PEng Assessor vs. Validator: Who Has Final Say?

If you’re navigating the Competency-Based Assessment (CBA) process in Canada, you’ve likely encountered two critical figures: the validator and the assessor. Both play important roles in evaluating your engineering experience, but one question confuses many applicants across provinces and territories: Who has the final say — the PEO assessor or the validator?

Whether you’re applying through PEO in Ontario, APEGA in Alberta, EGBC in British Columbia, or any other provincial engineering regulator, understanding the distinction between these two roles is essential. The answer impacts how you approach your competency examples, choose your validators, and ultimately, how you secure your Professional Engineer (P.Eng.) license.

In this blog, we break down the responsibilities of both assessors and validators, clarify who truly decides your readiness for licensure, and offer strategic tips to strengthen your application. If you’ve ever wondered about the PEO assessor vs validator debate, this article will give you the clarity you need.

What Is a Validator?

The Role of Validators in the CBA Process

A validator is someone who verifies the engineering work experience you’ve described in your Competency-Based Assessment (CBA) submission. Think of them as your professional witness — someone who can confirm that your work happened, that it was engineering in nature, and that it meets the expectations of the competency you’re addressing.

Across Canadian engineering regulators — including PEO (Ontario), APEGA (Alberta), EGBC (British Columbia), EGM (Manitoba), and APEGS (Saskatchewan) — validators are used to add credibility to your work examples. They provide commentary and a rating using the same 0–5 scale as assessors, but their evaluation is supportive, not decisive.

Validators are asked to:

• Confirm your role and responsibilities on specific projects.

• Rate the level of competency you demonstrated.

• Offer context on the depth and scope of your work.

While their input is important, the assessor uses their own judgment to determine if the example truly meets licensing standards — more on that shortly.

Who Can Be a Validator?

Your validator should have direct knowledge of your engineering work. Ideally, they are your:

• Immediate supervisor

• Technical lead

• Senior engineer or project manager

For Canadian work experience, most associations (including PEO and APEGA) require that validators be licensed professional engineers (P.Eng.) in Canada. For international experience, validators must be senior engineers who are licensed in their own jurisdiction and can provide academic and professional credentials if requested. The number of required validators can be varied depending on your association. This blog discuss this in details.

If you’re not sure how to coach your validator, tools like CBA Pro by CertNova can help you structure strong examples and prep your validators accordingly.

Common Misunderstandings About Validators

A major misconception among applicants is that validator ratings carry more weight than they actually do. Some believe that if a validator gives them a “4” or “5” rating, they’re guaranteed to pass that competency. This is not the case.

Here’s what happens in practice:

• Validators may rate generously or based on loyalty, but assessors may see weak SAO structure or lack of technical detail.

• If the validator’s rating doesn’t match the narrative strength of your example, the assessor has full authority to override it.

This means even with strong validators, poorly written examples or vague descriptions can lead to low assessor scores. That’s why your narrative and documentation are just as important — if not more — than who validates it.

🔍 Reference: “Validators and applicants must provide ratings independently of each other… Assessors determine whether you have the skills to meet the experience requirement. Their ratings alone determine readiness for licensure.”
– PEO Competency-Based Assessment Guide, Page 6

What Is an Assessor?

Who Are Assessors in the CBA Process?

While validators offer a firsthand perspective on your engineering experience, the assessor plays a very different role. Assessors are independent, licensed professional engineers appointed by your provincial or territorial regulator — such as PEO, APEGA, EGBC, EGM, or APEGS — to formally evaluate whether your experience meets licensure standards.

Assessors are trained to interpret the CBA framework consistently across all applicants, regardless of background or location. Unlike validators, they don’t know you personally — and that’s intentional. Their role is to objectively review your submission and decide if your engineering experience shows readiness for independent practice.

According to PEO’s CBA guide:

“PEO assessors determine whether you have the skills to meet the experience requirement. Their ratings alone determine readiness for licensure.”
(Source: Competency-Based Assessment Guide, Pg. 6)

How Assessors Evaluate Your Competency-Based Submission

Each assessor is assigned to review your CBA Experience Record, including:

• Your detailed work examples (using the Situation–Action–Outcome method)

• Self-assessments you’ve completed

• Validator ratings and comments

But here’s the key: Assessors don’t simply average your self-assessment and validator scores. They make an independent judgment, using the standard 0–5 scale and referencing clearly defined indicators for each competency.

For example:

• If your validator gave you a “4” on a competency but your SAO example lacks technical clarity or context, the assessor might downgrade it to a “2.”

• If your self-assessment is modest but your example is exceptionally strong, the assessor might upgrade the rating to a “4” or even a “5.”

What matters most is that your example demonstrates real competence — through clear actions, sound engineering judgment, and measurable outcomes. Assessors are trained to detect overstatements, inconsistencies, or vague language, and their responsibility is to protect the public by upholding licensure standards.

What Do Assessors Look For?

While each regulator’s criteria are slightly different, Canadian engineering assessors consistently focus on:

• Clarity and structure: Is the example well-written, using Situation–Action–Outcome format?

• Depth and independence: Did you work independently or need constant supervision?

• Breadth of exposure: Are you demonstrating a range of competencies or repeating the same task?

• Professional responsibility: Did you make decisions, manage risks, or engage with codes and standards?

Assessors also ensure that you meet the minimum score and category averages required in each province. If your submission doesn’t meet expectations, they’ll either recommend rejection or a partial resubmission — depending on the jurisdiction.

Who Has the Final Say: Assessor or Validator?

Let’s settle it once and for all: the assessor has the final say.

No matter how detailed or supportive your validator’s input may be, licensure decisions are made solely based on the assessor’s independent evaluation. This is consistent across all Canadian engineering regulators — from PEO in Ontario to APEGA, EGBC, APEGS, EGM, and others.

What the Official Guidelines Say

The PEO Competency-Based Assessment Guide makes this distinction explicit:

“PEO assessors determine whether you have the skills to meet the experience requirement. Their ratings alone determine readiness for licensure.”
(Source: Competency-Based Assessment Guide, Page 6 – www.peo.on.ca)

Similarly, APEGS and APEGA state that while validators confirm factual experience, it’s the assessor’s role to interpret the quality, scope, and readiness for independent engineering practice.

This means that:

• A validator’s “5” rating can be reduced to a “2” if the work example lacks clarity or depth.

• A poorly written or unsupported example can override even glowing validator feedback.

• Assessors are trained to apply the same scoring rigor across all applicants — regardless of where or how the experience was gained.

Why This Matters for Applicants

Many applicants mistakenly rely on validator ratings as the “safe zone” in their submission. But if your SAO examples aren’t detailed, well-structured, or clearly connected to the competency indicators, assessors may downgrade your submission — and even fail a competency.

Here’s what it means in practice:

• Your narrative must stand on its own, even without validator comments.

• Your competency rating is based on how well you’ve demonstrated skills — not how kindly a validator assesses you.

• If your validator doesn’t fully understand the Canadian CBA system, they may inadvertently overrate or underrate you — and the assessor will correct that.

Summary: Assessor vs. Validator — Who Decides?

So while validators offer valuable context and verification, the final judgment is made by a trained, independent assessor — and your narrative is the key evidence.

What If the Validator and Assessor Disagree?

It’s more common than you might think: your validator gives you a glowing review, rating your competency at a “4” or “5” — but your licensing outcome says otherwise. So, what happens when your validator and assessor don’t align?

How Disagreements Are Handled

In the Competency-Based Assessment process across Canada, disagreements between validators and assessors are not unusual — and not a red flag by themselves. Here’s how the situation is managed:

• Assessors always prioritize the written evidence provided in your work examples.

• If there’s a mismatch between a high validator score and a weak example, the assessor can and will override the validator’s rating.

• Conversely, if a validator rates you conservatively but your example is detailed, technically sound, and shows clear outcomes, the assessor may score you higher.

The goal of the assessment is to ensure consistency and fairness. That’s why assessors follow a structured scoring guide and minimum rating thresholds for each competency and category.

Why Narrative Strength Matters More Than Agreement

If your validator and assessor disagree, it usually signals one of the following:

• The validator misunderstood the rating scale or was too generous.

• Your work example lacked the technical clarity, depth, or independence needed.

• There was insufficient evidence that you personally demonstrated the competency.

To avoid these pitfalls, focus on writing high-quality SAO (Situation–Action–Outcome) examples that:

• Emphasize your contributions, not your team’s.

• Show why you made engineering decisions — not just what you did.

• Quantify outcomes when possible (e.g., “reduced lead time by 40%”).

Many unsuccessful applicants assume their strong validator support will “cover” vague examples. Unfortunately, that’s not how it works. In fact, assessors are trained to look past validator bias and focus solely on evidence that meets licensing standards.

Real-World Example

Let’s say your validator gives you a “5” for the competency on technical design. But your SAO example simply says:

“I designed a HVAC system for a mid-rise building. I selected the equipment, oversaw installation, and everything went well.”

That’s not enough. The assessor needs to see how you applied engineering principles, why you selected certain materials or methods, and what impact your design had. Without this level of detail, your score could be reduced — regardless of the validator’s praise.

🔍 Tip: Use tools like CBA Pro to ensure your examples match the language, depth, and structure that assessors expect.

Conclusion

When it comes to the Competency-Based Assessment process in Canada, understanding the PEO assessor vs validator distinction is more than just a technicality — it’s central to your success.

While validators play a valuable role in confirming your experience and supporting your submission, it is the assessors, appointed by your provincial or territorial engineering regulator, who ultimately decide whether you’re ready for licensure. Their decision is based not on reputation or relationships, but on the clarity, structure, and substance of your work examples.

No matter which province or territory you’re applying through — whether it’s PEO, APEGA, EGBC, EGM, or APEGS — the message is the same: Focus on writing strong, SAO-based examples that reflect real engineering judgment and independence. Your best validator is a well-documented, honest, and technically sound application.