What proof is needed for each skill tag?

Qualification or profile details

Study area, certificates, work experience or relevant subjects can suggest a tag, but usually should not verify a strong public skill on their own.

• required profile fields are complete
• study area matches the tag category
• certificate or course name is present when supplied
• expiry date is not obviously out of date
• no private identity document is shown publicly

Human review: Only if the upload is unclear, the claim is senior/master level, or the tag is sensitive.

Practice task

A guided practice task lets the system check beginner skills before a real customer job is available.

• all required questions answered
• plain-English explanation present
• safe next step included
• no passwords, codes or private customer details
• task category matches the requested tag

Human review: Only if risk flags appear or the user wants verified/senior/master status.

Quick Help activity

A real Quick Help introduction, ticket or request can support ambassador, note-writing and service-pathway tags.

• request came through an approved link or pathway
• ticket is not an obvious duplicate
• customer consent was captured
• category matches the tag
• notes have enough detail
• no risky promises were made

Human review: Only if duplicate/spam patterns, complaints, rewards or sensitive issues are involved.

Provider job evidence

Completed job records, notes, checklists and reviews can support provider skill tags.

• job status is completed
• required job notes are present
• permission/privacy checklist completed where needed
• rating and good-review threshold met
• service category matches the tag
• no open complaint or safety flag

Human review: Required for high-risk, senior or master upgrades; otherwise exception-based.

Customer feedback

Customer feedback can support people-skill tags, but should not be the only proof for complex technical tags.

• rating meets threshold
• feedback is linked to a real ticket/job
• feedback mentions clear communication or follow-up where relevant
• no unresolved complaint exists

Human review: Only if feedback conflicts with job notes, is disputed, or supports a higher-level tag.

Mentor, provider or team feedback

A mentor, provider or team member can provide evidence for readiness, boundaries, escalation and senior pathway tags.

• reviewer role/source is recorded
• feedback links to a task, ticket or practice activity
• summary explains the observed skill
• risk level is not high

Human review: Required for senior/master tags and mentoring/quality-review tags.

Usually low-risk

Practice taskQuick Help activityCustomer feedbackMentor, provider or team feedback

System checks

• plain-English note or message
• customer issue understood
• safe next step included
• no overpromising
• no private data

Send to review when: complaint, unclear note, sensitive issue, verified/senior/master request

Usually low-risk

Qualification or profile detailsPractice taskQuick Help activityMentor, provider or team feedback

System checks

• approved link or QR used
• approved wording used or custom wording passes safe-word check
• activity source recorded
• no spam pattern
• no guaranteed reward/payment claim

Send to review when: spam pattern, reward milestone, custom risky wording, customer complaint

Usually low-risk

Qualification or profile detailsPractice taskQuick Help activityMentor, provider or team feedback

System checks

• post or campaign note provided
• safe template or safe custom wording
• where/when shared is recorded
• result or learning recorded
• no overpromising

Send to review when: public/high-visibility campaign, suspicious activity, risky claims

Usually low-risk

Practice taskQuick Help activityProvider job evidenceMentor, provider or team feedback

System checks

• device/service named
• symptoms described
• customer impact included
• safe next step included
• no passwords or private data

Send to review when: private data, high-risk category, complaint, senior/master upgrade

Needs stronger control

Qualification or profile detailsPractice taskProvider job evidenceCustomer feedbackMentor, provider or team feedback

System checks

• service category matches tag
• job or practice task complete
• permission/safety checks complete
• rating/review threshold met when used for verified tag
• no open safety flag

Send to review when: verified or higher for sensitive tech, account/data/security issues, complaint, senior/master upgrade

Usually low-risk

Qualification or profile detailsPractice taskProvider job evidenceMentor, provider or team feedback

System checks

• page/app/form affected is named
• expected and actual result recorded
• steps to reproduce included where relevant
• no login/password details
• safe next step included

Send to review when: customer account access, private data, business system change, senior/master upgrade

Usually low-risk

Qualification or profile detailsPractice taskQuick Help activityProvider job evidenceMentor, provider or team feedback

System checks

• task or campaign goal recorded
• notes are clear
• follow-up or outcome recorded
• team handoff is understandable
• no payment/work guarantee claim

Send to review when: quality-review/mentor tag, payment/reward impact, senior/master upgrade

Needs stronger control

Practice taskProvider job evidenceCustomer feedbackMentor, provider or team feedback

System checks

• no passwords/codes/private data
• permission boundary recorded
• no risky promises
• escalation used when required
• privacy-safe wording used

Send to review when: scam, privacy, data loss, account recovery, complaint, verified/senior/master request

Needs stronger control

Practice taskProvider job evidenceMentor, provider or team feedbackCustomer feedback

System checks

• readiness checklist complete
• safe troubleshooting steps recorded
• permission/privacy checks complete
• job notes clear
• knows escalation pathway

Send to review when: first live provider approval, high-risk work, complaint, senior/master upgrade

Needs stronger control

Provider job evidenceCustomer feedbackMentor, provider or team feedback

System checks

• repeated completed work
• consistent good feedback
• clear notes over time
• can guide or review others safely
• no open complaints

Send to review when: always requires review before public senior status

Needs stronger control

Provider job evidenceCustomer feedbackMentor, provider or team feedback

System checks

• strong repeated evidence
• mentor/review ability shown
• complex work handled safely
• quality leadership evidence
• admin trust record

Send to review when: always requires review before public master status

Usually low-risk

Qualification or profile detailsPractice taskQuick Help activityMentor, provider or team feedback

System checks

• campus context recorded
• student-safe wording used
• activity or practice task complete
• no risky claims

Send to review when: unclear campus role, complaint, senior/master request