The visibility rule

Aggregate to the cohort. Individual scores to that person and the programme lead only.

  • Nobody sees another person's attempt history, per-domain results, or course status from here.
  • A cell computed from fewer than 3 people is suppressed, because an average over one person is that person's score.
  • This page runs no script and reads no localStorage. Your own detail is on your readiness page and stays in your browser and your D1 row.
  • Practice results are percent-correct only. No scaled score is derived, stored, or shown anywhere in this product — a practice percentage cannot be mapped onto the 720 cut.

Built this way from the start on purpose: retrofitting privacy after people have been burned does not work.

No cohort data yet. Aggregate figures come from the D1 database through an endpoint that returns counts and medians and never rows; until that endpoint lands, the readiness columns below read “—”. The study-material figures further down are real — they come from the blueprint and the item bank, which are programme facts, not personal ones.

Against the programme target

Active certified

0 of 10 by September 3, 2026

“Active” needs both halves at once: a current credential — CCAR-F is valid for 12 months — and Claude used in the past 90 days. A valid credential with no recent usage does not count. 12 seats are funded, deliberately above the target, because credentials belong to individuals and leave with them.

People practising

0 0 runs recorded

Distinct people with at least one completed practice run. A count, never a leaderboard: who is practising most is not information this page publishes.

CPN courses self-reported

0 report every CPN course complete

Self-reported, because Skilljar has no API we control. The professional-development bonus pays on separately verified completion through its own process — this site is not the system of record for anything that pays money.

Aggregate readiness by domain

Median percent-correct across the people who have answered items in each domain, next to what the blueprint says the domain is worth. Weight is the reason to care: a soft D1 (27%) costs roughly 1.8× a soft D5 (15%).

Cohort columns are aggregate; cells below 3 people are suppressed. Item columns describe the shared bank, not any person.
Domain Weight Items on a real sitting People Median % correct Statements at floor Items authored
D1 · Agentic Architecture & Orchestration 27% 16.2 0 7 / 7 26
D2 · Tool Design & MCP Integration 18% 10.8 0 5 / 5 17
D3 · Claude Code Configuration & Workflows 20% 12 0 6 / 6 26
D4 · Prompt Engineering & Structured Output 20% 12 0 6 / 6 24
D5 · Context Management & Reliability 15% 9 0 6 / 6 27

“Items on a real sitting” is domain weight × 60 items, derived from the blueprint. “Statements at floor” counts published task statements with at least 3 practice items written against them.

What the cohort has built

Shared study material is genuinely aggregate — it belongs to the group, so it can be shown in full. This is the honest measure of collective progress while the readiness columns are still empty.

Item bank

120 of 90 floor

3 items per published statement × 30 statements. Every item cites the statement it was written against.

Statements at floor

30 of 30

The thin ones are where the cohort is collectively unprepared, regardless of anybody's score.

Scenario labs

6 of 6 able to fill a block

A lab is ready once it can fill a 15-item block, the density a real sitting uses. A sitting presents 4 of the 6 published scenarios.

The published scenario bank, ordered by blueprint weight spanned — the order to build in.
Scenario Domains Weight spanned Items authored Block
S4 · Developer Productivity with Claude D1 D2 D3 65% 20 ready
S1 · Customer Support Resolution Agent D1 D2 D5 60% 20 ready
S3 · Multi-Agent Research System D1 D2 D5 60% 20 ready
S5 · Claude Code for Continuous Integration D3 D4 40% 20 ready
S2 · Code Generation with Claude Code D3 D5 35% 20 ready
S6 · Structured Data Extraction D4 D5 35% 20 ready

If you want your own numbers

They are on your readiness page, which only you and the programme lead can see. If you want a second pair of eyes on a weak domain, share it deliberately — the tool will not do it for you, and the cohort view will never surface it on your behalf.

What the cohort should share is score reports at the domain level after a real sitting: percent-correct by domain, nothing more specific. That is what shows which study material is thin. Item content, topics, and “there was a lot about X” are off-limits — see INTEGRITY.md.

My readiness Scenario × domain matrix Exam logistics