A reviewer marked up your draft before an assessor could
The comments are anchored to the exact passage they are about, numbered at the mark, and each carries a suggested rewrite you can drop into your draft in one click.
- Referenced text marked inside the editor, with a numbered chip at each mark
- “Use this wording in my draft” swaps the passage in place
- Placeholders first, comments second, so the work arrives in order
Action
I recalculated the horizontal curve and the team decided on the transition spiral length, then carried the chosen alignment through IFC.
Reviewer comment · Individual contribution
“The team decided” hides what you did. Assessors reject examples where the applicant's own decision can't be separated from the group's.
Placeholders first, comments second. The rail hands out one job at a time.
What the review looks for
The review reads your draft the way an assessor would, with your competency's rubric in front of it and patterns from 164 real reviewer comments behind it. Does the Action show what you personally did, in the first person? Does it explain what, how and why, naming the standards, tools, calculations and checks you actually used? Does the Outcome show a benefit at project level? And is this a specific workplace event rather than a job description?
Where it finds a problem, it does not tell you in general terms. It marks the passage in amber inside the editor, puts a numbered chip at the end of the mark, and files a comment carrying the same number. Click the chip and its comment opens in the rail, so the link between 'this sentence' and 'this problem' is never something you have to reconstruct.
Each comment comes with a concrete rewrite. One click swaps the referenced passage for the suggestion, and if that rewrite needs a fact you have not given, the bracket it introduces is added to your placeholder wizard automatically.
How the rail hands out work
- 1
Placeholders first
Fifteen comments and twelve placeholders arriving together is the fastest way to make someone close the tab. The rail shows placeholders first; the comments stay behind a single line until the placeholders are filled or you choose to open them.
- 2
One placeholder at a time
The wizard marks the active placeholder yellow in the editor and each filled one green, with a single 'Fill & next' action.
- 3
Then the comments, one at a time
Each comment wears the number of its mark in the draft, and the rail shows them one at a time. Click a chip in the text to bring up its comment.
- 4
Track changes when you want it
Off by default. Turn it on and each changed section shows what you inserted in green and what you deleted struck through in red, compared with the reviewed draft.
What makes it usable rather than overwhelming
Anchored, not summarised
A comment that says 'strengthen the outcome section' is advice. A comment attached to the sentence that fails, with the replacement written out, is a fix.
One-click rewrites
You are not asked to re-derive the improvement from the criticism. The suggested wording is right there, applying it takes one click, and afterwards it is your text to edit like any other sentence.
Nothing you typed is discarded
Every AI action saves pending editor text first. Running a recheck while mid-sentence cannot cost you the sentence.
Recheck when you want it
Recheck and polish run only when you press them, with their credit cost shown under the button, so a round of edits does not silently spend anything.
Getting feedback before the regulator gives it to you
The structural problem with a Competency-Based Assessment is the length of the feedback loop. You write twenty-odd examples over several months, submit, and wait. If the submission comes back with comments, you are rewriting under time pressure with a partial explanation of what went wrong.
Anything that shortens that loop is worth disproportionately more than anything that speeds up the writing itself. A marked-up draft at the moment you finish writing it is the cheapest possible correction; the same correction arriving from an assessor months later costs a resubmission cycle.
This is also why the review step and the human P.Eng review are positioned as two different moments rather than competing products. The AI review runs whenever you ask for it while you are still writing. A licensed P.Eng reads the finished thing once, before you submit. One is for iteration, the other is for judgment.
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
See what is still thin before you submit
A letter grade that re-grades itself on your newest edits, and a 0 to 5 self-assessment score coloured against your regulator's own minimum.
Learn moreEvery round of a draft is kept
Every preliminary draft and every editing round is its own version, with the comments and placeholders filed against the version they describe. Edit fearlessly.
Learn moreThen a real P.Eng reads it
A licensed Professional Engineer reads every competency line by line, in five business days, with one complimentary meeting included.
Learn moreReviewer comments: questions applicants ask
CBA Pro is not a chatbot. The review has your competency's rubric and your association's expectations in front of it, with patterns from 164 real reviewer comments behind it. Its comments are anchored to specific passages rather than delivered as a summary, and its suggested rewrites follow the same never-invent rule as the draft: a rewrite that would need a fact you have not supplied comes with a placeholder rather than a plausible number.
CBA Pro is built to start each competency from an interview about your own experience, at step 1, and its review marks up the drafts you build there. If you want competencies you have already written read and fixed, that is our CBA Review service, where a licensed P.Eng reviews them.
No. Every comment can be read and ignored, and every applied rewrite can be edited afterwards. The comment tells you what an assessor is likely to flag; what you do about it is your call.
As many as your plan's preliminary draft credits cover: 20 on Foundation, 45 on Progression and 70 on Professional, shared with drafting, since each draft and each review round uses one. On the Free plan's one competency they are unlimited. Each review round shows its cost under the button before you press it.
In short
CBA Pro's review step marks up a competency draft with comments anchored to the exact referenced passage (highlighted inside the editor with a numbered chip that opens the matching comment), each carrying a suggested rewrite that can be applied in one click. The review works from the competency's rubric and from patterns in 164 real reviewer comments. Work is revealed in order: placeholders first, through a one-at-a-time wizard, then comments, one at a time. Track changes is an optional view showing insertions in green and deletions struck through in red against the reviewed draft. Pending editor text is always saved before any AI action runs, and each review round uses one of the plan's preliminary draft credits.
Run one full competency, free
Every step, on a real competency, with no card. Everything you write carries over the moment you upgrade.