Domain H · Area H-CA1 · Integrity, scepticism, judgement and escalation

H.2Apply professional scepticism and evidence-based challenge

Working Draft version 1.1

Purpose and scope

This unit covers the capability to maintain a questioning mind, critically assess evidence, assumptions, explanations and management representations and perform proportionate challenge. It includes contradictory evidence, unusual relationships, bias, fraud and manipulation indicators, management override, repeated explanations, escalation and the distinction between constructive scepticism, cynicism and unsupported suspicion.

Applied competency statement

Can apply professional scepticism and evidence-based challenge to sustainability reporting information, assumptions, explanations and decisions and pursue significant inconsistencies or gaps to a documented resolution or escalation.

Boundary and escalation

This unit establishes a questioning and challenge capability and does not authorise investigation, audit, legal finding, fraud determination or specialist re-performance beyond competence. F.3 owns evidence-quality architecture, E.7 data investigation and formal investigative or assurance procedures remain with qualified functions.

Key quality risks

Accepting information because it is system-generated, previously reported, externally certified or supplied by senior management; confirmation bias; challenge limited to arithmetic; inconsistent explanations accepted without corroboration; unusual trends or management overrides ignored; excessive deference to specialists or advisers; challenge used as personal criticism; unsupported suspicion presented as fact; and significant questions closed because evidence is inconvenient or time is limited.

Required knowledge · 6

H.2-K01

Understands a questioning mind, alertness to conditions indicating possible error or bias and critical assessment of evidence without assuming either honesty or dishonesty.

Knowledge Type: Professional scepticism · Normative Weight: Core

H.2-K02

Understands confirmation, authority, anchoring, familiarity, group, availability, outcome and commercial bias and how incentives and hierarchy may shape explanations.

Knowledge Type: Bias and influence · Normative Weight: Core

H.2-K03

Understands inconsistency among sources, unexplained changes, absence of expected evidence, unusual relationships, override, selective samples and repeated unsupported explanations.

Knowledge Type: Contradictory evidence · Normative Weight: Core

H.2-K04

Understands open and closed questions, evidence requests, corroboration, re-performance, comparison, sensitivity, alternative explanation, consultation and escalation.

Knowledge Type: Challenge methods · Normative Weight: Core

H.2-K05

Understands how reporting risk, materiality, uncertainty, sensitivity and competence determine challenge depth and how questions, responses and unresolved matters should be recorded.

Knowledge Type: Proportionality and documentation · Normative Weight: Core

H.2-K06

Understands the distinction among scepticism, disagreement, allegation, investigation, audit and assurance and the need to avoid intimidation, accusation or conclusion beyond evidence.

Knowledge Type: Professional boundary · Normative Weight: Core

Applied skills · 5

H.2-S01

Identify high-risk assertions, assumptions, explanations, judgements and information requiring enhanced challenge.

Skill Type: Core applied capability · Observable Output or Result: Professional challenge plan and question set

H.2-S02

Formulate clear, neutral and technically relevant questions and request evidence, corroboration and alternative explanations.

Skill Type: Evidence-based questioning · Observable Output or Result: Challenge questions and evidence requests

H.2-S03

Compare sources, assumptions and responses and investigate unusual, inconsistent, incomplete or selectively presented information.

Skill Type: Contradiction analysis · Observable Output or Result: Evidence, assumption and contradiction challenge log

H.2-S04

Evaluate responses, determine whether the issue is resolved and route unresolved material matters to the appropriate specialist, management or governance owner.

Skill Type: Resolution and escalation · Observable Output or Result: Challenge resolution and escalation memorandum

H.2-S05

Deliver challenge respectfully and firmly, distinguish fact from concern and preserve a complete record of evidence, response, dissent and outcome.

Skill Type: Communication · Observable Output or Result: Professional challenge communication record

Professional behaviours · 3

H.2-B01

Does not accept authority, familiarity, prior reporting or apparent system reliability as a substitute for critical assessment.

Behaviour Type: Questioning mind · Non-compensable Requirement: Yes

H.2-B02

Pursues material inconsistencies and unsupported explanations to resolution or authorised escalation without becoming accusatory or obstructive.

Behaviour Type: Constructive persistence · Non-compensable Requirement: Yes

H.2-B03

Considers credible alternative explanations and evidence and does not use scepticism to defend a predetermined negative conclusion.

Behaviour Type: Open-mindedness · Non-compensable Requirement: Yes

Typical tasks · 4

H.2-T01

Identify reporting areas with significant judgement, uncertainty, unusual change, incentives, override risk or contradictory evidence.

Primary Output Link: H.2-O01

H.2-T02

Ask evidence-based questions, obtain corroboration and compare source records, assumptions, explanations and prior decisions.

Primary Output Link: H.2-O02

H.2-T03

Evaluate whether responses resolve the concern, document residual uncertainty and consult or escalate where needed.

Primary Output Link: H.2-O03

H.2-T04

Communicate the conclusion, dissent and required action respectfully and retain the complete challenge trail.

Primary Output Link: H.2-O03

Expected outputs · 3

H.2-O01

Professional challenge plan and question set

Output Type: Professional work product

H.2-O02

Evidence, assumption and contradiction challenge log

Output Type: Professional work product

H.2-O03

Challenge resolution and escalation memorandum

Output Type: Professional work product

Proficiency indicators

Level 1 · Foundation

H.2-L1-01

Can use established challenge prompts, identify obvious contradictory or unsupported information and maintain a question and response log.

Indicator Dimension: Task execution

H.2-L1-02

Can distinguish a resolved explanation from an unsupported assertion and seek review or escalation where the assigned method is insufficient.

Indicator Dimension: Quality, judgement and accountability

Level 2 · Practitioner

H.2-L2-01

Can independently plan and perform proportionate professional challenge across a moderately complex reporting workstream.

Indicator Dimension: Task execution

H.2-L2-02

Can test assumptions and explanations, resolve routine contradictions and explain residual concern and escalation needs to management and reviewers.

Indicator Dimension: Quality, judgement and accountability

Level 3 · Advanced Practitioner

H.2-L3-01

Can design or critically review organisation-wide scepticism and challenge methods for complex, high-judgement or high-pressure reporting environments.

Indicator Dimension: Method design and review

H.2-L3-02

Can challenge senior management, specialists and advisers constructively, resolve significant contradictory evidence and advise governance bodies on unresolved reporting and public-trust risk.

Indicator Dimension: Leadership and governance

Illustrative evidence · 6

H.2-E01

Professional challenge plan and question set linked to reporting assertions and risk.

Evidence Type: Work product

H.2-E02

Evidence, assumption and contradiction challenge log with responses and corroboration.

Evidence Type: Work product

H.2-E03

Challenge resolution and escalation memorandum.

Evidence Type: Work product

H.2-E04

Question, response, evidence, consultation, dissent and escalation trail.

Evidence Type: Process evidence

H.2-E05

Documented specialist, management, governance, ethics or quality review and the practitioner's response.

Evidence Type: Review evidence

H.2-E06

Observed challenge of a senior, specialist or management explanation in a simulation or workplace setting.

Evidence Type: Observed performance

Assessment · 3

H.2-A-L1

Situational judgement, contradiction-identification and challenge-question exercise

Recognition of challenge signals; quality of questions; evidence and boundary awareness; escalation.

H.2-A-L2

Integrated scepticism case and written professional memorandum

Proportional challenge; contradiction analysis; alternative explanations; resolution and communication.

H.2-A-L3

Complex challenge case, portfolio and oral defence

Method design; persistence and open-mindedness; senior challenge; governance communication and oral defence.

Relationships · 7

From	To	Type	Rationale
H.2	F.3	Evidence and traceability linkage	Professional scepticism is applied when evaluating reporting evidence, contradictions and limitations.
H.2	E.7	Method, data and analytical linkage	Validation and reconciliation exceptions require questioning and evidence-based challenge.
H.2	G.1	Method, data and analytical linkage	Performance explanations, drivers and anomalies should be challenged before reporting.
H.2	H.3	Professional conduct and collaboration linkage	Challenge helps identify alternatives, uncertainty and bias in significant judgements.
H.2	H.6	Professional conduct and collaboration linkage	Unresolved material challenges should move through authorised escalation routes.
H.3	H.2	Professional conduct and collaboration linkage	Professional scepticism and alternative explanations improve the quality of judgement.
I.7	H.2	Professional conduct and collaboration linkage	Professional scepticism helps identify automation bias, unsupported output and inadequate model-risk claims.

Role profiles for this unit

Role	Target level	Relevance	Evidence expectation
Corporate Sustainability Reporting Practitioner	Practitioner	Required?	A case or work sample demonstrating independent performance, documented judgement and a reviewable professional output.
Sustainability Reporting Manager or Lead	Advanced Practitioner	Role-defining?	A complex case or verified portfolio, supplemented by oral or observed defence, demonstrating method design, challenge and governance capability.
Sustainability Reporting Adviser or Consultant	Advanced Practitioner	Role-defining?	A complex case or verified portfolio, supplemented by oral or observed defence, demonstrating method design, challenge and governance capability.
Sustainability Data, Systems and Controls Specialist	Practitioner	Required?	A case or work sample demonstrating independent performance, documented judgement and a reviewable professional output.
Assurance Readiness and Reporting Quality Specialist	Advanced Practitioner	Role-defining?	A complex case or verified portfolio, supplemented by oral or observed defence, demonstrating method design, challenge and governance capability.
Investor, Capital Markets and Ratings Disclosure Specialist	Advanced Practitioner	Role-defining?	A complex case or verified portfolio, supplemented by oral or observed defence, demonstrating method design, challenge and governance capability.