Sufficiency and consistency

One instance of competent performance is an anecdote.

A single piece of evidence showing the task done correctly establishes that it was done correctly once. Competence implies consistent performance across the range of conditions the work involves, and evidence has to reach that standard rather than the lower one.

This is where recognition files most often fall short on review. They contain a good example of each requirement and nothing establishing repetition or range, and the resulting judgement rests on an assumption that the single instance is representative.

The remedy is usually available in the applicant's own material, because somebody who does this work does it repeatedly and can supply several instances across different circumstances. Asking for range explicitly, rather than for evidence of the requirement, produces it.

Range matters particularly where the requirement includes handling problems or variation. Evidence of routine performance under normal conditions says nothing about the requirement to respond when something goes wrong, and that part of a standard is the part most often left unevidenced.

The other dimension of sufficiency is that evidence must cover the full requirement rather than the part the applicant found easy to evidence. Files commonly demonstrate the technical performance thoroughly and say nothing about the planning, the communication or the response to a problem, which are usually specified in the standard and are the parts an employer actually cares about.