Directory & Transparency
Handling suspensions and withdrawals with clarity
How to communicate status changes without ambiguity and protect the public.
Why this matters
Credible accreditation depends on consistent methods, clear decisions, and evidence that stands up to independent review. This publication translates essential expectations into practical steps so teams can prepare, communicate, and operate with confidence.
Key requirements and expectations
- Define what is publicly visible and why.
- Make status and scope understandable to non-experts.
- Keep data synchronized with authoritative records.
- Provide a clear path to verify and report issues.
- Status labels must be consistent across public and internal systems.
- Scope limitations should be visible on public records.
- Reinstatement criteria should be documented.
Evidence and records to prepare
- Public record schema aligned with internal records.
- Change logs showing status updates and approvals.
- Verification workflow for external inquiries.
- Policies for data accuracy and correction timelines.
- Status change notices and reinstatement records.
Common pitfalls to avoid
- Publishing claims without scope or status context.
- Out-of-date listings that erode trust.
- No clear way to report misuse or inaccuracies.
- Overly technical language that users cannot interpret.
- Leaving outdated status on public pages.
Practical checklist
- Define status labels and their meaning.
- Synchronize public data with authoritative sources.
- Provide a verification or inquiry path.
- Review public records on a fixed cadence.
- Publish status changes within a defined timeline.