BORAKA works from a simple sequence: name the capability a role requires, put a professional in realistic work, review that work against criteria published in advance, and record only what a qualified person confirmed.
A role is broken into the areas of work it actually contains. Each area is assessed on its own, so a strength in one place is not hidden by a gap in another.
Reading a protocol accurately and carrying it out as written, including eligibility, visit windows and required assessments.
Running and documenting consent so the participant understood, and the record shows how and when that happened.
Recording work so that it is attributable, legible, contemporaneous, original and accurate, and reconciling it against the data collected.
Recognizing, classifying and escalating events within the timelines the protocol and regulation require.
Identifying what went wrong, judging what is reportable, and writing the corrective and preventive action.
Writing follow-up letters, queries and notes to file that another professional can act on without a conversation.
Four properties separate reviewed evidence from a completion badge. If a piece of work misses any of them, it stays practice.
The rubric a submission is scored against exists, is versioned, and could be read before the work was attempted.
Tasks are drawn from the conditions of the job: study documents, incomplete information, and decisions with consequences.
Review is done by someone who has performed the work, against the published rubric, and the outcome carries a date and a rubric version.
The person assessed holds the record, sees who viewed it, and decides what is shared and for how long.
The professional completes the casebook or assessment under the stated conditions and submits the work products the task defines.
The submission is routed to a reviewer with experience in that area of work, and away from anyone with a conflict.
Each domain is scored against the published criteria, with the reviewer recording the reason for the score, not only the score.
The professional receives specific feedback on what met the standard, what did not, and what to build next.
A finalised result is dated and attributed, with the rubric version attached, so it can be read the same way later.
Reviewers work from the same rubric and worked examples, so the same submission would be read the same way by different reviewers.
Rubrics change as practice changes. Every result stays attached to the version it was scored against.
Coaching, role-play and assistant support sit on the practice side. None of it scores anything.
Software prepares, organizes and speeds up work. A person decides what enters a capability record.
Sharing is initiated by the professional, is time bound, and can be revoked.
Where a method is weaker, we say so on the page rather than in a footnote.
Sample scenarios written to show the method. They are not client work, and contain no real study, employer or participant data.
Published with consent. Quotes describe individual experiences and are not a prediction of anyone else's outcome.
Start where the evidence says you should, and build from there.
