Evidence appendix · Edition 04
Public-JD evidence lab
Sources, review notes, all twenty Public-JD Evidence Score decisions and the complete coding map for the public description naming BSI.
Independent editorial boundary. This appendix evaluates only evidence visible in reviewed public job-description text; it is not an employer rating, hiring recommendation, legal advice or employment advice. TenXPros is not affiliated with or endorsed by the organization named in the source, and this material is not a validated or live hiring tool.
Source, method and limits
How to read this analysis
Primary source
TenX manually reviewed the complete official BSI Workday posting for requisition JR0020758 on 24 August 2026. A timestamped private source capture and SHA-256 content hash support correction review and score reproducibility; the source is not reproduced publicly.
Method
Public-JD-only analysis using TenX AI Role X-Ray Standard v1.0 and Public-JD Evidence Score Rubric v1.0, effective 20 August 2026. Facts, inference, TenX forecast and recommendation are labelled. Twenty criteria cover Frame, Design, Prove and Foresee.
Two lenses, no conversion
The 7/12 social field note is archived as six-signal editorial shorthand. It is not part of, comparable with or convertible to the current 59/100 evidence score and did not influence the twenty-entry ledger.
Limits
This analysis does not assess BSI, its people, internal strategy, actual authority model, designation readiness, team design or hiring process. Anything not visible is described as not stated, not absent.
Editorial independence
Verified factual errors will be corrected in place with a dated change note. Payment cannot change a substantiated public conclusion or score.
Primary-source record
Official BSI Workday posting, requisition JR0020758
- Platform
- BSI Workday
- Public ID
- JR0020758
- Reviewed
- 24 August 2026
- Visible-text coverage
- complete
Official public BSI Workday posting manually reviewed on 24 August 2026; the page and application flow were available at the check. Current availability is not represented.
The primary source URL is retained for internal verification but is not published as a vacancy link. This page does not reproduce the source posting.
- Review-record precision
- Exact timestamp + SHA-256
- Retention disposition
- Reviewed and approved
- Retention status reviewed
External context
- BSI announcement on UKAS and RvA accreditation for ISO/IEC 42001Employer-published context on accredited AI management-system certification, the growing AI audit market and evaluation for EU AI Act notified-body designation.
- Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, Artificial Intelligence ActOfficial legal context for notifying authorities, notified bodies, competence, independence and conformity assessment. No legal interpretation or compliance claim is made.
- BSI announcement on ANAB accreditation for ISO/IEC 42001Employer-published March 2026 context updating the earlier dual-accreditation position to accreditation from ANAB, UKAS and RvA. This is separate from EU notified-body designation.
Context sources support the regulatory and market reading. They do not prove BSI's undisclosed practice and do not add points to the public-JD score.
Corrections and review
No corrections recorded
Last reviewed .
Verified factual errors will be corrected in place with a dated change note.
General editorial information, not legal, regulatory, assurance, recruitment or employment advice.
Part A · Evidence ledger
Every Public-JD Evidence Score decision
Complete Public-JD Evidence Score ledger
Twenty criteria, each scored out of five. The four dimension totals equal 59/100.
- Dimension
- Frame
- Criterion
- F1 Primary role outcome
- Score
- 5/5
- Public evidence or gap
- The posting explicitly makes EU AI Notified Body designation and the enabling conformity processes the role's primary outcome.
- Dimension
- Frame
- Criterion
- F2 Business problem or context
- Score
- 4/5
- Public evidence or gap
- Evolving EU AI regulation, mandated high-risk markets and BSI's regulatory business plan are visible. The public text does not quantify the readiness baseline or market target.
- Dimension
- Frame
- Criterion
- F3 Stakeholder, customer or user
- Score
- 4/5
- Public evidence or gap
- Manufacturers, providers, customers, technical forums, the Netherlands team, the wider group and operational partners are visible. Priority and conflict hierarchy are not explicit.
- Dimension
- Frame
- Criterion
- F4 Scope, constraints and priority
- Score
- 3/5
- Public evidence or gap
- Global scope, travel, target areas, EU designation and adjacent international programs are visible. Initial scope, sequence, timeline, capacity and first-wave exclusions are not explicit.
- Dimension
- Frame
- Criterion
- F5 Authority, ownership and accountability
- Score
- 3/5
- Public evidence or gap
- Leadership and personal technical authority for certificate decisions are unusually explicit. Reporting altitude, reserved decisions, override constraints and final organizational accountability are not.
- Dimension
- Design
- Criterion
- D1 Human-AI division of work
- Score
- 0/5
- Public evidence or gap
- AI is the regulated object of the role, but the reviewed public text does not define operational human-AI collaboration inside the role's own work.
- Dimension
- Design
- Criterion
- D2 Human judgement, override and escalation
- Score
- 2/5
- Public evidence or gap
- Personal authority, expertise and certificate decisions make human judgement visible. Bounded override, stop-work, appeal and escalation mechanisms are not explicit.
- Dimension
- Design
- Criterion
- D3 Tools, data boundaries and quality
- Score
- 2/5
- Public evidence or gap
- Policies, procedures and documentation provide a quality-system signal. Approved AI tools, data classification, source hierarchy and model-output verification are not explicit.
- Dimension
- Design
- Criterion
- D4 Interaction with teams and systems
- Score
- 4/5
- Public evidence or gap
- GRC, Professional Development, C&R, Operations, the Netherlands team, wider group, customers and regulators or technical forums are visible. Formal handoffs and escalation ownership are not.
- Dimension
- Design
- Criterion
- D5 Adoption and sustainable execution
- Score
- 4/5
- Public evidence or gap
- Implementation, staff compliance, qualifications, development, process improvement and output consistency form a credible adoption system. Resourcing and adoption thresholds are not explicit.
- Dimension
- Prove
- Criterion
- P1 Outcome KPI
- Score
- 4/5
- Public evidence or gap
- Notified Body status, personnel rigour and certification consistency are meaningful result states. Timeline, readiness baseline, consistency measure and target hierarchy are not explicit.
- Dimension
- Prove
- Criterion
- P2 Performance evidence
- Score
- 0/5
- Public evidence or gap
- The public criteria use education, knowledge and capability language but do not request a job-specific performance artifact or decision record.
- Dimension
- Prove
- Criterion
- P3 Verification and quality standard
- Score
- 4/5
- Public evidence or gap
- Expertise, rigour, regulatory obligations, accreditation requirements, qualification criteria and consistent certification output define strong quality expectations. Specific candidate acceptance tests are not stated.
- Dimension
- Prove
- Criterion
- P4 Work sample or related assessment
- Score
- 0/5
- Public evidence or gap
- Our review did not identify a role-specific work sample, simulation, calibration test or structured defense in the public selection text.
- Dimension
- Prove
- Criterion
- P5 Early success definition
- Score
- 0/5
- Public evidence or gap
- Our review did not identify a 30/60/90-day plan, first designation gate, early evidence milestone or comparable success contract.
- Dimension
- Foresee
- Criterion
- R1 Continuous learning
- Score
- 4/5
- Public evidence or gap
- Technical forums, personnel expertise, professional development, qualification criteria and process improvement make continuing capability visible. A formal surveillance cadence is not.
- Dimension
- Foresee
- Criterion
- R2 AI and market evolution
- Score
- 5/5
- Public evidence or gap
- Evolving EU and worldwide AI regulation, global technical forums and identification of mandated high-risk opportunities are central to the role.
- Dimension
- Foresee
- Criterion
- R3 Risk, ethics and governance
- Score
- 5/5
- Public evidence or gap
- Conformity, regulatory obligations, competence, personal technical authority, certificate decisions, designation and accreditation make governance the core mandate.
- Dimension
- Foresee
- Criterion
- R4 Adjacent-role impact
- Score
- 4/5
- Public evidence or gap
- The role changes qualifications, staff processes, support, certificate decisions and interfaces across multiple teams and international programs. The future RACI is not explicit.
- Dimension
- Foresee
- Criterion
- R5 Review, scenarios and adaptation
- Score
- 2/5
- Public evidence or gap
- Evolving regulation, opportunity identification and process improvement imply adaptation. A scenario set, decision trigger, authority review and recurring cadence are not explicit.
| Dimension | Criterion | Score | Public evidence or gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Frame | F1 Primary role outcome | 5/5 | The posting explicitly makes EU AI Notified Body designation and the enabling conformity processes the role's primary outcome. |
| Frame | F2 Business problem or context | 4/5 | Evolving EU AI regulation, mandated high-risk markets and BSI's regulatory business plan are visible. The public text does not quantify the readiness baseline or market target. |
| Frame | F3 Stakeholder, customer or user | 4/5 | Manufacturers, providers, customers, technical forums, the Netherlands team, the wider group and operational partners are visible. Priority and conflict hierarchy are not explicit. |
| Frame | F4 Scope, constraints and priority | 3/5 | Global scope, travel, target areas, EU designation and adjacent international programs are visible. Initial scope, sequence, timeline, capacity and first-wave exclusions are not explicit. |
| Frame | F5 Authority, ownership and accountability | 3/5 | Leadership and personal technical authority for certificate decisions are unusually explicit. Reporting altitude, reserved decisions, override constraints and final organizational accountability are not. |
| Design | D1 Human-AI division of work | 0/5 | AI is the regulated object of the role, but the reviewed public text does not define operational human-AI collaboration inside the role's own work. |
| Design | D2 Human judgement, override and escalation | 2/5 | Personal authority, expertise and certificate decisions make human judgement visible. Bounded override, stop-work, appeal and escalation mechanisms are not explicit. |
| Design | D3 Tools, data boundaries and quality | 2/5 | Policies, procedures and documentation provide a quality-system signal. Approved AI tools, data classification, source hierarchy and model-output verification are not explicit. |
| Design | D4 Interaction with teams and systems | 4/5 | GRC, Professional Development, C&R, Operations, the Netherlands team, wider group, customers and regulators or technical forums are visible. Formal handoffs and escalation ownership are not. |
| Design | D5 Adoption and sustainable execution | 4/5 | Implementation, staff compliance, qualifications, development, process improvement and output consistency form a credible adoption system. Resourcing and adoption thresholds are not explicit. |
| Prove | P1 Outcome KPI | 4/5 | Notified Body status, personnel rigour and certification consistency are meaningful result states. Timeline, readiness baseline, consistency measure and target hierarchy are not explicit. |
| Prove | P2 Performance evidence | 0/5 | The public criteria use education, knowledge and capability language but do not request a job-specific performance artifact or decision record. |
| Prove | P3 Verification and quality standard | 4/5 | Expertise, rigour, regulatory obligations, accreditation requirements, qualification criteria and consistent certification output define strong quality expectations. Specific candidate acceptance tests are not stated. |
| Prove | P4 Work sample or related assessment | 0/5 | Our review did not identify a role-specific work sample, simulation, calibration test or structured defense in the public selection text. |
| Prove | P5 Early success definition | 0/5 | Our review did not identify a 30/60/90-day plan, first designation gate, early evidence milestone or comparable success contract. |
| Foresee | R1 Continuous learning | 4/5 | Technical forums, personnel expertise, professional development, qualification criteria and process improvement make continuing capability visible. A formal surveillance cadence is not. |
| Foresee | R2 AI and market evolution | 5/5 | Evolving EU and worldwide AI regulation, global technical forums and identification of mandated high-risk opportunities are central to the role. |
| Foresee | R3 Risk, ethics and governance | 5/5 | Conformity, regulatory obligations, competence, personal technical authority, certificate decisions, designation and accreditation make governance the core mandate. |
| Foresee | R4 Adjacent-role impact | 4/5 | The role changes qualifications, staff processes, support, certificate decisions and interfaces across multiple teams and international programs. The future RACI is not explicit. |
| Foresee | R5 Review, scenarios and adaptation | 2/5 | Evolving regulation, opportunity identification and process improvement imply adaptation. A scenario set, decision trigger, authority review and recurring cadence are not explicit. |
Calibration status
Beta structured editorial index. One assessor, one official public case, no published reference distribution and no claim of predicting designation, employer or employee performance.
Part B · Coding map
Every coded statement behind the 6/16 and 0/12 finding
- DIA
- strategic framing and opportunity
- STD
- technical and competence standards
- SYS
- designation and conformity system
- CON
- policy, process and documentation
- DEL
- regulatory leadership and delivery
- PLT
- evidence, consistency and decision control
- GEN
- general and excluded
Purpose and responsibility statements, n=16
- ID
- R01
- Abbreviated statement
- Lead conformity assessment activity for evolving EU AI regulation
- Code
- SYS
- ID
- R02
- Abbreviated statement
- Represent BSI in European and global AI technical forums
- Code
- DEL
- ID
- R03
- Abbreviated statement
- Ensure Notified Body personnel maintain expertise and rigour
- Code
- STD
- ID
- R04
- Abbreviated statement
- Ensure policies, procedures and documentation meet AI regulatory obligations
- Code
- CON
- ID
- R05
- Abbreviated statement
- Set competence qualifications, development and certificate decisions through personal expertise
- Code
- PLT
- ID
- R06
- Abbreviated statement
- Shape the group AI regulatory business plan and quantify high-risk opportunities
- Code
- DIA
- ID
- R07
- Abbreviated statement
- Lead activity to obtain EU AI Notified Body status
- Code
- SYS
- ID
- R08
- Abbreviated statement
- Lead internal and external regulatory issues
- Code
- DEL
- ID
- R09
- Abbreviated statement
- Develop and implement processes for AI regulation, designation and accreditation
- Code
- CON
- ID
- R10
- Abbreviated statement
- Establish qualification criteria for all roles
- Code
- STD
- ID
- R11
- Abbreviated statement
- Lead staff compliance with new AI Notified Body processes
- Code
- SYS
- ID
- R12
- Abbreviated statement
- Provide expert regulatory support to the wider group and customers
- Code
- DEL
- ID
- R13
- Abbreviated statement
- Mentor and support the Netherlands team with the Designating Authority
- Code
- DEL
- ID
- R14
- Abbreviated statement
- Support the UK Approved Body and other international regulatory programs
- Code
- SYS
- ID
- R15
- Abbreviated statement
- Identify opportunities for business-process improvement
- Code
- DIA
- ID
- R16
- Abbreviated statement
- Keep certification-process output consistent across operational teams
- Code
- PLT
| ID | Abbreviated statement | Code |
|---|---|---|
| R01 | Lead conformity assessment activity for evolving EU AI regulation | SYS |
| R02 | Represent BSI in European and global AI technical forums | DEL |
| R03 | Ensure Notified Body personnel maintain expertise and rigour | STD |
| R04 | Ensure policies, procedures and documentation meet AI regulatory obligations | CON |
| R05 | Set competence qualifications, development and certificate decisions through personal expertise | PLT |
| R06 | Shape the group AI regulatory business plan and quantify high-risk opportunities | DIA |
| R07 | Lead activity to obtain EU AI Notified Body status | SYS |
| R08 | Lead internal and external regulatory issues | DEL |
| R09 | Develop and implement processes for AI regulation, designation and accreditation | CON |
| R10 | Establish qualification criteria for all roles | STD |
| R11 | Lead staff compliance with new AI Notified Body processes | SYS |
| R12 | Provide expert regulatory support to the wider group and customers | DEL |
| R13 | Mentor and support the Netherlands team with the Designating Authority | DEL |
| R14 | Support the UK Approved Body and other international regulatory programs | SYS |
| R15 | Identify opportunities for business-process improvement | DIA |
| R16 | Keep certification-process output consistent across operational teams | PLT |
Selection criteria, n=12
- ID
- S01
- Abbreviated criterion
- Degree in AI-relevant or target-sector discipline
- Code
- STD
- ID
- S02
- Abbreviated criterion
- Postgraduate AI, machine learning or regulatory qualification advantageous
- Code
- STD
- ID
- S03
- Abbreviated criterion
- Thorough knowledge of worldwide and EU AI regulatory approaches
- Code
- STD
- ID
- S04
- Abbreviated criterion
- Knowledge of business processes and quality-management standards
- Code
- CON
- ID
- S05
- Abbreviated criterion
- Relationship building internally and externally
- Code
- DEL
- ID
- S06
- Abbreviated criterion
- Broad technical understanding of focal-sector products
- Code
- STD
- ID
- S07
- Abbreviated criterion
- Conceptual and analytical thinking, efficiency and results orientation
- Code
- DIA
- ID
- S08
- Abbreviated criterion
- Commercial awareness and operating-practice knowledge
- Code
- DIA
- ID
- S09
- Abbreviated criterion
- Ability to interpret legislation and contribute to policy
- Code
- STD
- ID
- S10
- Abbreviated criterion
- People leadership and influencing skills
- Code
- DEL
- ID
- S11
- Abbreviated criterion
- Communication and influencing skills
- Code
- DEL
- ID
- S12
- Abbreviated criterion
- Ability to operate with horizontal and vertical reporting lines
- Code
- SYS
| ID | Abbreviated criterion | Code |
|---|---|---|
| S01 | Degree in AI-relevant or target-sector discipline | STD |
| S02 | Postgraduate AI, machine learning or regulatory qualification advantageous | STD |
| S03 | Thorough knowledge of worldwide and EU AI regulatory approaches | STD |
| S04 | Knowledge of business processes and quality-management standards | CON |
| S05 | Relationship building internally and externally | DEL |
| S06 | Broad technical understanding of focal-sector products | STD |
| S07 | Conceptual and analytical thinking, efficiency and results orientation | DIA |
| S08 | Commercial awareness and operating-practice knowledge | DIA |
| S09 | Ability to interpret legislation and contribute to policy | STD |
| S10 | People leadership and influencing skills | DEL |
| S11 | Communication and influencing skills | DEL |
| S12 | Ability to operate with horizontal and vertical reporting lines | SYS |
Limitations
Single coder with no inter-rater agreement. Small denominators: one responsibility equals 6.25 percentage points and one selection criterion equals 8.33 points. R05 could be coded as competence standard, R13 as system work, S07 as general and S12 as delivery. Re-coding those does not create a selection criterion that requests a decision-authority artifact or make the reporting line visible.