How assessors judge Making Effective Decisions at sift
Assessors score your Making Effective Decisions statement against the level descriptor for the grade, looking for evidence of structured reasoning. Knowing the positive and negative indicators they use tells you exactly what to put in, and what to cut.
What assessors are actually scoring
At sift, an assessor scores your statement against the level descriptor for that grade, usually in a few minutes. They are not judging whether your decision was brilliant; they are judging whether it shows the reasoning the descriptor lists.
That means the reasoning is the evidence. Two candidates can describe the same outcome and get different scores, because one showed how they gathered evidence, weighed options and owned the choice, while the other just narrated events.
From the official guidance
The level descriptors sit in the Success Profiles guidance on GOV.UK (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/success-profiles). Departments score against these descriptors, though the exact scoring method varies, so check the job advert.
Positive indicators assessors look for
Positive indicators push your score up. For this behaviour they cluster around how you reached the decision, not just what you decided.
- You gathered evidence from more than one source before deciding, and said what each source told you.
- You identified genuine options and gave a reason for rejecting each one you did not choose.
- You weighed cost, risk, impact or policy explicitly, with at least one concrete figure.
- You checked your reasoning with someone or tested an assumption before committing.
- You knew the limits of your authority and escalated or recorded the decision appropriately.
- You set a review point or contingency so the decision could be corrected if wrong.
For example, 'I compared the three-year whole-life costs and found the cheaper bid carried an uncapped inflation clause' shows weighing. 'I chose the best option' shows nothing.
Negative indicators that pull scores down
Negative indicators make assessors doubt the evidence. Most weak statements fail on reasoning gaps, not on bad decisions.
- Narrating events with no moment of choice: things happened, but you never visibly decided anything.
- Using 'we' throughout the action, so your personal judgement cannot be isolated.
- Claiming the option was obvious or the only one available, which removes the judgement being scored.
- Relying on one source of information when the situation clearly needed more.
- Ignoring risk, policy or cost entirely, or breaking rules without acknowledging them.
Common mistake
The most common failure is describing a good outcome with invisible reasoning. Assessors cannot mark thinking they cannot see, so write the rejected options and trade-offs explicitly.
What separates a 4 from a 5
On the 1–7 scale, 4 is a solid pass and 5 a strong one, and the difference is usually specificity. A 4 shows a sound process in general terms; a 5 shows the same process with named data sources, costed options, explicit trade-offs and a quantified result.
| Element | Score 4 looks like | Score 5 looks like |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence | Checked the relevant facts before deciding | Compared several sources and said what each revealed |
| Options | Named an alternative that was rejected | Costed each option and explained the trade-offs |
| Risk | Mentioned the main risk | Stated the risk accepted, the controls and a review point |
| Result | Decision worked and team benefited | Result quantified, with lasting change adopted |
You do not need a dramatic scenario for a 5. An ordinary decision told with this level of precision routinely outscores a dramatic one told vaguely.
Use the indicators before you submit
Draft your statement, then mark it against the positive indicator list yourself. Every missing indicator is a sentence you can add; every negative one is a sentence to rewrite. A word counter helps you keep the additions inside the limit.
If you apply at several grades, adjust the emphasis: junior grades need clean evidence-and-options structure, senior grades need risk treatment and stakeholder challenge. See what each grade expects before reusing a statement.
Frequently asked questions
The statement. Assessors only see what you wrote, so a sound decision described vaguely scores lower than a modest decision described with clear reasoning. Show the evidence you gathered, the options you weighed and the trade-offs you accepted. Never assume the assessor will infer any of it.
It can, if your reasoning was sound and you show how you spotted and corrected the problem. This behaviour is scored on judgement, not luck. A flawed outcome with honest, evidence-based reasoning and a strong recovery often beats a lucky success told without thinking.
Two or three is convincing at most grades. Name each source and what it told you, for example booking data, a policy clause and a colleague's capacity check. Listing ten sources without using them reads as padding; using two or three well reads as judgement.
Write 'we decided' through the action section, skip the rejected options, and end with 'the project was a success'. Those three habits hide your judgement, remove the comparison assessors score, and give a result with no scale. Each is easy to fix in a redraft.
Next step
Get the free STAR template — the same structure used in every example on this site.
Download the template pack