Built for trust from day one.
Rubric-aligned scoring. Evidence packs. Human review pathways. Accessible by design. Five design choices, made on purpose.
Commitments, not features.
Each one is a choice we made early about how the platform should behave in high-stakes contexts.
Rubric-aligned scoring
Every score is anchored to a criterion the partner can see. Published before the scenario, not after. No black box. No "AI says you passed."
Evidence packs
Every assessment is exportable, auditable, defensible. Per scenario and per cohort. Structured for accreditor, regulator, funder, audit.
Human review pathways
The assessor remains the decision-maker. The platform produces evidence; the human reviews it, agrees or disagrees, signs off.
Accessible by design
WCAG 2.1 AA minimum. Colour-independent meaning on every traffic light. Focus indicators. Keyboard. Screen reader. Reduced motion.
Fairness reviews
Rubrics audited for criteria that might disadvantage candidates. Persona library reviewed for cultural safety and stereotype. Bias monitored, not denied.
Tested across the axes that matter.
Scoring is reviewed for systematic disadvantage across accent, dialect, disability-related speech differences, and cultural communication style. The audit is documented; we don't pretend the audit is the cure.
Where a criterion is producing a disparate result without a defensible reason, the criterion is rewritten. Where a persona is encoding stereotype, the persona is reviewed by lived-experience advisors before it goes back into rotation.
How the persona engine handles diversityHigher stakes, more human review. Rule, not exception.
In higher-stakes contexts, the human review pathway is not an option — it's the design.
Conversation captured
Voice or text. Recorded with consent against the rubric.
First-pass score
Per criterion. With the moment that earned each score.
Assessor review
Agree, disagree, annotate. Calibration data alongside.
Sign-off recorded
The signed record becomes the audit artefact. Versioned.
Some commitments only make sense in the negative.
Six explicit things. Each one is the rule, not an exception we negotiate.
We won't make hiring decisions for you.
Where Attuniq is used in screening, candidates produce evidence and humans make the decisions. The platform is not the decider.
We won't replace the assessor.
The clinical educator, the trainer-assessor, the QA lead, the case manager — they remain accountable. Attuniq makes their evidence trail defensible.
We won't claim our scoring eliminates bias.
Rubrics can encode bias. Personas can encode stereotype. We audit them; we don't pretend the audit is the cure.
We won't deploy in high-stakes contexts without human review.
Higher stakes, more human review. That's the rule, not an exception we negotiate.
We won't black-box a score.
Every score has a criterion. Every criterion has a definition. Every assessor touch is logged.
We won't store data we don't need.
Data minimisation by design. Learner data belongs to the learner. Partner data belongs to the partner.
For the partner whose conversation starts with their compliance lead.
Audit logs
Every score, every assessor touch, every rubric change, every persona configuration. The log is part of the evidence pack, not a separate report.
Version control
A score produced eighteen months ago is reviewable in the form the rubric existed at the time. Audit doesn't get harder because the platform improved in the interim.
Retention policies
Aligned to the regulatory timelines that apply to each partner sector. Explicit about what is kept, for how long, and who can access it.
Accreditation alignment
Claimed only where substantiated. We don't claim ASQA recognition. We don't claim AHPRA endorsement. Where the platform aligns to a standard, we say partial or full and we evidence the claim.
WCAG 2.1 AA is the minimum, not the ceiling.
An EAL learner with low literacy, a clinical educator using screen-reader-only navigation, and a contact centre agent on a low-spec device all get the same product. Not a stripped version of it.
The brand guide treats accessibility as a core requirement, not a section. The platform reflects that.
Not just compliance theatre.
Data minimisation is the default. Learners own their records by default. Partners control their cohort's data. Hosting region, encryption posture, and certifications held — and certifications in progress — are stated honestly on the security page.
We don't say "bank-grade encryption". We say what we use, where, and how it's reviewed. If a partner needs more than what's stated, the partner conversation is the next step.
The same posture, stated as a brand-wide commitment.
The principles page is where the trust posture is stated for the brand, not just the platform.