---
name: he-accreditation-docs
description: Prepare evidence-based accreditation and external quality-review drafts for higher education programs, including self-assessments, monitoring reports, responses to requirements and change notices. Use the relevant body's actual standards, terminology and authorised templates.
---

# Higher education accreditation documents

*Author: Cam Anderson (hello@camanderson.au). Licensed CC BY 4.0.*

Help staff assemble a traceable draft for the program's actual accrediting or reviewing body. Assume La Trobe University unless the user or evidence says otherwise. Staff review, sign and submit through the institution's authorised process.

## Establish context and evidence

Find the selected workspace and read its `AGENTS.md` and relevant local methods when present. Read `_registers/program-context.md` and `_registers/evidence-requests.csv` if intake has created them. Use `he-program-intake` when available to guide initial evidence gathering and resolve missing program context. If unavailable, use the focused intake below; continue useful drafting while non-blocking questions remain open.

Before inspecting new evidence, establish that it is a permitted curriculum-only copy. Apply the intake privacy gate before extraction, registration or archive: keep actual student submissions, grades, identifiers and identifiable feedback outside the workspace, use staff roles/placeholders and request a screened copy when suitability is unclear. Inspect the retained permitted evidence, not a prohibited original.

Start with evidence already available. Guide the user to gather only the material needed for the requested document:

- Approved course and subject records from Courseloop or the relevant handbook, including course structure/version and intended scope.
- The body's official standards, criteria, applicability guidance, current form, submission instructions and relevant deadlines.
- The latest decision or requirements letter and amendments, with exact item IDs, wording, status and dates.
- The previous submission, acknowledgement and subsequent decisions, distinguishing the institution's claims from the body's findings.
- Evidence of actual implementation and review: approved policies, governance decisions, assessment design and moderation records, delivery records, resource plans and aggregate reports relevant to each requirement.
- The authorised original institutional or external template, its version and any instructions governing attachments, word limits, declarations and submission.

Read before asking. Quiz the user only on material uncertainty the evidence cannot resolve: program award and scope; accrediting/reviewing bodies; standards version and effective dates; which requirements apply and why; current/teach-out structures and periods; submission purpose and deadline; authority and review status of documents; outstanding decisions; and who must review or sign. Record answers as declarations with their provenance, rather than upgrading them to external determinations.

Distinguish **confirmed applicable**, **confirmed not applicable** and **unknown**. A statement that there is no external professional accreditation must identify its scope and confirming evidence or responsible role; it does not settle other institutional or external obligations. Do not select a professional body, framework, award level or compliance status from the discipline name alone. Verify current versions against official sources when access is available; otherwise state what version was supplied and what currency check remains.

The first numeric digit in a subject code may provisionally indicate relative subject seniority, with higher digits suggesting more senior study. It does not establish AQF level, course year, cohort, structure, offering, prerequisites or the applicability of a standard. Obtain those from approved evidence or confirmation.

## Build the response

1. Fix the document's program, structure, period, standards version and requirement scope. Preserve approved codes, titles, learning outcomes, assessment wording, weightings and hurdles verbatim. Courseloop and approved handbook records govern curriculum facts; log conflicts for staff resolution rather than overwriting approved content.
2. Decompose every requirement into its separate asks. Keep its actual ID and wording. Use the body's terminology and recorded findings without inventing status labels or treating draft responses as decisions.
3. Build a requirement-to-claim-to-evidence table before claiming the requirement is satisfied. For each claim, record the exact source ID or stable document reference, version/date, page/section/table/row or other precise locator, what it proves, scope and limitations. Separate evidence held, requested and unavailable. Read [evidence-and-output.md](references/evidence-and-output.md) for the claim distinctions and output contract.
4. Draft a direct response to each ask. Distinguish approved design, planned activity, implemented activity and evaluated results. A plan, meeting discussion, uploaded file or mapping alone does not prove delivery or effectiveness. Missing information remains `[to confirm]`, with the needed evidence, owner role and timing to confirm.
5. Use official aggregate figures with their period, population, definitions and source. Compute tables from retained data when practical and record the calculation basis; reconcile conflicting totals before presenting one as authoritative. Do not invent numbers, merge incompatible populations or imply that registration establishes data quality.
6. Fit the draft to the authorised original template using its supported filling workflow. Discover available tasks and schemas before using any local runtime. Never assume report names, commands, form sections, attachment limits or a navigator exist. Preserve original template layout and boilerplate. If the authorised template or filling capability is missing, provide clearly labelled draft response content and a fitting request; do not fabricate an official form or a completed submission.

Use existing registers and output conventions when available. In a new workspace, retain the context and evidence requests through intake; agree an appropriate draft and source register location before adding a competing register. Preserve registered originals and approval history. Use roles and placeholders in shared/library files. Exclude student identifiers, marks, submissions and identifiable feedback; request permitted curriculum copies or aggregate evidence through staff. Do not retain prohibited originals, identifying filenames or private personal paths.

## Review and handoff

Return a **draft for staff review** with:

- Exact scope, standards/form versions and currency checks completed or outstanding.
- Requirement responses and evidence locators, plus an attachment register following the actual submission instructions.
- Missing evidence, contradictions, unresolved applicability, open questions and actions with owner roles and dates or `[to confirm]`.
- Factual/template checks actually performed, including figure reconciliation and unavailable checks.
- Required staff reviews, signatures and the documented submission route, without claiming these occurred.

If the response proposes closing an issue, condition or improvement action, use `he-auditor` in a fresh independent context when available. Retain a pending proposal with exact scope, artefact version/digest and evidence before requesting that review. Drafting and same-context checks are advisory; they cannot close an item or alter the body's determination. Where governance tooling is absent, retain an auditable manual proposal/review record and leave the authorised human decision outstanding.

After an authorised submission or decision, record the actual date, submitted version, acknowledgement and decision evidence through the workspace's supported process. Preserve the prior state and history. Do not submit, sign, approve or change recorded standing merely because a draft was generated.