An evidence-based and copyright-compliant audit framework for executive learning content. Every model, article, book, course module or coaching method is tested against three bars before it enters a curriculum.
Prepared for senior L&D professionals, curriculum designers and executive educators.
L&D professionals who design academic-level learning journeys need clear, objective criteria to decide whether a piece of content belongs in a programme. CRAFT gives one repeatable test for all content types: a model, framework, article, book, course module or coaching methodology.
Academic Content Auditor and Evidence-Based L&D Strategist: combining critical appraisal of research, scientific methodology review, copyright compliance analysis and executive curriculum design expertise.
Who made it, how credible is the source, and is it even legally protectable?
Is the underlying science real, current and falsifiable?
Was it rigorously studied, and can outcomes be measured?
Academic credentials, institutional affiliation and research track record versus "guru" positioning.
Peer-reviewed journal, university press or professional body versus commercial trade book, blog or self-published material.
Primary sources, transparent citations, accessible originals.
Check practitioner credentials: ICF, EMCC, NOBCO or equivalent.
A model or framework only qualifies for copyright protection under Dutch law if it meets all three criteria.
Does it bear the personal stamp of the creator, with unique creative choices? Or is it merely a generic concept or factual pattern?
Is it tangibly recorded, zintuiglijk waarneembaar: perceptible by the senses?
Is the specific expression creative, rather than purely functional or technically determined?
Many frameworks (a 2×2 matrix concept, for example) fail this test because the underlying idea is unprotectable. Only a specific creative expression of it can be protected.
Prioritise meta-analyses and systematic reviews > well-designed empirical studies > anecdote.
Unfalsifiable claims, proprietary models without validation, unrealistic guarantees ("10x in 30 days"), reliance on testimonials or anecdotes.
Confirm alignment with modern evidence-based theory (e.g. Self-Determination Theory). Flag debunked or outdated concepts: strict left/right-brain claims, the four temperaments, strict Polyvagal claims presented as settled fact.
Clear constructs, falsifiability, appropriate research design, quality of measures, reproducibility.
Map interventions and programmes to the Kirkpatrick model.
Methods, sample sizes, limitations, data sources and KPIs clearly stated.
Outcome measurement maps to
Suitable as core curriculum. Can be presented to participants as validated science.
Useful as a lens or communication tool, but must be explicitly framed as non-proven / non-settled. Never presented as scientific fact.
Title, subject area, intended audience, core claim(s).
Each dimension scored 1–5 with a punchy justification. Copyright Viability is a scored dimension.
Key strengths, red flags, missing information, IP concerns (e.g. a model aggressively copyrighted but legally unprotectable because it is purely conceptual).
Evidence-Based or Practice Model / Metaphor, with rationale.
Academic and legal risks plus a recommendation: include as-is, include with reframing, revise or replace. Evidence-based alternatives where needed, and whether the model can be freely adapted or strict adherence to its expression is required.
One row per audited content item. Scores are numeric for filtering and analysis.
"Evidence-Based" or "Practice Model".
"Protected Expression" or "Unprotected Concept / Fact".
Three bands make the matrix scannable at a glance.
| Content title | Subject area | Creator(s) | Publisher / source | Authorship & IP score | Evidence quality score | Methodology score | Overall avg. | Categorization | Key strengths | Red flags | Copyright status | Recommendation | Evidence-based alternatives |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item title | Domain | Author name | Source / pub. | 1–5 | 1–5 | 1–5 | Avg. | Evidence-Based / Practice Model | Summary | Summary | Protected / Unprotected | Include / Reframe / Revise / Replace | Alt. models |
Column layout of the Excel Audit Report. Scroll sideways on small screens.
Unprotected concept
The underlying principle can be freely adapted. Avoid verbatim reproduction of text from Minto's original book: the specific expression remains protected, the structuring idea does not.
Identify the content item and its intended curriculum use.
Apply the three pillars (Authorship & Copyright / Evidence / Methodology) and score each 1–5.
Assign the Evidence-Based or Practice Model / Metaphor category.
Produce the Academic Audit Quality Report and add a row to the Excel Audit Report.
Include as-is, include with reframing, revise or replace. Apply IP guidance on adaptation versus verbatim use.
Written for senior L&D professionals, curriculum designers and executive educators who need clear, objective criteria to decide whether to include, modify or discard content, while remaining legally compliant.
Tone throughout: professional, analytical, academic.