CBA

Can You Use AI to Write Your CBA? What Each Regulator Allows (2026)

Published September 27, 2026

Not to create or embellish them. AI can ask you about your work, organize your notes, format what you told it and check your draft for gaps, but every fact in your examples must come from you, and you remain responsible for every word. EGBC, EGM, Engineers Nova Scotia and Engineers PEI prohibit using AI (or third parties) to create or embellish examples; APEGS and PEO hold you fully responsible for the accuracy and authenticity of anything AI helped with.

That applies to every P.Eng. and P.Geo. applicant writing a competency-based assessment (CBA) in Canada, including in Alberta, where APEGA warns that AI content is often generic. Below is what each regulator had published as of September 2026, which uses are safe, and how regulators check what you submit.

At a glance (as of September 2026)

EGBC, EGM, Engineers Nova Scotia and Engineers PEI: using AI or third parties to create or embellish workplace examples is "strictly prohibited".
APEGS: you sign a declaration taking full responsibility for your submission "regardless of whether I used AI tools, editors, or others for assistance".
PEO (August 2026 guide): examples "must be prepared by you", and if you use AI tools you accept full responsibility for their accuracy and authenticity.
APEGA and Engineers Yukon: AI content is often generic, and you must complete the forms yourself.
Safe: organizing your own notes, mapping your experience to competencies, having a tool format only the facts you supplied, checking your draft for gaps and grammar, and NPPE practice. Not safe: creating or embellishing examples, or touching your validators' forms.

What each regulator says about AI

The wording differs, but the direction is the same everywhere: your examples must describe work you did, in words you wrote.

Regulator	What it says	Where it says it
EGBC (British Columbia)	"The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and third parties to create or embellish workplace examples is strictly prohibited." An applicant caught submitting a fraudulent application could face investigation and disciplinary action.	Competency Assessment Guide for Engineering Applicants and Trainees (revised April 2024)
Engineers Geoscientists Manitoba (EGM)	The same wording as EGBC	EGM's CBA guides (EGBC's April 2024 guides, adopted October 2024)
Engineers Nova Scotia	Using AI and third parties to create or embellish your competency examples is "strictly prohibited"	Competency-Based Assessment Guide (July 2026)
Engineers PEI	The same wording as EGBC, with a warning of investigation and disciplinary action by Engineers PEI	EIT information session (September 15, 2026)
APEGS (Saskatchewan)	Your examples must be "a true, accurate and honest record" of your work, and you take full responsibility "regardless of whether I used AI tools, editors, or others for assistance"	CBA Declaration Form (revised September 3, 2025), uploaded before you submit
PEO (Ontario)	All work examples "must be prepared by you"; if you use AI-based tools you "must accept full responsibility for the accuracy and authenticity" of the information; no hypothetical situations or work done by colleagues or your team	CBA Applicant Guide (August 2026)
APEGA (Alberta)	Content produced by AI "is often generic and may not accurately reflect your individual experience"; "You must complete these forms yourself"	APEGA's page for professional member and licensee applicants
Engineers Yukon	AI content "is generic", and forms "must be completed first-hand"	Engineers Yukon applicant pages (2025); Yukon applicants complete APEGA's CBA
NAPEG, APEGNB and PEGNL	Nothing AI-specific that we found. NAPEG applicants complete APEGA's CBA, and the APEGNB and PEGNL guides ask for first-person examples of your own work	Current CBA guides and registration pages

Two details matter more than they look. The EGBC wording, which EGM, Engineers Nova Scotia and Engineers PEI also use, covers third parties as well as AI, so a colleague, friend or paid writer who rewrites your examples falls under the same rule. And "embellish" goes beyond invention: adding a budget you didn't manage, a code check you didn't run or a decision someone else made changes an example even when the project was real.

PEO's wording is different but just as firm. Its August 2026 guide says every example must be prepared by you and reflect your real experience, and it rules out hypothetical situations and work done by colleagues or your team. Check any sentence that says what you "would" do or what "we" did.

Safe and unsafe uses

A quick test: if a tool only questions you about your own work, or arranges, formats or checks what you told it, you are on the safe side. If it adds anything you did not tell it, you are not.

Use	Safe?	Why
Organizing your own notes: projects, dates, your role and the decisions you made	Yes	Everything comes from you; nothing is created or embellished
Mapping your projects to competencies and indicators	Yes	Choosing which real project best shows a competency is planning, not writing
Checking your own draft for gaps against the indicators	Yes	Learning that you never named the standard or stated the result tells you what to add from your own records
Having a tool interview you and turn only your answers into a formatted draft, with missing facts left as [brackets] for you to fill	Yes, if every fact is yours and you review every word	Nothing is created or embellished: the tool formats what you supplied and asks you for what is missing. You stay responsible for the final text
Fixing spelling and grammar in text you wrote	Yes, if it only corrects errors	Reject any change that adds facts or inflates your role. APEGS reopens submissions with excessively poor spelling or grammar, so a careful check helps
Practising for the NPPE with AI quizzes and explanations	Yes	The rules above cover your CBA examples, not exam study
Asking AI to write an example from your job description or a few bullet points and fill in the rest	No	Whatever it fills in is created, not yours
Letting a tool "strengthen" an example with extra responsibilities, figures or outcomes	No	That is embellishing
Having a colleague, consultant or paid service write or rewrite your examples	No	Third parties fall under the same prohibition at EGBC, EGM, Engineers Nova Scotia and Engineers PEI
Presenting hypothetical work, or your team's work, as your own	No	PEO forbids it outright, and every CBA asks for your own actions, written with "I"
Opening validator links, or drafting, typing or translating a validator's responses	No	APEGS's declaration forbids it, and on the shared competency assessment system impersonating a validator can trigger an investigation

How regulators check what you submit

No regulator publishes whether it screens text for AI. They do publish other checks, and each one tests whether you can stand behind every line:

Quality checks. If an APEGS submission has excessively poor spelling or grammar or too little information, the assessment is reopened and you must rewrite every competency and have it revalidated.
Login data and fraud reviews. APEGS's declaration says it may review IP addresses, timestamps and login data. A candidate who opens a validator link or assists a validator may trigger a fraud review and a character evaluation, and a breach can mean a rejected validation, a denied application or a referral to APEGS's Investigation Committee.
Validator audits. On the shared competency assessment system run by EGBC, validators are nominated with business email addresses, and regulators may audit them by contacting them. APEGA runs quality-assurance audits and may verify responses independently.
Interviews. Engineers PEI interviews every applicant once the experience, CBA and NPPE requirements are met, and EGBC invites some applicants to interviews. You have to explain your examples in your own words.
English. APEGA's examiners may use your whole application as evidence of your written English, and EGBC assesses English from your communication competencies and your validators' comments.

Generic text also fails on its own terms. APEGA tells applicants not to copy the indicators or a job description, EGBC's guide says assessors cannot rely on implied evidence, and APEGS gives a rating of zero to an example that doesn't explain how it addresses the competency. The assessor's rating decides the outcome, and your validators' ratings stay confidential.

A safe way to prepare your examples

Start from your records. Reports, calculations, drawings and emails show what you did, decided and delivered. Note it down in your own words.
Map projects to competencies. Use the indicators to pick the strongest real example for each competency. You can reuse a project across competencies if your actions differ.
Make each example yours. Every fact comes from your own work, written with "I", in Situation, Action, Outcome order and within your regulator's character limits. If a tool formatted your answers, read every line and change anything that is not exactly what you did.
Check against the indicators. Did you name the code or standard, your own decision and the result? Fill gaps from your records, not from a tool's suggestions.
Proofread. A spelling and grammar pass is fine if it only fixes errors.
Keep your notes. They help you answer questions about any example later, including at an interview.
Leave your validators alone. Give them general context about your work, then let them rate independently.

CBA Pro is built to stay inside these rules: it doesn't create or embellish examples. It interviews you about your own work, asking what your association looks for, turns your CV and your answers into a formatted draft, and marks with [brackets] any fact that is still missing. Every fact in your draft comes from your CV and your answers, and you review and own every word. No regulator endorses CBA Pro, and using it does not change your own responsibility for what you submit. For more on the writing itself, see how to write your CBA and common mistakes in CBA writing.

🛠️ Struggling with your CBA? Try CBA Pro

CBA Pro interviews you about your own work, competency by competency, and turns your answers into a formatted draft for you to review and improve. It shows you where information is still missing, and every fact comes from you.

Try CBA Pro

Frequently asked questions

Can I use an AI tool to fix my grammar?

Correcting spelling and grammar in text you wrote is not the same as creating or embellishing an example, and APEGS's declaration mentions AI tools and editors while holding you responsible either way. Limit the tool to fixing errors and reject any change that adds facts or overstates your role. If you are unsure, ask your regulator before you submit.

Can a mentor or consultant review my CBA?

Feedback that points out a gap, such as a missing code reference or an unclear result, is different from someone writing or rewriting your examples. EGBC, EGM, Engineers Nova Scotia and Engineers PEI prohibit third parties from creating or embellishing examples, so every change must be yours and must come from your own experience.

Will my regulator know if I used AI?

Regulators don't say whether they screen for AI text. They do run quality checks, audit validators, review login data (APEGS) and interview applicants in some provinces, so you need to be able to explain every example yourself. Under PEO's and APEGS's rules, you are responsible for anything a tool contributed.

Can AI help my validators respond?

No. APEGS's declaration says you must not access validator links or input, type, translate, alter or draft validator responses. Validators rate your examples independently, and their ratings and comments are confidential.

Does CBA Pro write examples for me?

No. CBA Pro interviews you about your own work, asking what your association looks for, and turns your CV and your answers into a formatted draft for you to review and improve. It doesn't create or embellish anything: where a fact is missing, it leaves a [bracket] for you to fill. The examples, and the responsibility for them, stay yours.

This guide summarizes each regulator's published wording as of September 2026. It is not legal advice: if you are unsure how your regulator applies its rule, ask it before you submit.