AI-Assisted Trades & Credentials · Capstone brief
TRD-09 · Credential crosswalk
Where does the capstone genuinely document practice toward a competency, where does it merely touch one — and where does it prove nothing at all?
The question
Map the evidence your capstone produced onto the task list of a currently Board-approved credential in your pathway. Where does the capstone genuinely document practice toward a competency, where does it merely touch one — and where does it prove nothing at all?
System / materials
One credential from the current Virginia list, verified per the credential rule above, with its published task or competency list. One completed capstone — the student's own or a classmate's, with permission — as the evidence base. This brief writes a map; it does not assess or certify anything.
Expected failure modes
Claiming coverage from adjacency: touching a topic is not practicing a competency. Presenting the crosswalk as evidence of readiness for the exam. Mapping to a credential that has been retired or superseded. Producing an all-green table, which is a sign the mapping was not honest — gaps are the useful output.
Done looks like
A crosswalk with gaps: the credential named with its list version and verification date; each competency marked documented / partially documented / not addressed, each documented row pointing at the specific artifact and page that supports it; a gap statement naming what the capstone does not cover and what would; and a one-paragraph honesty note stating plainly that the capstone stacks onto the credential and is not evidence of it.
Five C's
CT: distinguishing evidence from adjacency. CR: deciding what genuinely counts as documented. CO: a peer or mentor audits five rows against the artifacts. CM: a table a counselor or employer reads without explanation. CZ: the student who believes they are further along than they are.
Mentor role
A credentialed practitioner, CTE coordinator, or program lead audits a sample of rows. Standing instruction: reject any row where the artifact does not actually show the competency. School-supervised.
Rubric calibration
R1: one credential, one capstone, list version recorded. R2: every documented row traceable to a named artifact. R3: comparator is the credential's own task list. R4: gaps stated, not smoothed. R5: table is standalone. R6: the honesty note is present and unhedged.
Two ways this goes wrong
(a) An all-green table that quietly reads as certification. (b) A retired credential, so the map points nowhere.
Credit lane fit
Lane A immediately, and the best pairing with any other brief in this bank. Documents practice toward competencies; it is not evidence of certification. No verified credit claim.