Confidential Work: What You Submit and What Stays Private

Yes, and the program is designed for it. Every capstone is real work from a real job, which means confidentiality was a design constraint from the start rather than an exception to be handled case by case.

You submit the minimum evidence needed for assessment — no more. What’s being assessed is the direction trail: how you framed the work, what context you supplied, what you validated, what you’d do differently. That trail is usually demonstrable without exposing the underlying material.

Confidential data may be redacted, masked, or replaced with a verifiable description. A figure can become “a variance of roughly this magnitude against a monthly baseline.” A client can become “a mid-size manufacturer in the same sector.” What matters for assessment is that the claim can be checked as a claim, not that the assessor can see the raw record.

Some things must never be uploaded at all. Raw sensitive datasets, credentials, and restricted client material. This is not a preference — unauthorised information use is one of the six Responsible Direction red lines, and a capstone that crosses one cannot pass until it is corrected, whatever the scores elsewhere.

Vivas never require confidential information to be shown to the batch. Where sensitive evidence needs examining, it moves to a private conversation with your assessor. The same applies to live critique sessions: records are anonymised, the trainer names the ability under discussion rather than the author, and workplace content is not displayed without your consent.

You keep ownership of your work throughout. Nothing identifiable is used in teaching or marketing without your explicit permission. Where an anonymised example appears in a demonstration, it appears because someone agreed to it.

A practical note on tools. The program doesn’t mandate an AI provider or supply licences — you work in a tool you already have access to, and your organisation’s approved-tool rules always apply. Deciding that a particular piece of work should not go near AI at all is itself an act of direction, and it is assessed as such.

If your work is sensitive enough that you’re unsure what would qualify, that conversation is worth having before you enrol rather than after.