/ Our standard
Everyone says ISO/IEC 17024.
We'll show you.
Plenty of certification bodies say they are aligned to ISO/IEC 17024. It is a good standard and a fair thing to aim at. The awkward part is that the standard is public — anyone can read what it asks for.
The information was never the hard part. Executing it is.
Most credentialing bodies assemble a credential out of parts they bought. One platform hosts the content, another delivers the training, a third runs the exam, a fourth issues and verifies the badge. Each does its job well. None of them knows what the others know. So when the standard asks a question that spans all four — does every exam question trace to a declared competence, at the cognitive level that competence requires? — there is no single place to look, and no way to prove the answer.
It is hard to blame them. Answering that properly means the job-task analysis, the lessons, the item bank, the exam engine and the credential have to be one system, built that way from the first row of the first table.
Retrofitting it means retooling, repricing or reissuing every certification you have ever sold.
Then came artificial intelligence.
And suddenly the work changed. AI did not add a tool to these jobs — it changed what the jobs are. Everyone in the sector knows it, and the demand is not subtle.
Watch what happens next: they bolt on an AI certificate. A separate credential, about AI, sitting beside the Scrum one and the security one, touching neither. It is not that they do not want AI inside the certifications they already sell. It is that, built the way they were built, they cannot put it there.
We did not reinvent Scrum, or service management, or ISO/IEC 27001. That material is public and it is good. We asked the only question still open: how does AI change this work, and where exactly does it belong? Then we wrote it into every domain of every certification, and assessed it there.
So we built all of it. And we publish what it produces — every task, every domain weight, every cognitive profile — computed live from the database that runs the exams.
If anyone else can show you the same, they should. We're betting most can't.
Cognitive demand defines the level. Difficulty does not.
A Level II is not a Level I with harder questions. It asks for a different kind of thinking. Every task in every job-task analysis carries a declared cognitive level, and the level of the task fixes the level of the question that measures it.
Solid — issued today.
Dashed — specified in the job-task analysis, not yet issued.
Level II raises the cognitive demand and stays multiple choice: four defensible options, one best. Level III is where multiple choice stops being the honest instrument — evaluation and judgment need simulation. Those tasks are already written and flagged in our analyses, and deliberately kept out of exam scope until the instrument that can measure them exists. A harder quiz would not be that instrument. Don't worry — we're building the one that is.
What that changes about the questions
The difference is not length or vocabulary. It is what the options do.
The Sprint is half over and the team will clearly miss the Sprint Goal. What should happen?
- The scope is renegotiated with the Product Owner
- The Sprint is extended by one week
- The Scrum Master assigns the remaining work
- The team stops holding the Daily Scrum
One option is right. Three are recognisably wrong. You are being asked whether you can apply a rule.
Three Sprints running, the team meets its forecast but the Sprint Goal is written after Sprint Planning ends. What is the cause?
- Planning is treating capacity as the objective
- Backlog items arrive insufficiently refined
- The Product Owner is absent from Planning
- The team is estimating too conservatively
Every option is defensible. One is best. You are being asked to diagnose a cause nobody supplied.
The credential is ours to stand behind.
Certidemy is the issuer of record. Every credential is an Open Badges 3.0 document, signed with our key, carrying every competency it attests — and any receiving system can verify it without contacting us.
We host and sign it ourselves on purpose. A body that makes the certification decision should hold the record of that decision. We are ready to distribute through the badge networks when it serves holders, but the authoritative copy stays where the accountability is.
Every response is captured with the item it answered, that item's declared cognitive level, its difficulty, and the time spent on it — so that the passing standard is set from evidence rather than opinion.
Partner with us.
Training organizations, universities and employers put their name next to a credential. We think you should be able to check ours first. Everything above is live, and the rest is a conversation.
This page reflects the platform as of August 9, 2026.