The platform · Scenarios & rubrics

Realistic scenarios. Defensible scoring.

Author the conversation. Map the rubric. The platform records the evidence — your assessor signs it off.

Book a partner conversation → See feedback & evidence
Scenario brief — clinical communication
Two ways a scenario gets in

Realistic scenarios — not sanitised role-plays.

Realistic scenarios mirror real pressure. We treat scenario design as a structured discipline rather than a content generation task.

MODE 01 · LIBRARY

Validated library

Sector-mapped scenarios already aligned to common frameworks for the sectors we serve. The fastest way to start; also the basis for everything custom that comes after.

  • Clinical communication scenarios for OSCE practice
  • Workplace English phone calls
  • Jobseeker interviews by role family
  • Contact centre de-escalation cases
MODE 02 · CUSTOM

Custom authoring

A partner builds a scenario for their own cohort under a structured brief. Not free-form. The platform operates inside the brief — it does not improvise outside it.

  • Context, learner objective, rubric mapping
  • Persona spec and success criteria
  • Edge cases the scenario must handle
  • Sign-off workflow before the scenario goes live
Scenario authoring

What goes into a scenario brief.

Six structured inputs that turn a hard conversation into a repeatable, scorable, evidence-producing scenario.

01

Context & setting

  • Sector and sub-context
  • Setting (clinical, phone, workplace, on-site)
  • Time pressure and constraints
02

Learner objective

  • What the learner is here to demonstrate
  • What "good" looks like in this scenario
  • What competence at this level means
03

Persona spec

  • Identity profile (Sound · Identity · State)
  • Behavioural baseline
  • How the persona shifts under pressure
04

Rubric mapping

  • Criteria and weights
  • Anchors for met / developing / critical gap
  • Framework alignment, where applicable
05

Success criteria

  • The behaviours that earn green
  • The behaviours that surface amber
  • The behaviours that flag red
06

Edge cases & safeguards

  • Risk triggers and stop conditions
  • Escalation pathways
  • Cultural safety considerations
Rubric structure

Rubric-aligned scoring — not a black box.

Every score in Attuniq is anchored to a criterion. Every criterion has a definition. The criterion is published to the learner before the scenario, not after.

Where partners use a recognised framework, the platform supports alignment to it. We claim alignment where it has been substantiated. Where alignment is partial, we say partial. Where it isn't there yet, we don't pretend it is.

See feedback in detail
Sample rubric · OSCE clinical communication
Aligned to Calgary-Cambridge guide
Criterion Weight Alignment
Initiating the session
Greeting · purpose · agenda
15% Full
Gathering information
Open questions · cues · summary
25% Full
Building relationship
Empathy · acknowledging · respect
20% Full
Explanation & planning
Plain language · checking · shared decisions
25% Partial
Closing the session
Summary · safety net · agreed plan
15% Full
Triggers & de-escalation levers

Behaviour-based, observable, sector-agnostic.

A pre-filled set of triggers and de-escalation levers used as defaults across most personas. Adapt for scenario-specific rules and safety requirements. Triggers are observable and behavioural — never identity-based assumptions.

Trigger · what escalates Behavioural response De-escalation lever
Interrupting or talking over them
Stops mid-sentence, becomes sharper, may say "Let me finish" or withdraws.
Pause, apologise, invite them back: "Sorry, please go on. I want to understand."
Dismissive tone or minimising their concern
Defensiveness rises, trust drops, may challenge competence or become guarded.
Validate first: "I can see this matters to you. Let's take it seriously."
Using jargon without checking understanding
Confusion or anxiety increases, asks repeated questions or shuts down.
Switch to plain language and check back: "In simple terms… Does that make sense?"
Rushing or skipping steps
Feels unsafe or unheard, pushes back, demands clearer answers or escalates.
Slow the pace, signpost: "I'll take this step by step. First… then…"
Not answering their key question
Becomes repetitive, persistent, may escalate to complaint or supervisor.
Acknowledge and answer directly, then confirm: "The answer is… Have I addressed that?"
Unclear next steps or vague plan
Anxiety rises, distrust grows, may say "So what happens now?" repeatedly.
Provide a concrete plan with timeframes: "Today we'll… By [time]… Then we'll…"
Perceived judgement or blame
Withdraws, becomes defensive, withholds information.
Use non-judgemental language: "No blame here. My goal is to help and work out options."
Ignoring constraints (cost, access, capacity, fatigue)
Resistance increases, may disengage or say it's not possible.
Acknowledge constraints and offer options: "Given that, let's look at two realistic choices."
Lack of respect markers when formality is expected
Corrects you, becomes cold or distant, may refuse to engage.
Reset respectfully: "Thank you, Mr/Ms… I appreciate you sharing this."
Multi-part questions or no time to respond
Overwhelm increases, answers become short or inconsistent.
Ask one question at a time, allow silence: "Take your time. Start with…"
The platform records. The assessor signs off.

Attuniq does not replace the assessor.

The platform produces the evidence; the assessor reviews it, agrees or disagrees with the score, and signs off. The signed record is the audit artefact — not the platform's first-pass score.

For the partner who needs the assessor to remain accountable — the clinical educator, the trainer-assessor, the QA lead — the platform supports that accountability. Calibration tools surface where reviewers disagree and how to close the gap.

Score → sign-off pathway
1

Learner runs the scenario

Voice or text. The platform captures the conversation against the rubric.

2

Platform produces a first-pass score

Per criterion, with the moment that earned each score and a concrete next step.

3

Assessor reviews

Agree, disagree, or annotate. Calibration data shows where this assessor differs from peers.

4

Assessor signs off

The signed record becomes the audit artefact. Versioned, exportable, defensible.

Next

From score to feedback to evidence the regulator will accept.

The next question is how the score becomes feedback the learner can act on, and how it becomes evidence that holds up under audit.

See feedback & evidence → Book a partner conversation