Competence Graph: From Action to Evidenced Ability
Connections between tasks, actions, outcomes, evidence, contexts and a participant's learning pathway.
A course title does not establish competence. A meaningful claim needs observable work, a known context, criteria, individual contribution and review by an authorised person.
The graph preserves the grounds for each claim and helps formulate subsequent tasks without replacing expert judgement.
Illustrative research graph, not a system containing verified student records.
Systems analysis
An ability supported by expert-reviewed evidence
Directly related visible nodes: 7. A relationship in this example is not an expert verification.
Abilities become visible through meaningful action
A participant receives a task, selects a method, works with knowledge and resources, creates a result and explains their choices. Competence is not inferred merely from attendance or a course title.
- 01
Task
The outcome or change required.
- 02
Context
The conditions of work.
- 03
Actions
Meaningful steps taken by the participant.
- 04
Result
The artefact, finding or decision produced.
- 05
Criteria
What constitutes quality.
- 06
Review
The role checking the result and evidence.
- 07
Competence
The class of problems the person can demonstrably address.
Explore the competence graph in University 5.0
Trace how tasks, evidence and contexts connect to proposed learning pathways.
Open the separate interactive model ↗Seven node types and ten relationships
Each object has defined data and links. The graph is useful because those links preserve why an ability is considered relevant.
Task
- Stores
- Purpose
- Expected outcome
- Context
- Criteria
- Roles
- Constraints
- Difficulty
- Relations
- Requires action
- Uses knowledge
- Produces result
- Belongs to project
- Tests competence
Graph connections preserve the grounds for a claim
Participant → action → task → result → criteria → review → competence. An evidence claim can be traced to a particular result, contribution, context and authorised review.
- Reviewed
- Needs another context
- Awaiting expert review
- Superseded by newer evidence
- Applicable to a specified task class
One artefact may contain evidence of several abilities
A scenario model of a resilient supply chain combines data work, dependency analysis, cost estimates, risk treatment and defended arguments.
Data
- Element
- Supplier, cost, delay and risk data.
- Related competence
- Data analysis
- Criteria
- Completeness
- Traceability
- Currency
- Correct processing
Multiple examples do not automatically verify a competence
Different tasks can provide grounds for reviewing risk-management abilities. Select the examples to examine their contexts; review, individual autonomy and evidence quality remain separate requirements.
One ability has different meaning under different conditions
Difficulty, uncertainty, autonomy, the scale of the system, consequences and responsibility affect what a result can demonstrate.
- Problem structure
- Uncertainty
- Scale
- Autonomy
- Consequences
- Role
- Subject domain
Teaching dataset
- Task
- Identify patterns using a specified method.
- Autonomy
- Structured application
- Result
- Analytical table and conclusion
- Possible evidence
- Method application
- Understanding measures
Individual actions must remain visible in a team result
A university building-energy project combines analytical, technical, economic and coordination work into a pilot proposal. Team results do not alone establish the autonomy or ability of every participant.
Data analyst
- Actions
- Clean data
- Identify factors
- Build baseline model
- Share analysis
- Contribution
- Analytical foundations
- Related abilities to review
- Data analysis
- Uncertainty
- Communication
Evidence evolves as the participant works in new settings
Later evidence may reveal more complex work, new contexts and changing responsibilities. Earlier versions remain part of the history.
Initial evidence
- Task
- Map a familiar system.
- Context
- Structured classroom case
- Result
- Relationship map
Initial evidence
Map a familiar system. Context: Structured classroom case. Result: Relationship map
Conflicting evidence leaves questions open
Strong written work, a weak oral defence and effective team coordination may describe different dimensions of professional communication. A single blanket conclusion would erase this difference.
- 01
Evidence A: written
Structured analytical note with clear sources.
- 02
Evidence B: public defence
Weak answers to questions and insufficient connection to other roles.
- 03
Evidence C: coordination
Successfully organised a meeting and recorded agreements.
Different communication forms
- Interpretation
- Written, oral and coordination abilities need separate evidence.
- Next verification
- Defend one's own contribution publicly.
Reviewed evidence informs the next task
A proposed next task can deepen a skill, combine abilities, broaden context, change role or test transfer in applied work.
- Deepen
- Extend
- Integrate
- New role
- Practical verification
Deepen systems thinking
- Proposed task
- Model the interactions between multiple infrastructures.
- Change
- A network of systems
- Expected result
- Multilevel dependency model
Different participants need different evidence views
The student, lecturer, expert and programme leader have distinct questions and rights; information access follows the task and approved authority.
Student
- Question
- What can I do next?
- Relevant information
- Current competencies
- Evidence
- New contexts
- Tasks
- Uses
- Understand progress
- Choose next action
- Prepare evidence
- Build portfolio
How the competence graph works within University 5.0
The proposed graph connects individual pathways with learning tasks, project outcomes, analytic observations and the digital-twin state.
EduOS Lad
- Supplies
- Tasks
- Roles
- Criteria
- Actions
- Approval routes
- Receives
- Evidence state
- Possible roles
- Future tasks
Educational Analytics
- Supplies
- Observations
- Relationships
- Interpretations
- Gaps
- Receives
- Evidence origins
- Contexts
- Development history
University Digital Twin
- Supplies
- Task state
- Projects
- Resources
- Roles
- Events
- Receives
- Reviewed competences
- Team composition
- Learning state
Multi-agent Environment
- Supplies
- Navigation
- Tutor support
- Preliminary evidence analysis
- Receives
- Explanations
- Questions for review
- Recommendations
How a participant's graph changes during a project
A participant joins an interdisciplinary campus energy-reduction project. The stages show how evidence is created, questioned, revised and reviewed before a future learning task is proposed.
Initial state
Data analysis, visualisation and structured methods are supported by prior work. New areas: scenarios, economics, coordination and applied work.
Rules for trustworthy competence evidence
- 01
Traceable origin
A competence link returns to tasks, actions, results and criteria.
- 02
Specified context
Evidence records the role, difficulty, conditions and limits.
- 03
Individual contribution
Team results remain connected to participant actions.
- 04
Authorised review
Approval belongs to a role with the applicable authority.
- 05
Multiple grounds
Robust claims draw on different results and settings.
- 06
Visible uncertainty
Contradictions and open questions remain attached to the graph.
- 07
Dynamic revision
New outcomes update evidence and possible learning routes.
- 08
Contextual access
Each role sees information consistent with its tasks and permissions.
A traceable and revisable model of ability
- 01
Origin of ability
Every claim is linked to concrete tasks, actions, results and criteria.
- 02
Several evidence items
Consistent performance requires review across tasks and contexts.
- 03
Contribution
A team result can be related to individual work and responsibilities.
- 04
Context
Autonomy, difficulty, constraints and consequences affect what evidence means.
- 05
Evolution
New results can expand or revise previous evidence.
- 06
Uncertainty
Conflicting outcomes identify the next question to verify.
- 07
Roles
Students, lecturers, experts and programme leaders use different views.
- 08
Pathways
Reviewed abilities inform possible next tasks and roles.
The graph links a proposed claim of competence to observable actions, context, evidence and accountable review. New tasks can extend or challenge those claims.
About the model
The Competence Graph is a research concept developed by Sergey Shatokhin within University 5.0 and EduOS Lad at IWXA. It links tasks, observable actions, outcomes and verified abilities with an individual's future development. Interactive selections show possible evidence and do not confirm real participants' competencies.