CMI Level 5 and Level 7 · EPA Live Assessment
Assessment Day Hub
David Agyei · Shropshire Council
Everything you need in one place. Open your seven prep files and four submitted documents from Quick Launch, then work through the day.
Assessment: 18 June 2026, 14:00
Quick Launch (Section 1) opens each reference file in a new tab. Keep this hub open behind them so you can return to it between sections.
Golden Thread (Section 2) is the one sentence that anchors every answer. Return to it whenever you feel a question pulling you away from the core narrative.
Theory Names (Section 3) gives you the seven frameworks to name. Use these whenever the assessor asks which models or frameworks you used.
Governance Gaps (Section 4) holds your prepared answers for the two most dangerous open questions: the strategic owner TBC and the referral position (13 outstanding for Shropshire Mental Health as of 2 June; confirm on 18 June).
Distinction Reminders (Section 5) tells you the exact verbal behaviour that separates Distinction from Pass. Read it before you start.
Before the day, open the Assessment Day Checklist to track prep progress.
Presentation Speaker Notes
Drill - Mock Q and A Practice
Proof - Evidence Locator
Proof - Star Achievements
Proof - Use of Theories
Ref - Jargon and Theories
Ref - Memory Jog and Distinction
Ref - Witness Testimonies
Submitted Documents
Project Proposal (4,000 words)
Project Tracker
Submitted Governance Documents
Submitted Presentation
Before the session starts: open all seven prep links above and the four submitted document links below so they are ready in separate tabs. Test Google Meet screen sharing with your slides before 14:00.
Your anchor sentence
"The SWANN Phase 2 project directly addresses Shropshire Council's financial recovery mandate by building the data infrastructure needed to demonstrate cost avoidance on escalations: a quantifiable return on investment in early intervention that was previously impossible to evidence."
£121m financial emergency → Phase 1 failed to create data infrastructure → Phase 2 designed to fix governance before technology → £390,000
| Figure | What it means | Where it comes from |
|---|---|---|
| 12.5 to 14 FTE | Social worker equivalent of that meeting costmakes the human cost tangible. | As-Is Meetings Analysis Report |
| 15 coachees | West Midlands Coaching Pool2 returned from burnout. 6 received promotions. | Coaching Testimonials 2025 |
| 31 → 13 referrals | 31 outstanding (27 May); 13 remaining for Shropshire Mental Health as of 2 JuneLive Well Shropshire cleared. 10 June update: confirmed not requiring further action from Customer Services; 13 pending Shropshire Mental Health provider responses to residents. Confirm final count on 18 June. | SWANN updates 2 June; RAID log; Kate Hobbs |
| 73+ staff | Number engaged in the FFP Comms Update (As-Is Meetings Mapping) | Charlotte Saywell testimony; ELD K5.1 |
| £121m | Financial emergency declared by Shropshire Council, 2024context for the whole project. | Executive Summary; Proposal Section 1 |
| £390k | Illustrative annual cost avoidance from SWANN Phase 2Calculation: 200 referrals/yr x 20% deflection = 40 escalations avoided. 40 x £750 assessment cost = £30k; 24 care packages avoided x £15k = £360k. Total: £390k. All inputs are ADASS/PSSRU proxies, labelled as such, not confirmed figures. | Cost Avoidance v0.1; Proposal Section 6 |
| £770k to £851k | Annual meeting costs across Children's Servicesidentified in the As-Is Meetings Mapping project. | FFP Comms Update (Evidence 9); ELD K1.3 |
The question: "Which models or frameworks informed your approach?" Do not answer with tools (RAID log, sprint board). Answer with named theories. Then critique them.
| Decision Area | Theory to Name | One-line limitation to add |
|---|---|---|
| Change management | Lewinunfreeze, change, refreeze Kottercreating urgency, guiding coalition |
Both assume organisational controlreal change in multi-agency context is messier than either model suggests. |
| Coaching | GROW modelnon-directive, person-centred approach |
Non-directive only works when coachee has sufficient readinesshad to shift to more directive scaffolding in burnout cases. |
| Financial analysis | Proxy costingADASS/PSSRU benchmarks |
National averages, not Shropshire-specificthe model is illustrative until Phase 2 creates actuals. |
| Leadership | Situational LeadershipHersey and Blanchard |
Assumes leader has authority to directin cross-functional work without line authority, requires influence to substitute for direction. |
| Options appraisal | Cost-benefit analysisdo-nothing baseline (Green Book) |
Proportionate not exhaustiveno risk-adjusted cost estimates for each option. |
| Project management | Agile/Scrumempirical process control (inspect and adapt) |
Public sector procurement cycles do not align with sprint cadencerequired adaptation not pure Scrum. |
| Stakeholder management | Mendelow's Power/Interest Matrix |
Does not capture emotional investment or relationship historysupplemented with trust-building. |
Full detail cards with prepared sentences are in the Proof - Use of Theories file.
Risk: The SWANN SPoR ToR v1.0 lists the Strategic Owner as TBC with a target confirmation date of 30 May 2026. The assessor has read this document. This question will be asked.
& who is the strategic owner and why TBC?
Say this (4 points)
The strategic owner is shown as to be confirmed in the Terms of Reference, against a target date, and I want to be clear that this was a governance decision rather than an oversight. I documented it as a named risk and I built the interim arrangement into the ToR itself: until the strategic owner is formally confirmed, escalation runs through Lisa Middleton to her Head of Service, and Lisa holds commissioner-level accountability throughout. The project is never without a decision route. Phase 1 showed me exactly what happens when governance gaps are left unnamed, so here I made the gap visible and routed it rather than managing around it. The only item still to close is the formal sign-off, and that conversation is already scheduled.
Risk: Confirmed at the 27 May SWANN partnership meeting. An assessor who has read the full portfolio may ask what is happening to those families right now.
& what is happening to those outstanding referrals right now?
Say this (5 points)
At the 27 May partnership meeting I surfaced the outstanding referrals and the absence of a provider SLA. I raised it deliberately, because these are residents who have already reached out once, so a second failure carries both a human and a reputational cost. The root cause was a mailbox encryption issue, which has since been fixed through the new Swan mailbox. At the most recent workshop the remaining cases sat with Shropshire Mental Health responding to residents directly, confirmed as not dependent on Customer Services or on my team to action. So the position is owned and contained: I raised it, the cause is fixed, and the residual sits with the provider. What Phase 2 does is remove the cause permanently. Referrals currently arrive through inconsistent channels with no tracking; once the portal is live, response times become measurable and accountable, which is the exact gap that allowed this to happen.
The single most important distinction behaviour
After every answer, add one evaluative sentence: "What this showed me was..." or "The limitation of that approach was..." or "If I were doing this again, the thing I would change is..." That sentence is what separates a reflective practitioner from a competent one.
| When asked about... | Pass does this | Distinction does this |
|---|---|---|
| A decision | Describes what was decided and why | Criterianame the ones you used Alternativesdescribe the ones rejected Costidentify the one accepted |
| A gap or weakness | Acknowledges it honestly | Acknowledgeown it honestly Why acceptedexplain the reason Mitigationdescribe it Residual riskname it |
| A piece of evidence | Describes what the document shows | Tell the storycontext, action, outcome, learning |
| A theory or model | Names it and describes use | Name it Describe use Critique the limitationin this specific context |
| Own development | Identifies a learning or gap | Learningidentify it Changehow practice changed External evidencethe change was observable |
| Stakeholder challenge | Describes the stakeholder and the challenge | Power dynamic Emotional component Approachand why that approach Outcome Do differentlywhat you'd change |
& What were the rejected project alternatives?
Say this (3 points)
Alternative 1: Stabilise Phase 1 before starting Phase 2 (raised by Jim Ford, 20 May). Rejected: deferring would lock in the Phase 1 problems rather than fix them. Alternative 2: Deploy external consultants to run a six-week sprint. Rejected: financially unjustifiable and lacks stakeholder relationships. Alternative 3: Use a standalone Microsoft Form. Rejected: creates data silos and breaks CRM integration.
& what makes a figure distinction-grade?
Say this (4 points)
Distinction: Before/After pairs — not just the figure. David's pairs: (1) 31 outstanding → 13 remaining — trajectory, not just a number. (2) £0 measurable avoidance → £390k illustrative; proxies labelled, sourced. (3) £770k–£851k meeting costs; 12.5–14 FTE equivalent — human cost tangible.
& how do you move past naming a single framework?
Say this (3 points)
Distinction: combine frameworks; show how they worked together. Three jobs, three tools: (1) Mendelow — mapped who needed what level of engagement. How: Power/interest grid → Director Shaw and Jim Ford both high power, different interest → different approaches required; one approach to both would have failed. (2) Situational Leadership — shaped how to pitch that engagement. How: Ford needed directing (rationale first, before collaboration) → Charlotte Saywell delegating → providers coaching through CRM constraints → not one style, deliberately shifted. (3) Lewin — explained why Phase 1 failed. How: Technology changed (change stage) without unfreezing first → referrer buy-in assumed not built → Phase 2 opens with requirements workshop precisely to unfreeze before any build begins. Also in play: Agile = delivery cadence · Cost-Benefit = decision framework · GROW = coaching structure. Key point: not parallel — working at different levels of the same project simultaneously.
& what shows your work outlasts the EPA period?
Say this (4 points)
Distinction: show work still in use after you leave. Three layers: (1) POAP — Lisa endorsed; live programme governance; team still using it. (2) RAID log — PMO mandatory; institutional not personal. (3) Weekly cadence — still running. Coaching legacy: 15 coachees · 5+ years · 6 promotions · 2 burnout returns. Referenced independently by Shanda Reid — not self-reported.
& what do you do when you don't have all the facts?
Say this (4 points)
Distinction: high-stakes decision without full facts — name it, document it, decide anyway. David's 3 examples: (1) £390k on proxies — five questions still outstanding; Lisa meeting 23 June. (2) Strategic owner TBC — against 30 May target date; still open on assessment day. (3) Phase 2 commenced — no confirmed financial baseline at start. Response pattern — same each time: Document gap visibly → build interim route → decide within known constraints → name what is still open.