Event markets
Contract wording, probability, settlement governance and market integrity.
Competency blueprint
What the assessment tests, before anyone sits it.
An exam whose content is a surprise cannot be prepared for, and an employer who cannot see what was tested cannot tell what the credential means. Publishing the blueprint first also makes the assessment falsifiable: if the questions do not match what is below, that is visible. This is version 0.1.0.
Status: Draft — not signed off. Review by the independent standards council, which owns the blueprint and has not been seated. Until then the weightings and levels below are the Institute’s working position, published so they can be argued with — not a specification any candidate has been assessed against. No PMA-CICP assessment has been administered and no candidate has been assessed against this document. See the public ledger for the rest of what does and does not exist.
Version 0.1.0 · published · blueprint.json · why this exists
Core professional judgment
Six domains, weighted.
| Domain | Weighting | Level |
|---|---|---|
| 01 · Contract design & wordingReading a contract as the person who will have to resolve it. Identifying the wording that will be disputed, stating why, and rewriting it so that two resolvers acting in good faith reach the same answer. The published failure-pattern registry is the floor here, not the ceiling: a candidate is expected to find defects it does not catalogue. | 22% | Judgement |
| 02 · Settlement & resolution governanceDeciding who resolves, on what evidence, within what window, and what happens when the named source goes silent or is contradicted. Includes the case the candidate would rather not have: resolving against their own client, on the record, with reasons. | 20% | Judgement |
| 03 · Market integritySeparating manipulation that surveillance can catch from manipulation only design can prevent. Reading order and resolution-source patterns for the signature of each, and knowing which of the two the venue in front of you is exposed to. | 16% | Analysis |
| 04 · Funding, margin & collateralFunding-rate behaviour, index construction, collateral haircuts and liquidation cascades in venues that never close — and how each interacts with an event that resolves discontinuously. | 14% | Analysis |
| 05 · Measurement & calibrationWhat would have to be true for a forecast-quality claim to be checkable. Scoring rules, bucketing, sample floors, and recognising the comparison that flatters the person making it. | 14% | Analysis |
| 06 · Supervision & professional conductClient communication, conflicts, record-keeping, escalation, and the governance of AI use in the candidate’s own work — including declining to act, and saying so in writing. | 14% | Judgement |
| Total | 100% |
Levels
The level is a ceiling, not a quota: it states the most demanding thing an item in that domain may ask for. The distribution is itself a claim about the credential — it is meant to test decisions, not recall.
- recall
- the candidate can state the rule
- application
- the candidate can apply it to a described case
- analysis
- the candidate can take a real artefact apart and find the defect
- judgement
- the candidate can decide under conflict, and defend the decision
Specialization assessments
Taken in addition to the core, not instead of it.
Perpetuals & crypto derivatives
Funding, index design, collateral, liquidation and 24/7 market risk.
Novel contract design
Payoff architecture, manipulation resistance, margin logic and scenario analysis.
Supervision & integrity
Client communications, conflicts, records, AI governance, surveillance and escalation.
Weightings for the specialization assessments are not published yet. They will be, before anyone sits one — that is the same promise as the core, and it is on /standards in writing.
How it changes
Versioned, and argued with.
0.1.0
First draft. Six core domains, weighted, each mapped to a standing research track.
- · Core assessment domains published with weightings and judgement levels.
- · Specialization assessments listed against the credential architecture already published on /credential.
- · Status is draft: nothing here has been reviewed by the standards council, which is not yet seated.
Entries are appended, never edited. A weighting that moves gets a new version and a line saying so, because a blueprint that can be revised silently is not a commitment — it is a description of whatever the exam turned out to be.