at least once, so one validator can cover up to 20 of the 22.
- APEGA CBA guide V7.4, Work Record Validator List: every employment period needs a validator (and a reference).
- APEGA CBA guide V7.4, Validators: Category 1 work done in Canada must be validated by a P.Eng. registered in Canada; some other licensees may be considered when their practice matches.
- APEGA CBA guide V7.4, Validators: Category 1 work outside Canada needs an equivalent practitioner (an equivalent degree and four years of experience); a validator not licensed in Canada sends a resume to APEGA.
- APEGA CBA guide V7.4, Validators and References: family members and relatives are not acceptable.
- APEGA CBA guide V7.4, FAQ: parts of a Situation may repeat, but each example must be distinct and whole examples must not be reused.

### Field limits

- Situation: 400 characters including spaces (confirmed). APEGA CBA guide V7.4 (18 July 2026), FAQ on example length: 400 characters including spaces, with no overflow.
- Action: 1,800 characters including spaces (confirmed). APEGA CBA guide V7.4 (18 July 2026), FAQ on example length: 1,800 characters including spaces, with no overflow. APEGA's competency page repeats the 1,800.
- Outcome: 400 characters including spaces (confirmed). APEGA CBA guide V7.4 (18 July 2026), FAQ on example length: 400 characters including spaces, with no overflow.

### Position on AI and third-party help

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.

### Category 1: Technical competence (minimum average 3)

| Id | Competency | Minimum rating | What it is about (our summary) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1.1 | Regulations, codes, and standards | 3 | Working knowledge of the codes, standards and regulations that govern your work, Canadian or an international counterpart, shown by using them in a real decision. |
| 1.2 | Technical and design constraints | none | Recognising the limits a design has to live within, such as materials, operations, cost, time and other disciplines, and shaping the design to fit them. |
| 1.3 | Risk management for technical work | none | Finding technical risks, their causes and their consequences, and putting measures in place to reduce them, kept separate from general public safety. |
| 1.4 | Application of theory | none | Using engineering theory and calculation to arrive at a design or a technical solution. |
| 1.5 | Solution techniques, results verification | none | Understanding the method behind a result, including software output, and checking that result independently before it is relied on. |
| 1.6 | Safety in design and technical work | 3 | Knowing the safety rules that apply to your work and building safety into design, operation, maintenance and site activity. |
| 1.7 | Systems and their components | none | Understanding how the parts of a technical system interact and limit each other, and managing the system to get the result wanted. |
| 1.8 | Project or asset life cycle | none | Exposure to the stages of a project or asset, from the first idea and feasibility through design, delivery, operation and retirement. |
| 1.9 | Quality assurance | 3 | Using checks, peer review and quality systems to confirm engineering work is right before anyone relies on it. |
| 1.10 | Engineering documentation | none | Turning design intent into drawings, specifications and reports, and reviewing documents that others prepared. |

### Category 2: Communication (minimum average 3)

| Id | Competency | Minimum rating | What it is about (our summary) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2.1 | Oral communication in English | 3 | Explaining technical and non-technical matters clearly out loud to colleagues, clients, contractors or members of the public. |
| 2.2 | Written communication in English | 3 | Writing technical documents, memos and reports that suit the person who has to read them. |
| 2.3 | Reading and comprehension in English | 3 | Reading technical material such as specifications, standards or contracts, working out what it requires, and acting on it. |

### Category 3: Project and financial management (minimum average 2)

| Id | Competency | Minimum rating | What it is about (our summary) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 3.1 | Project management principles | none | Awareness of scope, schedule, budget, resources and change on a project, and of what internal and external clients expect. |
| 3.2 | Finances and budget | none | Understanding the economic side of a project or part of one: budgets, cost estimates, cost comparisons and the money terms of contracts. |

### Category 4: Team effectiveness (minimum average 3)

| Id | Competency | Minimum rating | What it is about (our summary) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 4.1 | Promote team effectiveness and resolve or mitigate interpersonal conflict | none | Helping a team work well and dealing with interpersonal conflict early, fairly and professionally. |

### Category 5: Professional accountability (minimum average 3)

| Id | Competency | Minimum rating | What it is about (our summary) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 5.1 | Professional accountability | 3 | Owning your professional obligations: acting ethically, knowing your technical limits, handling conflicts of interest, understanding liability and the proper use of the seal. |

### Category 6: Social, economic, environmental and sustainability (minimum average 2)

| Id | Competency | Minimum rating | What it is about (our summary) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 6.1 | Protection of the public interest | none | Understanding how engineering work affects the public, and finding and reducing a project's adverse effects on people. |
| 6.2 | Benefits of engineering to the public | 2 | Understanding the value your work brings to the public and how public input makes a design better. |
| 6.3 | Role of regulatory bodies | none | Understanding why regulators other than APEGA exist in your field and how they protect people and the environment, beyond enforcing compliance. |
| 6.4 | Application of sustainability principles | none | Considering sustainable options in your work: resource use, environmental effects, long service life and maintenance. |
| 6.5 | Promotion of sustainability | none | Actively putting forward sustainable choices in your engineering work, for the project or for people and the environment. |

### Notes

- Version 7.4 of the guide (18 July 2026) lists its change as the removal of a Canadian requirement, yet it still lists eight Canadian-context competencies with their own minimums. They are encoded as printed.
- Only the eight Canadian-context competencies carry an individual minimum. Every category must still reach its average.
- APEGA warns that bullets and blank lines can overflow the box even under the character limit, and assessors cannot see text that overflows.

### Sources

- [APEGA Competency-Based Assessment Guide for Professional Engineering Applicants](https://www.apega.ca/docs/default-source/pdfs/cba-user-guide-engineers.pdf), APEGA, V7.4, 18 July 2026, read 27 September 2026.
- [Competencies and Indicators (engineers)](https://www.apega.ca/apply/membership/professional-member/work-experience/engineers/competency-based-assessment-tool/competencies-and-indicators), APEGA, web page, read 27 September 2026, read 27 September 2026.

## Shared system: BC and five other provinces (34 competencies)

Regulators: Engineers and Geoscientists BC, APEGS (Saskatchewan), Engineers and Geoscientists Manitoba, Engineers and Geoscientists New Brunswick, Engineers PEI, PEGNL (Newfoundland and Labrador). Last reviewed 27 September 2026.

### Experience

- Minimum 48 months. EGBC guide (Apr 2024), Components for Experience Reporting and Interim Validation: four years of experience is the requirement, covered by your validators.
- Pre-graduation months toward the minimum: 12 (unverified). EGBC guide (Apr 2024), Components for Experience Reporting: the employment history may include pre-graduation work such as co-op terms. The guide states no cap; 12 months is an unverified default you can change in Settings.
- Recency: 7 years (advised). EGBC guide (Apr 2024), Selecting, Drafting, and Saving Examples: where possible, examples should come from the last 7 years; check your regulator's currency rule.

### Validators

- EGBC guide (Apr 2024), Components for Experience Reporting and Selecting Validators: at least 4 validators, together covering at least four years of experience.
- EGBC guide (Apr 2024), Selecting Validators: one validator must be your supervisor, in the same or a related discipline.
- EGBC guide (Apr 2024), Selecting, Drafting, and Saving Examples: each example is assigned to one validator with direct knowledge of that work.
- EGBC guide (Apr 2024), Selecting Validators: ideally every validator is a professional engineer or equivalent; talk to your regulator if you cannot find registrants for all 34.
- EGBC guide (Apr 2024), Selecting Validators: validators not assigned to any competency still give overall feedback.

### Field limits

- Situation: 300 characters including spaces (unverified). The April 2024 guide gives no number. 300 is the figure a third-party writing service reports from the 2017 edition of the guide. Read the live limit in the system and set it in Settings.
- Action: 1,200 characters including spaces (unverified). The April 2024 guide gives no number. 1,200 is the figure a third-party writing service reports from the 2017 edition of the guide. Read the live limit in the system and set it in Settings.
- Outcome: 300 characters including spaces (unverified). The April 2024 guide gives no number. 300 is the figure a third-party writing service reports from the 2017 edition of the guide. Read the live limit in the system and set it in Settings.

### Position on AI and third-party help

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.

### Category 1: Technical (minimum average 3)

| Id | Competency | Minimum rating | What it is about (our summary) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1.1 | Regulations, codes and standards | 3 | Working knowledge of the codes, standards and regulations that govern your work, Canadian or an international counterpart, shown by using them in a real decision. |
| 1.2 | Technical and design constraints | none | Recognising the limits a design has to live within, such as materials, operations, cost, time and other disciplines, and shaping the design to fit them. |
| 1.3 | Risk management for technical work | none | Finding technical risks, their causes and their consequences, and putting measures in place to reduce them, kept separate from general public safety. |
| 1.4 | Application of theory | none | Using engineering theory and calculation to arrive at a design or a technical solution. |
| 1.5 | Solution techniques and results verification | none | Understanding the method behind a result, including software output, and checking that result independently before it is relied on. |
| 1.6 | Safety awareness | 3 | Knowing the safety rules that apply to your work and building safety into design, operation, maintenance and site activity. |
| 1.7 | Systems and their components | none | Understanding how the parts of a technical system interact and limit each other, and managing the system to get the result wanted. |
| 1.8 | Project and process life cycle | none | Exposure to the stages of a project or asset, from the first idea and feasibility through design, delivery, operation and retirement. |
| 1.9 | Peer review and quality control | 3 | Using checks, peer review and quality systems to confirm engineering work is right before anyone relies on it. |
| 1.10 | Engineering documentation | none | Turning design intent into drawings, specifications and reports, and reviewing documents that others prepared. |

### Category 2: Communication (minimum average 3)

| Id | Competency | Minimum rating | What it is about (our summary) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2.1 | Oral communication (English or French) | 3 | Explaining technical and non-technical matters clearly out loud to colleagues, clients, contractors or members of the public. |
| 2.2 | Writing (English or French) | 3 | Writing technical documents, memos and reports that suit the person who has to read them. |
| 2.3 | Reading and comprehension (English or French) | 3 | Reading technical material such as specifications, standards or contracts, working out what it requires, and acting on it. |

### Category 3: Project and financial management (minimum average 2)

| Id | Competency | Minimum rating | What it is about (our summary) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 3.1 | Project management principles | none | Awareness of scope, schedule, budget, resources and change on a project, and of what internal and external clients expect. |
| 3.2 | Level of responsibility | none | Taking on growing responsibility for planning and carrying out project work over time. |
| 3.3 | Expectations versus resources | none | Keeping schedule and budget expectations realistic for the people, money and materials actually available. |
| 3.4 | Finances and budgets | none | Understanding the money side of engineering work: budgets, estimates, cost comparisons, business cases and contracts. |
| 3.5 | Response to feedback | none | Asking for feedback, accepting criticism, and changing course when feedback or a scope change calls for it. |

### Category 4: Team effectiveness (minimum average 3)

| Id | Competency | Minimum rating | What it is about (our summary) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 4.1 | Working respectfully with others | none | Working respectfully with people from other disciplines and bringing their input into your engineering work. |
| 4.2 | Resolving differences | none | Helping a team through a disagreement toward a shared goal. |

### Category 5: Professional accountability (minimum average 3)

| Id | Competency | Minimum rating | What it is about (our summary) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 5.1 | Code of ethics | 3 | Applying the professional code of ethics in your jurisdiction, or its international counterpart, to a real decision at work. |
| 5.2 | Awareness of limitations | none | Knowing where your competence ends and asking for help, guidance or review when you reach that point. |
| 5.3 | Conflict of interest | none | Recognising a real or perceived conflict of interest and handling it properly. |
| 5.4 | Professional accountability | none | Understanding that engineers answer for their work through design, construction and inspection. |
| 5.5 | Use of stamp and seal | none | Understanding when an engineer's stamp or seal may be applied and what applying it means. |
| 5.6 | Strengths and weaknesses | none | Knowing your own strengths and weaknesses and how they affect the work you do. |

### Category 6: Social, economic, environmental and sustainability (minimum average 2)

| Id | Competency | Minimum rating | What it is about (our summary) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 6.1 | Public impacts and safeguards | none | Knowing the safeguards that protect the public and the ways to reduce a project's harm, including effects of a changing climate. |
| 6.2 | Engineering and the public | 2 | Understanding how engineering work benefits and affects the public, and responding to public concerns. |
| 6.3 | Role of regulatory bodies | none | Understanding why regulators and neighbouring professions exist and how they shape engineering practice, including regional and Indigenous requirements. |
| 6.4 | Sustainability and practice guidelines | none | Awareness of the sustainability provisions in the practice guidelines that apply to your field. |
| 6.5 | Promotion of sustainability | none | Considering sustainable options in your own engineering work and making the case for them. |

### Category 7: Personal continuing professional development (minimum average 3)

| Id | Competency | Minimum rating | What it is about (our summary) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 7.1 | Professional development activities | none | Taking part in formal and self-directed learning and in professional or technical activities. |
| 7.2 | Identifying training needs | none | Recognising the gaps in your knowledge and skills that need development. |
| 7.3 | Professional development plan | none | Having a plan to close your knowledge gaps and stay current in your field, and following it. |

### Notes

- Six regulators use the shared system. The data here is from EGBC's guide; the others may add their own rules, so check with yours.
- Only the eight Canadian environment competencies carry an individual minimum. Every category must still reach its average.
- The character limits are not printed in the April 2024 guide. The numbers here are unverified defaults from the 2017 edition.

### Sources

- [Competency Assessment Guide for Engineering Applicants and Trainees](https://www.egbc.ca/getmedia/da2f6fed-643a-4b17-8d9b-ca3a0441ff80/Engineering-Competency-Assessment-Guide.pdf), Engineers and Geoscientists BC, revised April 2024, read 27 September 2026.
- [Competency Assessment System, applicant information](https://www.competencyassessment.ca/Applicants), Engineers and Geoscientists BC (competencyassessment.ca), web page, read 27 September 2026, read 27 September 2026.
- [Sample competency report, validator view](https://www.apegs.ca/assets/competencyreport-sample-validator-view.pdf), APEGS, 2018 sample from the shared system, read 27 September 2026.

# How the engineering competency-based assessment works

URL: https://competencydesk.app/guide/how-the-competency-assessment-works/
Last reviewed: 27 September 2026

The competency-based assessment (CBA) replaces a count of years with evidence. You describe one real work example for each competency using a Situation, an Action and an Outcome, rate yourself on a 0 to 5 scale, and name a validator who knew your work. Each competency may carry its own minimum rating, and each category of competencies must reach a minimum average. The regulator's assessors read everything and give the ratings that count.

## The four things you submit

The details differ by regulator, but every version asks for the same four things:

1. An experience history: each role with employer, dates, country and what you were responsible for. It is also how the regulator checks the minimum months of experience.
2. One example per competency, written as Situation, Action and Outcome, in the first person, about work you did yourself.
3. A self-assessed rating from 0 to 5 for each competency.
4. A validator for each example: someone with direct knowledge of that work who confirms it and gives their own rating.

Ontario uses 34 competencies in 7 categories (Professional Engineers Ontario, Applicant Guide, August 2026). Alberta uses 22 in 6 categories (APEGA CBA guide, version 7.4, 18 July 2026). Six other regulators share one online system with 34 competencies in 7 categories, described in the Engineers and Geoscientists BC guide revised April 2024.

## The 0 to 5 scale and the minimums

Zero means no exposure; 5 means leading complex work without supervision. The guides describe 3 as roughly the point where you can take professional responsibility for work of moderate complexity. Nobody expects 5s, and APEGA notes that most applicants will not reach that level.

Two kinds of threshold apply. Some competencies have their own minimum: in Ontario the six professional standards competencies need 3 (6.2 needs 2) and the rest need 1; in Alberta and on the shared system, eight Canadian environment competencies carry their own minimum and the others have none. Every category must then reach its average, 3 for most categories and 2 for project and financial management and for the social, economic, environmental and sustainability category.

## Who decides

Your self-ratings and your validators' ratings are inputs. The assessors, volunteers or staff working for the regulator, read your examples and give the ratings that decide the outcome. Ontario's August 2026 guide says so directly: its assessors' ratings alone determine readiness. That is why the example text matters more than the number you give yourself.

Plan the whole thing before you open the portal. Ontario's guide says that once your validators are notified you can no longer change your experience information, and every regulator warns that revisions slow the process down. The [competency desk](https://competencydesk.app/desk/) lets you draft, count and check offline first.

## Worked example: a category that looks fine but fails

Take Ontario's Category 1, Technical competence, with ten competencies and a minimum average of 3. Suppose you rate the six professional standards competencies at their minimum of 3, rate four others at 3, and three at 2. The ten ratings add to 27, so the average is 2.70. The desk marks the category not met, even though every single competency passes its own minimum.

Raising one of the 2s to 3 gives 2.80, still not met. The category needs a total of 30 across ten competencies, so either all three 2s become 3s or some other competency has to be a genuine 4. That is the kind of arithmetic worth doing before you rate yourself in the portal, and before a validator sees a number you cannot support.

## Common mistakes

- Treating the self-rating as the result. The assessors rate your examples themselves.
- Checking each competency's minimum but not the category average, or the other way round.
- Writing about what the team did. Every guide asks for your own actions in the first person.
- Opening the portal and drafting there first, then finding the experience section locked once validators are notified.
- Relying on advice written for another regulator: the minimums, the number of validators and the months differ.

## Frequently asked questions

**How many competencies are there?**

34 in 7 categories in Ontario and on the shared system used by six regulators, and 22 in 6 categories in Alberta.

**Does a self-rating of 3 everywhere pass?**

It meets every individual minimum and every category average on paper, but the assessors rate your examples themselves, so the evidence in the text is what has to support the 3.

**Can one project cover many competencies?**

Yes. The guides allow the same project or situation for several competencies, as long as each example describes the actions specific to that competency.

## Sources

- [Applicant Guide: Navigating Competency-Based Assessment](https://www.peo.on.ca/sites/default/files/2026-04/cba-guide.pdf), Professional Engineers Ontario, August 2026. Used for: number of competencies, minimum ratings, category averages, the assessor's role, locked experience information
- [APEGA Competency-Based Assessment Guide for Professional Engineering Applicants](https://www.apega.ca/docs/default-source/pdfs/cba-user-guide-engineers.pdf), APEGA, V7.4, 18 July 2026. Used for: Alberta's 22 competencies, category averages, Canadian-context minimums, scoring levels
- [Competency Assessment Guide for Engineering Applicants and Trainees](https://www.egbc.ca/getmedia/da2f6fed-643a-4b17-8d9b-ca3a0441ff80/Engineering-Competency-Assessment-Guide.pdf), Engineers and Geoscientists BC, revised April 2024. Used for: the shared system's 7 categories, category minimums and the eight Canadian environment competencies

# How to structure a Situation, Action and Outcome example

URL: https://competencydesk.app/guide/situation-action-outcome/
Last reviewed: 27 September 2026

Use the Situation for context in two or three sentences, the Action for what you personally did and why, and the Outcome for the result and what it shows about the competency. Spend most of your characters on the Action. Write in the first person, name the specific codes, methods, documents or people involved, and tailor each example to the one competency it is meant to prove.

## Build one example in six steps

The same order works for every competency. Draft offline in the [competency desk](https://competencydesk.app/desk/), where each box counts against your regulator's limit.

1. **Pick the competency first.** Read the competency's description and decide what it is really asking you to show before you choose a project.
2. **Choose one real piece of your work.** Pick a single situation where you had responsibility and can describe your own decisions, not a whole job or a whole project.
3. **Write the Situation short.** Give the project, your role and the problem in a few sentences, leaving room for the Action.
4. **Write the Action as your decisions.** Describe what you did, how and why: the method, the code or standard, the check, the judgement, in the first person.
5. **Write an Outcome that proves the point.** State the result and connect it back to the competency, with a number where one is honest.
6. **Count, then cut.** Check each box against the limit including spaces, remove blank lines and repeated context, and read it as someone who has never seen the project.

## What belongs in each box

### Situation

Context only: the kind of project, your role, and the problem or decision you faced. APEGA's July 2026 guide asks for a brief overview; Ontario's August 2026 guide asks for enough background to picture where you worked. Project budgets and locations rarely help unless they explain the difficulty.

### Action

The heart of the example. Every guide describes it as usually the longest part. Describe the steps you took, the engineering judgement behind them, and the alternatives you considered. Name the standard, the calculation method, the software and how you checked it, the stakeholder you briefed. Point form is allowed in Alberta and on the shared system.

### Outcome

What changed because of what you did: a design approved, a defect caught, a cost avoided, a schedule held. Ontario's guide suggests quantifying where you can and relating the result to the competency.

## Your voice, your work

Write I, not we, even for team work: the assessor needs to know what you did. The shared system's guide warns against vague phrases like participated in or involved with. Ontario's August 2026 guide adds that examples must describe real work you personally completed, not hypothetical situations or colleagues' work.

Each competency deserves its own example. Alberta allows the same situation for several competencies but says whole examples must not be reused, and that the Action has to be specific to each competency. The desk warns when two competencies share identical Action text.

## Worked example: a character budget for each box

Before writing, split the limit. The table shows the limits the desk uses for each profile and a working budget: roughly one sentence of context per 100 characters of Situation, and most of the space in the Action. Alberta's numbers are confirmed in its July 2026 guide and Ontario's on its February 2026 application form; the shared system's are unverified until you read them in your portal.

Table: Field limits in the desk, characters including spaces

| Profile | Situation | Action | Outcome |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Ontario (34 competencies) | 300 | 1,650 | 300 |
| Alberta (22 competencies) | 400 | 1,800 | 400 |
| Shared system: BC and five other provinces (34 competencies) | 300 (unverified) | 1,200 (unverified) | 300 (unverified) |

A structure for an Alberta Action of 1,800 characters might be: one sentence restating your responsibility, three or four short paragraphs or points each naming a decision and the reason for it, and one sentence on how you checked your own work. That is a plan for the shape of the text; the words have to be yours.

## Common mistakes

- A Situation that tells the project's whole history and leaves no room for the Action.
- An Action that lists duties from a job description. Alberta says copying a job description is not enough.
- Repeating the competency's indicators back as sentences instead of describing what you did.
- An Outcome that says the project was a success without saying what your part changed.
- Several small examples squeezed into one box. Alberta asks for one strong example per competency.

## Frequently asked questions

**Can I use bullet points?**

Alberta and the shared system allow point form. Keep in mind that each bullet takes a full line of the box, and APEGA warns that bullets and blank lines can overflow the visible space before the character limit.

**Should I write in the past tense?**

Most applicants do, because the examples describe completed work. The guides ask for first person and specific actions; tense is your choice as long as it is consistent.

**Can the same project appear in many examples?**

Yes. Every guide allows it, provided each example describes the actions relevant to that competency. Alberta says whole examples must not be reused.

## Sources

- [Applicant Guide: Navigating Competency-Based Assessment](https://www.peo.on.ca/sites/default/files/2026-04/cba-guide.pdf), Professional Engineers Ontario, August 2026. Used for: Situation, Action and Outcome descriptions, first person, real work only, quantified outcomes
- [APEGA Competency-Based Assessment Guide for Professional Engineering Applicants](https://www.apega.ca/docs/default-source/pdfs/cba-user-guide-engineers.pdf), APEGA, V7.4, 18 July 2026. Used for: character limits, point form, one strong example per competency, no reuse of whole examples
- [Competency Assessment Guide for Engineering Applicants and Trainees](https://www.egbc.ca/getmedia/da2f6fed-643a-4b17-8d9b-ca3a0441ff80/Engineering-Competency-Assessment-Guide.pdf), Engineers and Geoscientists BC, revised April 2024. Used for: first person, avoiding vague phrases, Action as the longest part, point form

# Competency validators: who qualifies and how many you need

URL: https://competencydesk.app/guide/validators-who-and-how-many/
Last reviewed: 27 September 2026

A validator is someone with direct knowledge of the work in an example who confirms it and rates it. Each competency gets exactly one validator everywhere. Beyond that the rules differ: Alberta needs at least three validators assigned, the shared system needs at least four named who together cover four years, and Ontario and Alberta set licence rules for work done in Canada.

## The rules by regulator

Table: Validator rules as encoded in the desk

| Rule | Ontario | Alberta | Shared system |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Validators per competency | One | One | One |
| Minimum number | None stated | 3 assigned to competencies | 4 named, covering 4 years |
| Canadian work | P.Eng. in Canada, licensed when the work was done | Category 1: P.Eng. registered in Canada | Ideally a P.Eng. or equivalent |
| Work outside Canada | Senior practitioner licensed where they practise | Category 1: licensed, or an equivalent practitioner | Ideally a P.Eng. or equivalent |
| Family members | Case by case | Not accepted | Not addressed in the guide |
| A supervisor among them | Preferred | Preferred | Required |

Sources: Professional Engineers Ontario Applicant and Validator Guides (August 2026); APEGA CBA guide version 7.4 (18 July 2026); Engineers and Geoscientists BC Competency Assessment Guide (April 2024). APEGA also lets some other licensees, such as a US professional engineer, be considered when their practice matches your example, and asks validators without a Canadian licence to send a resume.

## Choosing validators

Closeness beats seniority. Ontario's guide says the closer a validator worked with you, the stronger the application, and Alberta warns that an indirect manager who only saw a high-level summary may not know your work well enough. A current supervisor can validate an older example if they know your skills, but the ideal is the person who supervised that work.

Ontario's August 2026 guide tightened one point: for work done in Canada the validator must have held a P.Eng. licence in Canada when the work was carried out, not only when they sign. Record the month each validator was licensed on the desk and it will flag examples from before that month.

Talk to each validator before you name them. Alberta sends one response form per competency, so a validator with 16 competencies receives 16 links. The [validator packets](https://competencydesk.app/desk/) on the desk print only the competencies assigned to each person, with your text and rating and a blank column for theirs, so the conversation happens before the portal sends anything.

## Worked example: spreading 22 competencies across validators

An Alberta applicant assigns 21 competencies to their supervisor and one to a second validator, and names a third person who is not assigned anything. The desk reports the three-validator rule as not met: 2 validators are assigned so far. Moving one competency to the third validator makes it met, with the supervisor still holding 20 of the 22. That matches APEGA's own arithmetic: one validator can take up to 20 if the other two take one each.

In Ontario, an example from work in 2021 and 2022 assigned to a validator licensed from April 2023 comes out not met: v1 was licensed from 2023-04; the work ran to 2022-12. On the shared system, naming three validators leaves the four-validator rule not met.

## Common mistakes

- Assigning two validators to one competency. Every regulator allows only one.
- Naming a senior manager who never saw the work, instead of the person who supervised it.
- In Ontario, choosing a colleague who became licensed only after the work in the example.
- In Alberta, relying on two validators, or naming a relative.
- Not warning validators about the time: a long list of competencies means a long list of forms.

## Frequently asked questions

**Can my validator be someone from a different company?**

Yes. Validators can be supervisors, managers, mentors, clients or colleagues, as long as they have direct knowledge of the work in the example. The regulator decides whether each one is acceptable.

**Does every validator have to be a professional engineer?**

Not always. Ontario and Alberta require a Canadian P.Eng. for certain work done in Canada; the shared system prefers professional engineers but does not require it for every validator.

**Can I change a validator later?**

Alberta allows changes until all validator forms are submitted. Ontario says experience information cannot be changed once validators are notified, so settle validators before that point.

## Sources

- [Applicant Guide: Navigating Competency-Based Assessment](https://www.peo.on.ca/sites/default/files/2026-04/cba-guide.pdf), Professional Engineers Ontario, August 2026. Used for: one validator per competency, Canadian licence at the time of the work, validators outside Canada, family members
- [Validator Guide: Navigating Competency-Based Assessment](https://www.peo.on.ca/sites/default/files/2026-04/cba-validator.pdf), Professional Engineers Ontario, August 2026. Used for: the validator's responsibilities and the licence timing rule
- [APEGA Competency-Based Assessment Guide for Professional Engineering Applicants](https://www.apega.ca/docs/default-source/pdfs/cba-user-guide-engineers.pdf), APEGA, V7.4, 18 July 2026. Used for: minimum of three validators, up to 20 competencies for one validator, Category 1 licence rules, family members
- [Competency Assessment Guide for Engineering Applicants and Trainees](https://www.egbc.ca/getmedia/da2f6fed-643a-4b17-8d9b-ca3a0441ff80/Engineering-Competency-Assessment-Guide.pdf), Engineers and Geoscientists BC, revised April 2024. Used for: minimum of four validators covering four years, supervisor requirement, unassigned validators

# Character limits for competency examples, field by field

URL: https://competencydesk.app/guide/character-limits/
Last reviewed: 27 September 2026

The limits are in characters including spaces, not words. APEGA's July 2026 guide confirms 400 characters for the Situation, 1,800 for the Action and 400 for the Outcome. Ontario's February 2026 application form prints 300, 1,650 and 300 on every competency. The shared system's April 2024 guide prints none; 300, 1,200 and 300 come from its 2017 edition. Check the live box.

## The limits and how sure we are

Table: Character limits, including spaces

| Profile | Situation | Action | Outcome | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Alberta (22 competencies) | 400 | 1,800 | 400 | Confirmed in APEGA's CBA guide, 18 July 2026 |
| Ontario (34 competencies) | 300 | 1,650 | 300 | Confirmed on PEO's CBA P.Eng. application form, February 2026; line breaks not stated |
| Shared system: BC and five other provinces (34 competencies) | 300 | 1,200 | 300 | Unverified: from the 2017 guide; the April 2024 guide prints no number |

Searches for a word limit are common, but none of these guides sets one. A character limit counts every letter, digit, space and punctuation mark, and, in most forms, every line break. As a rough guide, English technical prose runs at six or seven characters per word including the space, so an 1,800 character Action is about 250 to 300 words.

If your portal shows a different number, enter it in Settings on the [competency desk](https://competencydesk.app/desk/). The counters then use your number and stop showing the unverified flag.

## Blank lines, bullets and the visible box

APEGA's July 2026 guide adds a warning worth applying everywhere: bullets and blank lines can make text overflow the visible box even when you are inside the character limit, and staff cannot see text beyond the box or the limit. If a scroll bar appears in the field, cut text or spacing.

Line breaks are the other trap. A browser counts a line break as one character, but some forms send it to the server as two (a carriage return and a line feed). If your portal's counter runs ahead of the desk by one per line, switch on the two-character setting.

## Worked example: the same words, three counts

Take a 380 character paragraph and a 15 character closing line for an Alberta Outcome with a limit of 400. Joined by a single space they count 396 characters. Separated by a blank line instead, the same words count 397, and the desk flags 1 blank line. If the portal counts each line break as two characters, that version is 399, and on a box with a tighter limit it is the blank line that tips you over.

Bullets behave the same way. Six bullet points of 60 characters each count 377 characters in total, comfortably inside a 400 limit, but they take 6 full lines of a box sized for running text. In a Situation or an Outcome, prose is usually safer.

## Common mistakes

- Planning in words. Every limit here is in characters, including spaces.
- Writing in a word processor and pasting, then finding the portal counts smart quotes, tabs or double spaces you cannot see.
- Ending a box with a blank line or trailing spaces, which count and show nothing.
- Trusting a figure from an old guide or a forum post without checking the live portal.
- Using the whole Action on context and leaving the decisions for the last few lines.

## Frequently asked questions

**Is the limit in words or characters?**

Characters, including spaces. None of the guides we read sets a word limit.

**Do spaces count?**

Yes. APEGA states its limits include spaces, and the desk counts every character, spaces and line breaks included.

**What happens if I go over?**

Portals generally stop you at the limit, and APEGA says staff cannot see text that overflows the visible box. Cut to fit before you paste.

## Sources

- [APEGA Competency-Based Assessment Guide for Professional Engineering Applicants](https://www.apega.ca/docs/default-source/pdfs/cba-user-guide-engineers.pdf), APEGA, V7.4, 18 July 2026. Used for: the confirmed 400, 1,800 and 400 character limits, including spaces, and the overflow warning about bullets and blank lines
- [Competencies and Indicators (engineers)](https://www.apega.ca/apply/membership/professional-member/work-experience/engineers/competency-based-assessment-tool/competencies-and-indicators), APEGA, web page, read 27 September 2026. Used for: the 1,800 character Action limit repeated on each competency
- [Competency-Based Assessment P.Eng. Application Form](https://www.peo.on.ca/sites/default/files/2026-04/cba-application.pdf), Professional Engineers Ontario, February 2026. Used for: the 300, 1,650 and 300 character maximums printed on every competency
- [Applicant Guide: Navigating Competency-Based Assessment](https://www.peo.on.ca/sites/default/files/2026-04/cba-guide.pdf), Professional Engineers Ontario, August 2026. Used for: confirms a character limit exists without giving a number
- [Competency Assessment Guide for Engineering Applicants and Trainees](https://www.egbc.ca/getmedia/da2f6fed-643a-4b17-8d9b-ca3a0441ff80/Engineering-Competency-Assessment-Guide.pdf), Engineers and Geoscientists BC, revised April 2024. Used for: gives no character numbers in the April 2024 edition

# Engineering experience months: what counts toward the minimum

URL: https://competencydesk.app/guide/experience-months-rules/
Last reviewed: 27 September 2026

Alberta and the shared system require 48 months of engineering experience. Ontario's August 2026 guide sets 24 months, counted from the date your four-year engineering degree was conferred, with co-op and other work before conferral not counting toward the 24. Overlapping jobs count once, and Alberta requires some acceptable experience within the last seven years.

## The rules by regulator

Table: Experience month rules as encoded in the desk

| Rule | Ontario | Alberta | Shared system |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Minimum months | 24, from degree conferral | 48 | 48 |
| Pre-graduation months | Do not count toward the 24 | Not stated; 12 used, unverified | Not stated; 12 used, unverified |
| Recency | Not stated | Required within 7 years | Examples within 7 years where possible |

Ontario's change is recent. Its August 2026 applicant guide sets the 24 month figure from conferral and says graduate-study work can count if it meets the criteria. Much of what is online, including Ontario's own earlier guides, still describes 48 months with up to 12 pre-graduation months. The desk follows the August 2026 guide; check Ontario's site before relying on either number.

Alberta's July 2026 guide says to leave out unemployment, education, parental leave and non-engineering work, to explain overlapping periods, and to state hours for part-time roles. Applications with fewer than 48 months are declined without review.

## How the desk counts

Each record covers every calendar month from its first to its last, inclusive; a current role runs to the count date. A month covered by two records counts once. Part-time roles count as full months and are flagged, because the regulator decides how part-time work is credited. For Ontario, months before the conferral month you enter in Settings do not count.

Pre-graduation months are capped at 12 for Alberta and the shared system as an unverified default, because neither current guide states a number. If your regulator gives you a figure, enter it in Settings on the [competency desk](https://competencydesk.app/desk/).

## Worked example: three applicants

- Ontario: an eight month co-op term in 2021, a degree conferred in June 2022, and a job from June 2022 to May 2024. The co-op months (8) do not count, and the job gives 24 of the 24 months needed.
- Alberta: 16 months of co-op terms before graduation and 36 months of work after. The desk counts 36 post-graduation months plus 12 of the 16 pre-graduation months, 48 in all against 48, and flags the cap as unverified.
- Shared system: two jobs, January 2021 to June 2023 and January 2023 to December 2024. The six months of overlap count once, so the total is 48, not 54.
- Alberta again: seven years of work that ended in December 2018. The desk counts 84 months but finds 0 in the seven years to September 2026, so the recency check fails.

## Common mistakes

- Adding up overlapping jobs twice.
- Counting months of study or unemployment between roles.
- Applying the old 48 month Ontario figure, or the new 24 month one, without checking which guide is current when you apply.
- Assuming co-op terms count toward Ontario's minimum. The August 2026 guide says they do not, though they can still support examples.
- Leaving part-time hours unstated.

## Frequently asked questions

**Do co-op terms count?**

In Ontario, not toward the 24 month minimum under the August 2026 guide, though they may support examples. Alberta and the shared system do not state a pre-graduation allowance in their current guides; the desk uses 12 months as an unverified default.

**Does experience outside Canada count?**

Yes, toward the months. The separate question is whether your examples show the Canadian environment competencies, and who may validate them.

**Does a master's degree count as experience?**

Ontario says eligible engineering work during graduate study may count, but it does not grant experience for completing a graduate degree alone.

## Sources

- [Applicant Guide: Navigating Competency-Based Assessment](https://www.peo.on.ca/sites/default/files/2026-04/cba-guide.pdf), Professional Engineers Ontario, August 2026. Used for: 24 months from degree conferral, study-related experience, graduate study
- [APEGA Competency-Based Assessment Guide for Professional Engineering Applicants](https://www.apega.ca/docs/default-source/pdfs/cba-user-guide-engineers.pdf), APEGA, V7.4, 18 July 2026. Used for: 48 months, what to leave out, overlaps, part-time hours, the seven year rule
- [Competency Assessment Guide for Engineering Applicants and Trainees](https://www.egbc.ca/getmedia/da2f6fed-643a-4b17-8d9b-ca3a0441ff80/Engineering-Competency-Assessment-Guide.pdf), Engineers and Geoscientists BC, revised April 2024. Used for: four years of experience, pre-graduation work in the history, examples from the last seven years where possible

# Competency ratings, minimums and category averages explained

URL: https://competencydesk.app/guide/category-averages/
Last reviewed: 27 September 2026

Each competency is rated 0 to 5. The ratings in a category are averaged, and the average must reach the category minimum: 3 for technical, communication, team, accountability and professional development, and 2 for project and financial management and for social, economic, environmental and sustainability. Separately, some competencies have their own minimum that the average cannot make up for.

## Two tests, both required

The first test is per competency. Ontario sets a minimum of 1 on most competencies and 3 on five professional standards competencies, with 2 on 6.2 (Applicant Guide, August 2026). Alberta and the shared system set minimums only on eight Canadian environment competencies: 3 on 1.1, 1.6, 1.9, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 5.1, and 2 on 6.2 (APEGA CBA guide, 18 July 2026; Engineers and Geoscientists BC guide, April 2024).

The second test is per category: the plain mean of the ratings. Ontario's guide describes exactly that, the mean of the ratings in the category. The desk compares the unrounded mean with the minimum, so 2.95 does not pass a minimum of 3.

Small categories are unforgiving. Alberta's team effectiveness and professional accountability categories each hold a single competency, so that one rating is the average.

## Reading the 0 to 5 scale

The guides describe the levels in slightly different words, but the ladder is the same. In our own summary:

- 0: no real exposure to the competency.
- 1: training level; you know it matters and have seen it done.
- 2: limited scope under considerable supervision; standard methods on well defined tasks.
- 3: moderate scope and complexity, mostly independent; the level the guides associate with being ready for professional responsibility.
- 4: varied, responsible work with little supervision, often guiding others.
- 5: independent leadership of complex, high-risk work; rare at the point of licensure.

Ontario's guide gives separate descriptions for technical work, for categories 2 to 6 and for professional development, and Alberta separates technical from other competencies. Read the one for the category you are rating before you choose a number.

## Rate honestly, then check the arithmetic

Alberta's guide notes that new applicants tend to overestimate, and that experienced engineers often rate themselves 3 or 4 after many years. The shared system's guide says you are not expected to be at 4 or 5 and advises against rating yourself below a minimum: if you cannot honestly reach it, get more experience first.

The right order is to rate each competency by the evidence in your example, then look at the averages. If a category falls short, the fix is a stronger example or more experience, not a higher number. The [competency desk](https://competencydesk.app/desk/) shows each category's average as you rate.

## Worked example: averages that pass and fail

- Ontario, team effectiveness: 4.1 rated 4 and 4.2 rated 2 average 3.00, which is met. Rate 4.1 at 3 instead and the average is 2.50, not met.
- Alberta, team effectiveness: one competency, rated 2, so the category average is 2.00, not met against 3.
- Shared system, communication: 2.1 rated 2, 2.2 and 2.3 rated 4. The category averages 3.33 and is met, but 2.1 is not met because it is a Canadian environment competency with its own minimum of 3.
- Ontario, technical competence: ten ratings adding to 27 average 2.70, not met, even though each competency clears its own minimum.

## Common mistakes

- Rounding 2.9 up to 3. The average has to reach the minimum.
- Using a high rating in one competency to carry a Canadian environment competency below its minimum.
- Rating first and then stretching the example to fit the number.
- Forgetting that Alberta's single-competency categories make one rating the whole average.

## Frequently asked questions

**What rating do assessors expect?**

Around 3, which the guides describe as ready to take on professional responsibility for moderately complex work. Nobody expects 5s.

**Is the category average rounded?**

The guides describe a mean of the ratings. The desk compares the unrounded mean with the minimum, which is the cautious reading.

**Whose ratings count?**

The assessors'. Your self-ratings and your validators' ratings inform them, but the assessors rate your examples and decide.

## Sources

- [Applicant Guide: Navigating Competency-Based Assessment](https://www.peo.on.ca/sites/default/files/2026-04/cba-guide.pdf), Professional Engineers Ontario, August 2026. Used for: minimum ratings, professional standards competencies, category averages as the mean of ratings
- [APEGA Competency-Based Assessment Guide for Professional Engineering Applicants](https://www.apega.ca/docs/default-source/pdfs/cba-user-guide-engineers.pdf), APEGA, V7.4, 18 July 2026. Used for: category minimum averages, Canadian-context minimums, scoring levels, overestimation
- [Competency Assessment Guide for Engineering Applicants and Trainees](https://www.egbc.ca/getmedia/da2f6fed-643a-4b17-8d9b-ca3a0441ff80/Engineering-Competency-Assessment-Guide.pdf), Engineers and Geoscientists BC, revised April 2024. Used for: category minimum ratings, Canadian environment competencies, not expected at 4 or 5

# Draft your competency examples before you open the portal

URL: https://competencydesk.app/guide/drafting-before-the-portal/
Last reviewed: 27 September 2026

Draft everything outside the portal first: your experience history, your validators, and every example, counted against the real limit. Check the minimums, averages and validator rules, talk each validator through their competencies, and only then paste field by field. Portals lock or slow things down once validators are notified, and a draft you own is also your backup.

## Seven steps from blank page to portal

Each step maps to a view on the [competency desk](https://competencydesk.app/desk/). Nothing leaves your browser at any point.

1. **Choose your profile and read the limits.** Pick your regulator's profile, open your portal once, and enter any live limit that differs from the profile's number in Settings.
2. **List your experience.** Add one record per role with dates, country, supervisor and the validator who can speak for that period.
3. **Name your validators.** Record each validator's relationship to you, licence and when they were licensed, and check the regulator's minimum number.
4. **Map competencies to records.** Decide which record each competency's example comes from and spread the load across validators, using the coverage matrix.
5. **Write and count each example.** Write the Situation, Action and Outcome in your own words, cutting until every box fits with no blank lines.
6. **Rate yourself and run the checks.** Give each competency the rating your example supports, then fix every failed minimum, average or validator rule.
7. **Review with validators, then paste.** Print each validator's packet, talk it through, and paste the final text into the portal one field at a time.

## Why draft offline

Ontario's August 2026 guide says the experience information cannot be changed once your validators are notified, and encourages you to start documenting early. Alberta's July 2026 guide says every change to a competency after submission has to be revalidated and rescored, and that multiple revisions delay processing. The shared system lets you save drafts, but its box is a place to type, not a place to see all your averages at once.

Offline drafting also keeps confidential project details on your own machine until you choose to submit them. Alberta's guide notes that examiners need enough detail to judge your competence, not proprietary specifics; drafting first gives you room to find that balance.

## The experience record comes first

Every regulator asks for a chronological history of your roles, and it drives both the month count and the validator rules. Ontario's Experience Records Form (February 2024) asks for the company, address, dates, whether the role is current, responsibilities and whether the work was before graduation; the shared system asks you to explain gaps and overlaps. The desk's records hold the same kind of information in its own layout.

## Worked example: what the checks catch before the portal does

An Alberta applicant drafts 22 examples with one validator for 21 of them and a second for the last. Before anything is submitted, the desk reports the three-validator rule not met: 2 validators are assigned so far. It also shows communication averaging 3.33 in a shared-system draft while 2.1 sits below its own minimum, and an Ontario example validated by someone licensed after the work. Each of those would otherwise surface as a request for revision, or a decline, weeks later.

## Common mistakes

- Drafting in the portal and losing text to a session timeout.
- Pasting from a word processor that adds smart quotes, tabs or invisible spaces.
- Notifying validators before the examples are final.
- Keeping no copy of what was submitted. Export a backup of the final drafts.

## Frequently asked questions

**Can I paste from the desk into the portal?**

Yes. The plain text export gives each field exactly as you typed it, with line breaks normalised, and a copy button per field.

**Does the desk submit anything for me?**

No. It has no connection to any portal. You paste the text yourself.

**Can I keep drafts for two regulators?**

Yes. Each profile keeps its own examples, while records and validators are shared.

## Sources

- [Applicant Guide: Navigating Competency-Based Assessment](https://www.peo.on.ca/sites/default/files/2026-04/cba-guide.pdf), Professional Engineers Ontario, August 2026. Used for: locked experience information after validators are notified, starting early
- [APEGA Competency-Based Assessment Guide for Professional Engineering Applicants](https://www.apega.ca/docs/default-source/pdfs/cba-user-guide-engineers.pdf), APEGA, V7.4, 18 July 2026. Used for: revalidation after changes, confidentiality of examples, revision delays
- [Competency Assessment Guide for Engineering Applicants and Trainees](https://www.egbc.ca/getmedia/da2f6fed-643a-4b17-8d9b-ca3a0441ff80/Engineering-Competency-Assessment-Guide.pdf), Engineers and Geoscientists BC, revised April 2024. Used for: saving drafts, explaining gaps and overlaps, validator selection

# Why AI-written competency examples are a risk, and why the desk writes nothing

URL: https://competencydesk.app/guide/why-no-ai/
Last reviewed: 27 September 2026

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](https://competencydesk.app/desk/) to see it.

## Worked example: what the desk will and will not do

Table: The desk's help with one example

| 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.

## 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

- [Competency Assessment Guide for Engineering Applicants and Trainees](https://www.egbc.ca/getmedia/da2f6fed-643a-4b17-8d9b-ca3a0441ff80/Engineering-Competency-Assessment-Guide.pdf), 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](https://www.peo.on.ca/sites/default/files/2026-04/cba-guide.pdf), 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](https://www.apega.ca/docs/default-source/pdfs/cba-user-guide-engineers.pdf), APEGA, V7.4, 18 July 2026. Used for: specific examples of your own work; copying job descriptions or indicators is not enough

# Questions about Competency Desk

URL: https://competencydesk.app/faq/

## Answers

**What does Competency Desk do?**

It is a drafting and checking desk for the competency-based assessment of engineering experience. You keep your experience records and validators, write a Situation, Action and Outcome for each competency against the character limit, rate yourself, and the desk checks months of experience, minimum ratings, category averages and validator rules, each with the guide it comes from. It prints a full draft, a coverage summary and a packet for each validator.

**Will Competency Desk write or improve my examples?**

No. It never writes, rewrites, suggests or completes example text, and it has no AI, no phrase bank and no sample paragraphs. It counts, checks and organises what you write. Engineers and Geoscientists BC forbids AI-written or third-party-written examples, and every regulator expects examples to describe your own work in your own words.

**Does a green result mean my assessment will pass?**

No. Competency Desk does not determine your assessment outcome; the regulator's assessors decide. The desk compares your own self-ratings and records with the published minimums. Assessors rate your examples themselves, and their ratings are the ones that count.

**Where are my examples and validator names stored?**

Only in this browser, on this device, in local storage. There is no account and no server, and nothing you type is uploaded. Export a backup file to keep a copy or to move to another device, and add a passphrase if you want the file encrypted.

**Which regulators does it cover?**

Three profiles: Professional Engineers Ontario (34 competencies), APEGA in Alberta (22 competencies), and the shared competency system used by Engineers and Geoscientists BC, APEGS, Engineers and Geoscientists Manitoba, Engineers and Geoscientists New Brunswick, Engineers PEI and PEGNL (34 competencies). Each profile lists the documents it was built from and the date they were read.

**Why are some character limits marked unverified?**

Because the current guide we could read does not print them. APEGA's July 2026 guide states 400, 1,800 and 400 characters, and PEO's February 2026 CBA application form prints 300, 1,650 and 300, so both are confirmed. The shared system numbers come from its 2017 guide, since the April 2024 edition prints none. Open your portal, read the limit on each box, and enter it in Settings on the desk; the counters then use your number.

**How are characters counted?**

Every character counts, including spaces, punctuation and line breaks. Each line break counts as one character by default; if your portal counts a line break as two, switch that on in Settings. Blank lines and bullet points are flagged because a portal box can overflow visually before the character limit is reached.

**Is Competency Desk connected to any regulator?**

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. Regulator names appear only to say which published rules a profile follows.

**What happens to my drafts if I clear my browser data?**

They are deleted, and nobody can recover them, because they were never stored anywhere else. Export a backup file from the desk regularly and keep it somewhere safe.

**Can I use it if I am applying to more than one regulator?**

Yes. Each profile keeps its own examples, so you can draft for Ontario and Alberta side by side. Your experience records and validators are shared between profiles.