Find out it isn't ready while you can still fix it
Every competency gets two independent reads: a submit-readiness letter grade that re-runs itself on your newest text, and the 0–5 self-assessment rating you will actually write on your application — coloured against your regulator's minimum.
- The grade re-runs on every saved edit — there is no refresh button to forget
- Both are free; an automatic call that spends a credit is a bug, not a feature
- It names the version it graded, so you always know the verdict is current
Weakest section: Outcome
Graded on draft v5 · free, no credit spent
Self-assessment score
Below your regulator's minimum of 3 — the shortfall is named, not rounded up.
Two different questions, two different answers
The submit-readiness grade answers 'is this example good enough to send?'. It returns a letter — A+, A, B+, B, C+, C — the weakest section by name, and, only when the grade is below A, exactly two bullets: why, and what to do about it. Green means good to submit, amber means adjust it further, red means it needs real work, and the verdict is written in words as well as colour.
The self-assessment score answers a different question: what number do you put on the application? It returns a 0–5 rating with the reasoning behind it, coloured against your regulator's published minimum — red below, amber exactly at, green above. It also keeps a history, stamped with the draft version, so you can see what it said before you rewrote the Action section.
Neither pronounces on your readiness to hold a licence. That field was deliberately removed from the scoring schema: it is the regulator's judgment, not the product's.
How the grade stays honest
- 1
It re-grades itself
Keyed on the saved draft text, so it fires on a new version, on an autosave, and on arriving at the step. A grade you have to remember to refresh is a grade that quietly describes old text.
- 2
It waits for your edits
It only runs once the current version is yours. Grading the AI's still-commented second draft used to read 'A, good to go' while the reviewer comments were still open.
- 3
It states its provenance
The card names the version it graded — 'Graded on draft v4' — and says 're-grading with your newest edits' while it catches up.
- 4
One score per draft
The self-assessment action disappears once a draft is scored and returns only when a newer draft exists. The same text scores the same way; a 'score it again' button would only spend a credit to say so.
Design decisions behind the numbers
A letter, not a percentage
A numeric score invited haggling over 88 versus 91 instead of fixing the section. A letter plus the weakest section by name points at work.
It never inflates to reach the minimum
If your example scores below your regulator's threshold, it says so and names the missing evidence. Rounding an applicant up to a passing number would be the single most harmful thing this feature could do.
Exactly two bullets
Below an A you get one reason and one action. A list of nine improvements is a way of not prioritising.
Free, always
Both verdicts are unmetered. They run automatically, and an automatic call that silently spends a credit would make you afraid to edit.
How engineering competencies are actually evaluated
Canadian regulators score each competency on a rating scale — commonly 0 to 5 — with a published minimum you must reach for the competency to count. The rating is not a measure of how good an engineer you are; it is a measure of the level of responsibility and independence demonstrated by the example you submitted. The same project written two different ways can score two different numbers.
That is why the self-assessment rating is worth taking seriously well before submission. Applicants who assign themselves a 4 across the board, without evidence in the text to support it, invite exactly the kind of assessor scrutiny they were hoping to avoid. Applicants who under-rate a genuinely strong example leave a competency on the table.
The scoring card is designed to make the gap concrete: here is the number your text currently supports, here is your regulator's minimum, and here is the evidence that is missing. Whether you go and get that evidence or pick a different project is your decision — but you are making it with a month to spare rather than after a rejection.
Trusted by engineers 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.”
3 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.”
1 week 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.”
4 months ago
Next in CBA Pro
A reviewer marks up your draft
Word-style comments anchored to your exact words, each with a rewrite you can accept in one click — and handed to you one job at a time.
Learn moreA five-step workspace per competency
Match your experience, close the gaps, draft, review, finalize. The screen always answers “what do I do next?” — and steps 1 and 2 cost nothing.
Learn moreThen a real P.Eng reads it
A licensed Professional Engineer reads every competency line by line — five business days, with one complimentary meeting included.
Learn moreGrade & self-assessment — questions applicants ask
A+ and A mean the example is good to submit. B+ and B mean adjust it further — there is a specific weakness named. C+ and C mean it needs real work, usually a structural problem rather than a wording one. Below an A you also get exactly two bullets: why it lost the grade, and what to do about it.
It is the number your current draft supports, with the reasoning behind it, coloured against your regulator's published minimum. The number you actually submit is your declaration to make — but if it differs a lot from what your text supports, that is worth understanding before an assessor points it out.
No. Both the submit-readiness grade and the self-assessment score are unmetered. The grade in particular runs automatically on your edits, so charging for it would be a reason not to edit.
Yes. Score history keeps up to ten previous scores, each stamped with the draft version it was run against, so you can see exactly what a rewrite bought you.
In short
CBA Pro grades each competency draft twice, both free of charge. A submit-readiness grade returns a letter (A+ to C) with the weakest section named and — below an A — exactly two bullets on why and what to do; it re-runs automatically on the newest saved text and names the draft version it graded. A separate 0–5 self-assessment score reports the rating the current text supports with its reasoning, coloured against the regulator's published minimum (red below, amber at, green above), and never inflates a rating to reach that minimum. Neither output judges the applicant's fitness to hold a licence.
Run one full competency, free
Every step, on a real competency, with no card. Everything you write carries over the moment you upgrade.