Good standing needs
a fair process.

Describe work you directly experienced.

Contributors must register, identify the member or entity concerned and describe a direct professional or business engagement. Include the engagement context and dates, specific observations, relevant outcomes, the basis for ratings and any constructive recommendation.

Separate an observable event from your opinion. Keep the account relevant, accurate to the best of your knowledge and proportionate. A concern should explain what happened and what supports the account; a positive report should also describe actual work.

• Disclose family, employment, ownership, commercial, referral, paid or other relationships and any incentive that could affect independence.
• Do not review yourself, impersonate another person, fabricate a relationship or coordinate repeat reports to manipulate a score.
• Do not include passwords, payment details, government identifiers, medical information, protected personal characteristics, family matters or unrelated allegations.
• Do not paste confidential contracts or identity documents into evidence notes. Provide only the minimum work-related information needed to understand the report. This release accepts text evidence notes rather than document uploads.
• Use the member’s invitation or member code. Receiving an invitation does not require a favourable report, and an invitation is not a verification badge.

Reviews are observations from a particular engagement, not a universal judgement about a person. Character ratings concern professional conduct such as responsibility and commitments; they do not infer private beliefs, morality or protected characteristics.

Check. Notify. Listen. Decide.

1. Submission: the report is saved privately and an in-account notice is recorded. It has no score effect on submission.
2. Screening: an operator checks the contributor’s identity and relationship claims, evidence, conflicts and relevance. Screening does not establish that every statement is conclusively true.
3. Notice and response: the member can respond in their account. Once screening opens the response stage, the 14-day response clock starts when the member acknowledges its notice. Publication waits until the member responds or that acknowledged window has elapsed. An unread notice alone cannot start a publication deadline. Silence is neither admission nor consent.
4. Reasoned decision: a moderator records a decision and reason. Only cleared feedback may be published and become eligible for the reviewed-feedback score. A response intended for the shared report must also be checked for relevant and safe content.
5. Record and notice: the member and contributor receive an in-account status notice. The original submission remains a private part of the moderation record, alongside the decision and response.

A moderator may reject irrelevant, unsupported, fabricated, abusive, unlawfully disclosed or otherwise unsuitable material. Moderation uses the same standards for praise and concerns. A member does not have a veto over a relevant concern simply because it is unfavourable.

Any moderator-written public summary must be identified as a summary, distinct from the contributor’s original account. Private evidence and contact details are not published. We do not sell favourable decisions, score improvements or removal of unfavourable feedback.

Notifications currently appear inside the account. Automated email or SMS delivery is not active. Members and contributors should check their account for updates. Acknowledging displayed notices starts the response clock for screened reports among those notices. No automated email delivery is claimed.

Keep the evidence sources separate.

Self-assessed 3C

A capture reads the selected project’s saved assessment from the member’s dashboard and records its date, project context, scores, coverage and method version. The captured record is separate from later dashboard edits.

Each rated answer from 1 to 5 maps to a 0–100 value using (rating − 1) × 25. Each C is the arithmetic mean of its rated answers. Missing or “not enough evidence” answers do not become zero scores. A self-assessed composite requires all 99 statements to be rated; partial captures show coverage and no complete composite.

Capturing a new assessment adds a dated entry to the record. It may move up or down. The answers remain self-provided and unverified; saving them does not turn them into an independent finding.

Reviewed-feedback 3C

Only published contributions that pass the required checks count. Each direct-dealing report supplies a 1–5 observation for Character, Capability and Capacity. Each maps to 0–100 using the same formula; the eligible values are averaged for each C, and the three Cs have equal weight in the composite.

• A numeric headline requires at least three distinct checked contributors. Before that, the profile shows that evidence is still developing.
• One active contribution per contributor and member prevents repeated reports from adding extra weight. A replacement must follow the review process.
• Approved positive, mixed and concern reports have the same weight. Payment, subscription status or recommendation wording does not increase a score.
• Reports under appeal or re-review are suspended from the active score. A final reasoned decision determines whether they return.
• Recent score history records the score basis and change over time. The account view shows up to 200 recent score events; older records remain in the operator’s audit history. The displayed date, method version, contributor count and assessment coverage help a reader understand the result.

The self-assessed and reviewed-feedback results are not blended. There is no score transfer between an individual and a company. An entity’s performance relates to its own recorded dealings.

Interpretation

These are early-access, unvalidated descriptive measures of supplied information. A small or selectively invited set of contributors may not represent a complete track record. Absence of a concern is not proof of good conduct; an unrated profile is not a poor rating. No score certifies character, guarantees delivery or predicts an outcome.

Interpret the rating with its evidence.

The 3C Rating is a 0–100 index of supplied behavioural ratings. It is not a probability of success, a percentile, a credit score or a universal assessment of a person. The launch bands are product interpretation rules tied to the existing 1–5 response anchors; they are not empirically validated cut-offs or industry norms.

1. Priority development0–24 / 100

   Prioritise support and specific improvement actions.

2. Developing25–49 / 100

   Build more consistent behaviours, skills and support.

3. Established50–74 / 100

   A working foundation with room to strengthen consistency.

4. Strong75–89 / 100

   Consistent strengths in the information supplied.

5. Exceptional90–100 / 100

   Very high ratings against the stated behaviour anchors.

Exact intervals are 0 ≤ score < 25, 25 ≤ score < 50, 50 ≤ score < 75, 75 ≤ score < 90 and 90 ≤ score ≤ 100. The label is selected from the numeric score supplied by its scoring method before display formatting. Existing scoring methods may already round their calculated values; this release does not change that arithmetic or rewrite saved records.

Scope, freshness and fairness

• Self-assessed ratings relate to the named project, activity and capture date. Current reviewed-feedback ratings are profile-wide, because they combine eligible direct-dealing reports across engagements. They must not be presented as a project-specific finding.
• Show the source, project scope where applicable, statement coverage or contributor count, scoring method, band method and available dates with any rating. A score update date does not establish that all underlying dealings are recent.
• The Dashboard may prompt a review after 90 days. This is a workflow cue, not expiry, automatic score decay or evidence that conduct has worsened. Historical ratings retain their recorded dates and methods.
• High Capability or Capacity values do not resolve a material conduct concern. Examine individual dimensions, reports, context and approved responses rather than relying on the headline alone.
• Client fees, commercial affiliation, referral commissions and white-label branding must not influence scoring, moderator decisions, review eligibility or appeal outcomes. Commercial relationships must be disclosed where relevant.

How a durable benchmark will be developed

Before claiming predictive or industry-wide validity, 3C Potential needs independent content and measurement review, pilots with representative roles and sectors, reliability and rater-agreement analysis, fairness and accessibility testing, and research against defined future outcomes. Thresholds must be reviewed against that evidence, rather than adjusted to improve sales or guarantee favourable bands.

Version the scoring method and band interpretation separately. Publish material changes and their rationale before applying them, retain the historical method with each recorded result, and avoid presenting a changed interpretation as a member’s behavioural improvement. The present bands are a transparent starting point, not a claim that the rating is already an industry requirement.

A response and a route to reconsideration.

Members can respond to a report through their account and explain facts they contest, missing context and the outcome they seek. Provide specific reasons and relevant work-related evidence rather than personal attacks. Moderation checks the response before it appears in a shared report.

A member can raise an appeal on a published report. Either affected party can appeal a rejected decision. Each party can open one automatic appeal per report; later new material evidence should be sent through support rather than repeated automatic holds. A disputed contribution is suspended from scoring during re-review and the report discloses that a dispute is outstanding. A moderator records the final decision and reasons before deciding whether it can count again.

Disagreement alone does not establish that an opinion is false. The process considers the underlying events, how claims are presented, competing views and any correction supported by evidence. Neither a member nor a contributor can silently rewrite a moderation record.

Use the contact form for an access, correction, deletion or privacy request you cannot complete in your account. Identify the report reference and requested outcome. Do not send identity documents through the contact form. We may need to verify authority or identity and may retain material needed for a dispute or another legitimate obligation.

Share an account of standing with context.

Profiles are private by default. This release does not provide an open directory of allegations. A member can create an expiring report link, share it with an intended recipient and revoke it. Links expire after 30 days and show the current report while active; they are not a permanent certification.

• Shared reports include all currently published feedback and approved responses rather than allowing a member to select only favourable items.
• The report identifies the score source, method, date, evidence count and outstanding disputes.
• Raw private evidence, private account identifiers, private assessment project names and contact details are excluded. The public-facing identity and report text still require careful consideration before sharing.
• Anyone holding an active link may be able to view or copy its contents. Revocation stops future access through the link; it cannot recall a copy already saved by a recipient.
• Company and individual profiles remain separate. One profile per account is supported in this release.

Members can create invitation links for contributors and revoke them. Sending a copied invitation is the member’s action; this release does not automatically email invitations. A report reader can request access, but a request does not grant access to private material.

Our privacy policy describes account data, hosting, overseas processing, operator access, retention and privacy requests. Use the contact form to raise a privacy concern.

Professional performance, considered responsibly.

3C Standing is a professional performance and reputation record. This release does not assess consumer creditworthiness, accept repayment or default reporting, provide lending decisions or support automatic employment, investment or other eligibility decisions. It does not replace professional advice, references, lawful due diligence or your own assessment of the circumstances.

Standing registration has no charge in this release. Existing assessment trial terms still govern dashboard editing. Access to reporting, responses, disputes and standing records is not conditional on keeping an assessment trial active.

Material changes to the score method, review process, sharing or collection practices should be explained before they apply. This policy operates with the terms of use and privacy policy.