Find out it isn't ready while you can still fix it
Every competency gets two separate reads: a submit-readiness letter grade that re-runs itself on your newest saved text, and a 0 to 5 self-assessment rating, the number you enter in your regulator's portal, coloured against the minimum for that competency.
- The grade re-runs on your newest saved edits, with no refresh button to forget
- The grade is free; the self-assessment uses one evaluation credit, only on success
- 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+ or C), the weakest section by name, and, only when the grade is below A, two improvements, each with why it matters and what to do. Green reads 'Good to submit', amber 'Adjust it further' and red 'Needs real work', so the verdict is 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 to 5 rating with the reasoning behind it, coloured against the minimum for that competency: 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. An early version had a field that invited the model to comment on exactly that, and it was removed: that judgment belongs to the regulator, not the product.
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 holds your own edits. Grading the AI's draft while its review comments were still open used to read 'A, good to go'.
- 3
It states its provenance
The card names the version it graded ('Graded on draft v4') and says it is 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 the minimum would be the single most harmful thing this feature could do.
Two improvements, not nine
Below an A you get two improvements, each with a reason and one action. A list of nine is a way of not prioritising.
The automatic one is free
The grade runs by itself on every saved edit, so it never costs a credit: an automatic call that silently spent one would make you afraid to edit. The self-assessment runs only when you ask, and uses one evaluation credit when it succeeds.
How engineering competencies are actually evaluated
Canadian regulators rate each competency from 0 to 5, and the assessor's rating is the one that decides. The minimums are set mostly by category, as an average your ratings must reach, and some competencies, such as the Canadian-environment ones, carry a minimum of their own. The rating does not measure how good you are at engineering; it measures the level of responsibility and independence shown by the example you submitted, so the same project written two different ways can earn 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 the 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 get to make it while there is still time, rather than after a rejection.
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
A 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 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 use no credits.
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 moreGrade & self-assessment: questions applicants ask
A+ and A read 'Good to submit'. B+ and B read 'Adjust it further', with the weakest section named. C+ and C read 'Needs real work'. Below an A you also get two improvements, each with why it matters and what to do about it.
It is the number your current draft supports, with the reasoning behind it, coloured against the minimum for that competency. The number you enter is your own declaration to make, but if it differs a lot from what your text supports, that is worth understanding before an assessor points it out.
The submit-readiness grade never does: it runs automatically on your edits, and charging for it would be a reason not to edit. The self-assessment score uses one AI-evaluation credit from your plan, and only when it succeeds.
Yes. Score history keeps your last ten 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 gives each competency draft two reads. A submit-readiness grade, free of charge, returns a letter (A+ to C) with the weakest section named and, below an A, two improvements with why and what to do; it re-runs automatically on the newest saved text and names the draft version it graded. A separate 0 to 5 self-assessment score, which uses one AI-evaluation credit, reports the rating the current text supports with its reasoning, coloured against the competency's minimum (red below, amber at, green above), and is instructed never to inflate 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.