A Répertoire spécifique Application in 2026: Testing the Chain of Evidence

A letter of support does not prove occupational need

Article R. 6113-11 of the Code du travail (French Labour Code) examines whether the skills meet labour-market needs, not whether a course is popular. Read in detail, it contains 13 lines: five under 1°, four under 2°, then four more from 3° through 6°. The arithmetic is 5 + 4 + 4 = 13. This is an examination aid, not a score or a set of equally weighted criteria. Depending on the certification or habilitation concerned, 2° also covers the effects of the ecological and digital transitions, health and safety at work, accessibility and universal design. Where applicable, 5° and 6° concern correspondences with Répertoire national des certifications professionnelles (RNCP) blocks and the involvement of national joint employment commissions for occupational sectors.

Useful evidence links a need to the proposed certification, then describes its use. Generic endorsements and testimonials from former trainees are generally insufficient on their own. The Vademecum relatif à la certification professionnelle allows a narrow exception for certifications aimed mainly at self-employed people. Even then, a testimonial must identify the skills used and the benefits observed. Approval without observation is still only approval.

The target audience and prerequisites define the standalone skill

The target audience and prerequisites mark out the setting in which the skill creates occupational value. A specialisation attaches to an occupation. A cross-cutting skill remains deployable in identified work situations. A standalone professional activity may address a wider range of profiles, provided its prerequisites make sense. Standalone means that the skill can be deployed distinctly. It means neither a complete occupation nor access without prerequisites.

A complementary standalone activity often sits alongside a principal activity. At the RNCP boundary, practising an occupation as one's main, full-time activity, even seasonally, is a contextual and evolving signal. It is never a threshold based on hours, income or turnover.

The Code sets no universal training duration for all RS proposals. For bodies authorised to prepare candidates, Article R. 6113-16-3 requires, where applicable, the minimum training durations and the minimum or maximum placement durations set by the ministry or certifying body, or arising from an international standard or a statutory or regulatory provision. In-person attendance requirements and the maximum number of trainees per trainer apply only when the ministry or certifying body has provided for them.

A QCM cannot replace an observable work situation

The skills framework states what a holder must master. The assessment framework shows how each skill will be verified. France compétences recommends observable situations close to real work, with expected outcomes that allow the panel to examine actions and behaviours. A capability paired with an unsuitable method remains a promise. An assessment that measures something else has stepped outside the certified scope.

A questionnaire à choix multiple (QCM), or multiple-choice questionnaire, primarily tests knowledge. It is generally insufficient as the main method for observing performance, a practical action or behaviour. That is not an absolute ban: case-based tasks can create an observable situation, and a questionnaire can complement another assessment. What exactly will the assessor see, and against which objective criteria?

One complete cohort, followed by value in use

The starting population changes with the application cycle. For a first application, the relevant holders are those who passed the assessments after completing the training that corresponds to the proposal. For a renewal, they are holders of the certification or habilitation previously registered. If a first application presents data for only one year, registration is capped at three years rather than the general maximum of five. Neither ceiling guarantees the term that will be granted.

A cohort includes everyone who obtained the same certification during a calendar year. Every preparation and assessment location, access route and partner is included. Selecting the strongest site or leaving out a partner corrupts the denominator. One person does not constitute a cohort. Beyond that point, the Vademecum publishes no universal critical-size threshold.

Value in use is not general satisfaction. It is the demonstrated usefulness of the skills to user organisations after the skills have actually been deployed. A persuasive letter locates the work, names the skills used and describes the benefit observed. Follow-up data, a survey or a review of how the skills were deployed can supplement that observation. Specific evidence carries more weight than a stack of generic endorsements.

Interest can be declared. Value in use is observed after the skill has been deployed.

The certifying body remains responsible for its network

A partner may prepare or assess candidates on behalf of the certifying body. It cannot issue the certification in its own name. The certifying body defines and oversees each partner's habilitation (authorisation) and must be able to terminate it. Agreements need to match actual practice: compliant training, consistent assessment, panels under the certifying body's responsibility, procedures for anomalies and appeals, and termination of the partnership.

The January 2026 Vademecum relatif à la certification professionnelle describes this network responsibility. Since 27 June 2026, Article L. 6113-6-1 has authorised France compétences to carry out documentary checks on certifying ministries and documentary and on-site checks on certifying bodies, as well as bodies authorised by ministries or certifying bodies to prepare candidates. France compétences may also request any document. The law creates these powers, but does not publish their frequency or inspection protocol here.

A false declaration, a literal copy of all or part of an existing framework, or misleading public communication can lead to refusal before the 13 lines are examined. For the same ministry or certifying body, three refusals within five years from notification of the first refusal trigger a one-year waiting period from notification of the last refusal before an identical or similar proposal may be filed. This differs from the ban of up to two years for repeated conduct covered by Article R. 6113-8-1, reproduced in sheet 10 of the Vademecum under Article R. 6113-16-7. Finally, the Commission de France compétences chargée de la certification professionnelle issues a binding opinion. The Director-General then formalises the decision.