AI benchmarking to full independent accreditation. A progressive pathway that meets organisations where they are at every stage.
Upload your impact assessment report and receive a principle-by-principle benchmark against the IAAF Standard. We assess your report in our queue and email you when the summary table is ready.
| Principle | Score |
|---|---|
| 1. Purpose and Theory of Change Clarity | 5.5 |
| 2. Contextual Relevance and Stakeholder Sensitivity | 6.5 |
| 3. Methodological Rigor and Appropriateness | 6.0 |
| 4. Proportionality, Risk and Materiality | 4.5 |
| 5. Credible Evidence and Data Integrity | 5.5 |
| 6. Responsible Causality (Attribution / Contribution) | 4.5 |
| 7. Ethical Integrity and Safeguarding | 4.0 |
| 8. Inclusivity of Learning and Reflexivity | 5.0 |
| 9. Transparency and Public Accountability | 6.5 |
Building on Level 1, this review provides detailed feedback on strengths and areas for improvement or gaps as per the standard under each principle. The report is AI-generated and then reviewed by an IAAF representative before being shared via email.
Strong institutional and sectoral context. Detailed description of the organisational ecosystem with stakeholder engagement through interviews with leadership, faculty, and students.
No structured stakeholder mapping. No differentiation across beneficiary groups by gender, socio-economic status, or vulnerability. Context does not meaningfully inform evaluation design.
Strong descriptive context, limited analytical stakeholder integration.
Focused accreditation of the appropriateness of your methodology. Ideally undertaken before conducting the assessment, but may also be applied retrospectively. Includes a 30-minute consultation to discuss findings.
Are your methods fit-for-purpose? Is the sampling logic sound? Are limitations acknowledged?
Is the assessment depth proportionate to scale and risk? Are material outcomes prioritised?
The most rigorous tier. An independent three-member committee reviews your report against all nine principles. Includes a public comment period and formal accreditation decision with documented reasoning. Meet the Accreditation Committee →
It does not constitute endorsement of the project itself, validation of the magnitude of reported outcomes, a guarantee of causal attribution, or a judgement on regulatory compliance. Accreditation applies only to the specific report and time period reviewed.
Read the full Standard →All reports that receive full accreditation are permanently published in our public library — strengthening transparency and enabling cross-sector learning.
Browse the library →