Accreditation Evidence Agent
Maps what you already have to what the standard asks for
5 of 9 requirements have missing or stale evidence.
9 requirements checked. 6 evidence items are missing across 5 flagged requirements; the oldest evidence is 575 days old.
Collect evidence for 6.1 Equipment calibration first. The Laboratory area has the most gaps.
Whether the evidence on file is good enough for an assessor is a judgement the data cannot make.
Why rows were flagged
- Evidence missing57%
- Evidence over a year old43%
Value flagged by Area
- Laboratory1
- People1
- Operations2
- Governance1
Items to act on, worst first
| Item | Area | Value | Days since update | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6.1 Equipment calibration | Laboratory | 2 | 575 | Evidence missing, Evidence over a year old |
| 5.1 Staff competence records | People | 2 | 161 | Evidence missing |
| 4.2 Management review minutes | Governance | 1 | 412 | Evidence missing, Evidence over a year old |
| 7.1 Complaint log | Operations | 1 | 87 | Evidence missing |
| 7.2 Internal audit report | Operations | 0 | 434 | Evidence over a year old |
What to do this week
- Collect the missing evidence for 6.1 Equipment calibration before the assessment.
- Refresh evidence older than a year, starting with the Laboratory area.
- Give each requirement an owner who keeps its evidence current.
Do
- Fix the highest-risk item first, then run the check again on fresh data.
Don't
- Don't act on one row alone: open the source record first.
How to improve
- Add more detail per row (owner, date, source) so the next report can trace each item.
- Add a second period of data so the next report can show whether things are improving.
Demo
Overview
Accreditation and inspection failures are rarely failures of substance. The teaching happened, the review happened, the improvement was made — and the institution cannot produce the document that shows it, or produces one that does not say what the standard asked.
So the year before a review becomes a scramble: staff reconstructing evidence for things they genuinely did, months of work producing nothing new for a single student. That scramble is the cost, and it repeats every cycle.
The difficulty is real. A standard is written in the accrediting body's language, evidence is produced in the institution's, and the mapping between them exists only in the head of whoever ran the last review. When that person leaves, it goes with them.
The failures are consistent. Evidence exists but nobody mapped it to the criterion it satisfies. Evidence is stale — a policy last reviewed outside the required cycle. A standard asks for a closed improvement loop and the institution can show the review but not what changed because of it. And criteria met by practice that was never written down, which is the most frustrating category because the work was done.
This agent produces the mapping and names each gap by type, because a missing document and an unmapped one need completely different responses. It writes no evidence and makes no compliance determination.
Benefits
The scramble replaced by a list
Of specific gaps, most of them small.
The mapping survives the person
Instead of leaving when they do.
Gaps found with time to fix them
Rather than in the month before submission.
What it does
Maps evidence you already hold
Most of the scramble is finding what exists, not creating it. The mapping lived in one person's head and left with them.
Names the gap type
Missing, stale, unmapped, or practice never recorded. Four different problems, and only one needs new work.
Checks the improvement loop closes
Standards ask what changed as a result. Institutions can show the review and not the change, and that is the classic finding.
Tests currency against the required cycle
A policy that exists but was last reviewed outside the cycle fails as surely as one that does not exist.
Finds practice nobody wrote down
The work was done. Only the record is missing, and that is a much smaller job than doing it again.
Writes no evidence
It never drafts a document to satisfy a criterion. Evidence generated to pass a review is exactly what a reviewer is looking for.
What this changes
What this changes about your week
- It takes over
- Mapping existing evidence to each accreditation criterion.
- Done today by
- A scramble in the year before review, reconstructing evidence for work already done.
- How often
- Every review cycle, from scratch.
- Typical manual effort
- Months of staff time producing nothing new for a single student.
Why Education in particular. The standard is written in the accrediting body's language and the evidence in the institution's. The mapping lives in one person's head, and leaves when they do.
Runs unattended
Started by you or by an event, and it finishes on its own. Nothing waits for someone to be at a desk.
The same standard every time
The two-hundredth item is held to the bar the first one was. Consistency is the part people cannot sustain.
It cannot act on its own
Accreditation Evidence Agent has no path to sending, spending or committing. That limit is why its output is safe to act on.
How it runs
This agent runs server-side through the PROMIVO runtime. Each run is logged step by step and every tool call is permission-checked before it executes.
- 1InputValidated against the agent input schema
- 2Modelclaude-opus-5 with automatic fallback
- 3Toolssearch_knowledge, extract_structured_data
- 4PermissionsRuns READ actions automatically; anything higher waits for approval
- 5OutputStructured result matching the output schema
- 6LoggingTokens, duration and every step recorded
Requirements
Integrations
No integrations required.
Before you start
- The standards or criteria you are assessed against
- Your existing evidence documents, in a knowledge base
- Review cycles and dates for each policy or process
- Requires the All-Access plan or higher
Use cases
Preparing for review
Twelve months out, when gaps are still cheap.
After a standard changes
What the new wording asks that the old one did not.
Continuous readiness
Checked each term rather than once a cycle.
A new quality lead
The mapping their predecessor never wrote down.
Pricing
All-Access
Billed monthly through your PROMIVO subscription. Cancel at any time.
Runs consume your plan allowance for agent executions and tokens. See plan limits
FAQ
Will it write our evidence?
No. Evidence generated to satisfy a criterion is precisely what a reviewer is trained to spot, and it is dishonest. It finds what exists, maps it, and names what genuinely has to be created by the people who did the work.
Does it say whether we will pass?
No. It makes no compliance determination. It reports which criteria have mapped, current evidence and which do not.
What if practice happens but is not documented?
That is a distinct finding, and usually good news. Recording something that already happens is far smaller than establishing it — but it must be recorded honestly, by the people who do it, not written by an agent.
Reviews
Reviews open once customers have run this agent.
Need this agent to work differently?
Tell us what to change and our team will scope a customised version for your business.
Customize this agent