A complete example, in the structure assessors expect
Situation, Action, Outcome, formatted from your experience and the answers you gave, sized to your regulator's character limits, and honest about everything you haven't told it.
- A live counter on every section, and no completion while one is over the limit
- Unknown facts arrive as [placeholders] you fill, never as guesses
- Streams in section by section, so you can read it as it arrives
Situation / Action / Outcome
Writing…Situation
Action
Outcome
3 placeholders to fill
It didn't know the station name, the standard, or your measured clearance, so it didn't guess. That's the point.
What the draft is, and what it is not
The draft is a first version built from what you told CBA Pro: the work experience you selected, your answers to the gap questions, and facts you confirmed about the same job in earlier competencies. It arrives as a full Situation, Action and Outcome, the structure Canadian regulators ask for, rather than as an outline you then have to expand.
It is not a finished submission, and the product never pretends otherwise. It is the version you edit. What it saves you is the formatting: turning your facts, which stay yours, into a structured, appropriately weighted Situation, Action and Outcome, sized to a hard character budget.
That budget is real, and a language model cannot count characters. So CBA Pro does not ask it to: the prompt gives the model a word budget for each section, set below your regulator's limit, and the server counts every section in characters when the draft lands. There is no automatic rewrite. If a section still runs over, its counter turns red, you trim it by hand, and the competency cannot be marked complete until every section fits.
How the draft is built
- 1
Your answers become the source material
Facts about your work may come only from your recorded experience and your answers, including answers you gave about the same job under earlier competencies. That is the boundary the whole product is built around.
- 2
Structure is applied, weighted by the competency
Situation gets enough context to make the decision legible; Action carries the weight, because that is what is being assessed; Outcome states what changed and how it was measured.
- 3
Unknowns become placeholders
A standard you did not name, a metric you did not give, a date you did not include: each becomes a bracketed placeholder rather than a plausible invention.
- 4
The limit is measured, not guessed
The model formats to a word budget set below each section's limit, because it cannot count characters. The server then counts each section, and the editor shows a live counter that turns red on any section that runs over.
The difference between this and a general-purpose chatbot
It is built not to make it up
Ask a general chatbot for a competency example and it will produce a fluent one, complete with a standard number and a percentage improvement it invented. You would be the one signing that.
It formats to your character limit
Regulators cap each section of an example. CBA Pro gives the model a word budget below your limit, and if a section still runs over, the red counter tells you by exactly how much before anything leaves the app.
It knows which framework your draft is for
The competency's own description, indicators and reviewer expectations are in front of the model as it formats your answers, with guidance drawn from real CBA reviews, so the example is aimed at what that competency asks for.
The stream does not move the page
Every stream pins the viewport to the top of its step, at start and at end, so text grows below the fold rather than dragging the page under your cursor.
Why competency-based assessment examples get rejected
Four failure modes sink competency examples again and again, and every one of them is a missing-information problem sitting on top of perfectly adequate experience. The first is the job description: a paragraph about what the role involved rather than a specific dated event. The second is the invisible applicant: 'we designed', 'the team decided', with no separable individual contribution. The third is missing technical depth: the what without the why or the how. The fourth is the unevidenced outcome: 'the project was successful' with nothing measured.
The Situation, Action, Outcome structure exists to prevent exactly these. Situation forces a specific event with a date and a scope. Action forces first-person decisions. Outcome forces a result you can point at. The structure is not stylistic preference; it is the shape of the evidence assessors need.
Placeholders are the same discipline applied to facts. An example that says the alignment cleared the clash review with [measured clearance] to spare is an honest draft with one thing left to do. An example that says it cleared with 45 mm to spare, when the model chose 45, is a submission with a fabricated number in it.
Trusted by P.Eng applicants across Canada
Sadegh Behboudian
“Using CBA Pro by CertNova Software Solutions helped me get my P.Eng. approved on the first attempt without any CBA rejections. What surprised me most was that the challenge wasn't my experience, it was how to present it properly. Having the right structure and guidance made the entire process much more manageable. Definitely saved me time and avoided the usual back-and-forth revisions.”
5 months ago
M. Ibrahim
“This was a wonderful experience. Hossein and Jenny were very helpful and prompt to reply to my emails and questions. Hossein got on a call with me before enrolling just to answer my questions. The review for my CBA questions was detailed, thorough with clear direction on what needs to be done to improve, which made it very easy for me to fix my answers. They gave me a time for looking into my CBA questions. They ended up delivering earlier than promised. Finally, they are very fairly priced. Definitely recommend their service for anyone looking to get someone to assess their CBA answers.”
2 months ago
Nahal Nobahar
“I recently used this service to review and strengthen my competency submissions for my P.Eng. application, and I had a very positive experience. Reza and the team provided detailed and thoughtful feedback on my existing drafts, helping me clearly understand what was missing and what needed improvement to meet the expectations of the P.Eng. assessment process. They didn't just correct wording, they guided me on how to better structure my responses, highlight my individual contributions, and align my examples with the required competencies. What I found especially valuable was their ability to point out gaps in my explanations and suggest exactly what kind of technical details, context, and outcomes should be included. Their feedback made it much easier to refine my responses and present my experience in a clear, concise, and professional way. Overall, this service was extremely helpful for improving both the quality and clarity of my submission. I would recommend it to anyone who is working toward their P.Eng. designation and wants expert guidance to strengthen their application.”
7 months ago
Next in CBA Pro
Placeholders, not guesses
The one rule the whole product is built around: every fact the AI does not have becomes a bracket you fill, not a plausible invention you would have to defend.
Learn moreA reviewer marks up your draft
Word-style comments anchored to your exact words, each with a rewrite you can accept in one click, handed to you one job at a time.
Learn moreQuestions anchored to the indicators
Not “tell us about a project.” Direct questions about what this competency still needs from your experience, in its own vocabulary, and you can answer while they are still being written.
Learn moreDraft & placeholders: questions applicants ask
It is built not to. CBA Pro formats only what you provide, and never inventing facts is the first rule in every prompt it sends: anything the model cannot confirm from your recorded experience and your answers comes back as a bracketed placeholder instead. That covers standards, clauses, metrics, dates, employers and outcomes. You still read every line, and each draft lists what it would not claim.
Bracketed gaps in the draft text, like [applicable standard] or [measured clearance], that mark facts only you have. A wizard walks you through them one at a time, highlighting the active one in the editor and marking each filled one green.
It is formatted to fit, and then measured. A language model cannot count characters, so CBA Pro gives it a word budget below each section's limit and counts the characters itself when the draft lands. If a section still runs over, its counter turns red and you trim it by hand; there is no automatic rewrite. The competency cannot be marked complete until every section is within the limit.
Yes. The draft is a starting structure, not a final answer, and the editor is yours. Everything downstream (the review, the grade, the self-assessment score) works on whatever text is in the editor, including every sentence you rewrote.
In short
CBA Pro's step 3 turns the applicant's selected work experience, their answers to the interview questions and facts they confirmed about the same job in earlier competencies into a complete Situation, Action, Outcome draft, guided by the competency's rubric and by data from real CBA reviews. It does not create or embellish examples. A language model cannot count characters, so the model formats to a word budget set below each section's character limit; the server then counts every section, the editor shows a live counter that turns red on any section over the limit, and the applicant trims it by hand, since there is no automatic rewrite. A competency cannot be marked complete while any section is over its limit. Any fact the AI cannot confirm from the applicant's own inputs is emitted as a bracketed placeholder for the applicant to fill; the prompt forbids inventing standards, clauses, metrics, dates, employers or outcomes.
Run one full competency, free
Every step, on a real competency, with no card. Everything you write carries over the moment you upgrade.