1. Purpose
This policy describes how Friam Limited assures the quality of the training and scored knowledge checks it delivers, and the internal verification arrangements that would govern regulated assessment delivery under an awarding organisation’s recognition. Unusually for a document of this kind, most of what follows is not a procedure we promise to follow but a description of how the platform is built — the controls are structural.
2. Content quality: grounded, ratified, pinned
The mechanical guarantees below are properties of our current-generation course engine, which all MOTGuard training — and every new course line — runs on. Course lines that predate it are governed by editorial review rather than the mechanical gate.
- Primary-source grounding. Every teaching point and every question is drawn from captured primary sources (legislation, official guidance pages, regulator publications), which are stored alongside the content with the exact citation. Authors may not invent an authority, figure or citation; content that cannot be sourced does not ship.
- Human ratification before certification. No course on this engine can issue certificates until a named human reviewer has read the complete course material — every teaching line and every question — and signed it off. The sign-off records who ratified, when, and on what basis.
- Hash-pinned integrity. The ratified content is fingerprinted (SHA-256). If the content later drifts by even one byte from what was ratified, the mismatch is mechanically detectable and certification halts until re-review. Sign-off cannot be silently inherited by altered content.
- Scheduled re-sourcing. Time-bound content (for example the MOT annual training syllabus, which changes each April) carries its validity period explicitly and is re-sourced, re-authored and re-ratified each cycle rather than quietly reused.
3. Delivery quality: one standard for every learner
- Consistent marking. Knowledge checks are marked by the same deterministic rules for every learner. There is no marker variance, no end-of-day leniency, and no possibility of two learners with identical answers receiving different results.
- Per-point mastery, not aggregate luck. Scoring is recorded per knowledge point against explicit thresholds, so a certificate evidences coverage of every required point — a strong overall score cannot mask a failed mandatory topic.
- Tamper-evident records. Compliance records generated by training (MOT tester training records among them) are appended to our statutory-log system’s hash-chained, timestamped logs (see our Malpractice & Maladministration Policy §3) and are exportable as an audit pack for an employer, awarding organisation or regulator.
4. Internal verification
- Sampling. A director reviews a sample of completions each quarter — the full per-point record, not just the headline result — checking that scoring behaved as designed and records are complete.
- Question performance review. Aggregate question statistics are reviewed for anomalies (questions everyone fails or everyone passes, which may indicate defective wording) and corrected through the ratification process — never by ad-hoc edit.
- Learner feedback. Learners can report any question or teaching point they believe is wrong or unclear — by email (legal@everyguard.uk) or through their manager — and reports route to the content reviewer, with the resolution handled and recorded through the ratification process.
- Separation of duties. The person who ratifies content is identified by name and takes responsibility distinct from the authorship; investigation of any quality failure is led independently of whoever built the item under review.
- [Effective upon centre recognition] Where an awarding organisation prescribes internal-verification, standardisation or external-quality-assurance arrangements, those requirements take precedence over the minimums above and we operate to them.
5. Corrective action
Quality failures are corrected at the root: the defective content or rule is fixed once, re-ratified, and re-issued to every affected consumer — and affected learners are told, with re-assessment at our cost where a result could have been altered by the defect.
6. Responsibility
The directors of Friam Limited own this policy. The named accountable officer for training and assessment delivery is the responsible director recorded in the centre agreement or, absent one, the company’s managing director.