Enablement Content Audit: Competency-to-Evidence Scorecard
A row-by-row scoring instrument for auditing every asset in your enablement library against the specific competency it claims to build and the evidence it has ever changed rep behaviour. Forces three decisions on every piece of content: Keep, Rebuild, or Archive.
How to use it
Complete the Competency Mapping Worksheet before you open the main scorecard, so every asset is anchored to a named competency before scoring begins. Score each asset column by column using the defined criteria, then record the verdict and attach a measurement commitment for every asset that survives. Run the full audit at least twice a year; run a partial audit whenever a new asset is added to the library.
What's inside
- Pre-audit Competency Mapping Worksheet to force taxonomy alignment before any scoring starts
- Asset Registry table for cataloguing every item in the library before the audit begins
- Competency Alignment Score (0-3) with defined criteria for each level
- Behaviour Change Evidence Score (0-3) with named evidence types and disqualifying conditions
- Usage & Recency Score (0-2) with explicit thresholds
- Composite Verdict Calculator with defined Keep / Rebuild / Archive cut-offs
- Named failure modes for each verdict category
- Measurement Commitment Log where surviving assets get an evidence method, an owner, and a review date
- "When NOT to use this scorecard" note for edge cases
- Worked example row showing a completed audit entry
Before You Start: Why Sequence Matters
Most content audits fail because they score assets before agreeing what the assets are supposed to do. This scorecard enforces a fixed sequence: competency mapping first, scoring second, measurement commitment third. Skipping Step 1 means your scores are opinions, not verdicts.
Step 1: Pre-Audit Competency Mapping Worksheet
Complete this once before you open the main scorecard. Every asset must map to exactly one primary competency. If it genuinely covers two, treat it as two separate assets for scoring purposes.
Instructions: List your competency taxonomy in the left column. For each competency, list every asset in the library that claims to address it. If an asset cannot be mapped to a named competency, mark it Unmapped and send it directly to Archive before scoring begins.
| Competency Name | Competency ID (if you use one) | Assets Claiming to Address It | Unmapped? (Y/N) |
|---|---|---|---|
Taxonomy note: If you do not have a competency taxonomy, use job stages as a proxy: Prospecting, Discovery, Qualification, Proposing, Negotiating, Closing, Expanding. This is a weaker anchor but better than none. Commit to building a proper taxonomy before the next audit cycle.
Step 2: Asset Registry
List every item in the library. One row per asset. Do not skip assets because they feel obviously good or obviously dead. The point of the audit is to kill assumptions.
| Asset ID | Asset Title | Format | Date Created | Last Updated | Claimed Competency (from Step 1) | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Step 3: Main Scoring Scorecard
Score every asset in the registry using the three columns below. Then calculate the composite score and apply the verdict rule.
Column A: Competency Alignment Score (0-3)
Does the asset actually address the competency it has been mapped to, and at the right level of specificity?
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 3 | The asset directly addresses one named competency. The skill gap it closes is explicit in the content itself, not just implied by the title. A rep finishing it would know specifically what to do differently. |
| 2 | The asset addresses the competency but stays at a general or conceptual level. A rep finishing it would understand a principle but would need additional practice or coaching to change behaviour. |
| 1 | The competency connection is incidental. The asset touches the topic but was not designed to close a specific skill gap. |
| 0 | No credible link to the mapped competency. Unmapped or mismapped. Archive immediately. |
Column B: Behaviour Change Evidence Score (0-3)
Has this asset demonstrably changed what reps do in the field? Evidence must be documented, not remembered.
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 3 | Direct, documented evidence exists: call recordings, pipeline conversion data, manager observation logs, or assessed role-plays show reps applying the specific skill before and after engagement with the asset. Evidence is less than 12 months old. |
| 2 | Indirect evidence exists: completion data plus one corroborating signal (e.g. manager reports improved performance in the relevant area, or a cohort that used the asset outperformed one that did not). Not controlled, but traceable. |
| 1 | No documented evidence, but the asset is new (under 90 days old) and a measurement plan is already in place with a named owner and a review date. |
| 0 | No evidence exists and the asset is more than 90 days old. The absence of evidence is the finding. Score 0. |
Disqualifying conditions for Column B: Positive survey feedback ("reps said they found it useful") does not count as evidence of behaviour change. Download counts do not count. Completion rates do not count. These are consumption metrics, not behaviour metrics.
Column C: Usage and Recency Score (0-2)
Is the asset actively being used, and is it current enough to be trustworthy?
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 2 | Used by at least 50% of the target rep population in the last 6 months AND reflects current product, process, and market conditions. |
| 1 | Used by 20-49% of target population in the last 6 months, OR reflects current conditions but usage is low, OR usage is acceptable but content is 12-24 months old and partially outdated. |
| 0 | Used by fewer than 20% of target population in the last 6 months, OR content is more than 24 months old with no review on record. |
Step 4: Composite Score and Verdict
Add the three column scores. Maximum possible score: 8.
| Composite Score | Verdict | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 6-8 | KEEP | Asset is earning its place. Attach a measurement commitment before next cycle. |
| 3-5 | REBUILD | Asset has a defensible core but is failing on at least one dimension. Assign an owner, a specific rebuild brief, and a deadline. If no owner is named within 14 days, move to Archive. |
| 0-2 | ARCHIVE | Remove from the active library. Do not delete: store with a note explaining why it was removed. Pattern of Archive verdicts on the same competency means the gap is real and unaddressed, which is a curriculum problem, not a content problem. |
Named Failure Modes by Verdict
KEEP failures to watch for:
- High alignment and usage scores masking a Column B score of 0 or 1. The asset is popular but unproven. Flag it for measurement priority.
- Assets kept on the basis of a 2-year-old evidence study. Behaviour change evidence expires.
REBUILD failures to watch for:
- Rebuild assignments with no named owner. These become permanent draft items and poison the library.
- Rebuilds scoped as "update the slides" when the real problem is that the asset was never mapped to a specific skill gap. Cosmetic rebuilds produce cosmetic improvements.
ARCHIVE failures to watch for:
- Archiving content that addresses a real competency gap without commissioning a replacement. Archiving is not solving the gap; it is exposing it.
Step 5: Full Scoring Table
Use this as your working document during the audit.
| Asset ID | Asset Title | Competency | Col A (0-3) | Col B (0-3) | Col C (0-2) | Total | Verdict | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Step 6: Measurement Commitment Log
Every asset that receives a KEEP or REBUILD verdict must have a completed row here before the audit is closed. An audit that does not end with measurement commitments has not ended; it has paused.
| Asset ID | Asset Title | Verdict | Evidence Method | Evidence Owner | Review Date | What "Good" Looks Like |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Evidence method options (name one specifically, not generically):
- Pre/post role-play assessment scored against a defined rubric
- Call recording review: % of calls where specific behaviour is observed, measured by manager or QA
- Pipeline conversion rate for a defined cohort vs. control period
- Manager observation log: structured field coaching notes, minimum 3 observations per rep
- Assessed quiz or scenario score, with a defined pass threshold
Stating "we will monitor performance" is not an evidence method. Name the instrument, the threshold, and the person who owns collection.
Worked Example
| Asset ID | Asset Title | Competency | Col A | Col B | Col C | Total | Verdict | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EN-047 | Discovery Question Bank | Discovery: Needs Identification | 3 | 1 | 2 | 6 | KEEP | Col B is 1 because asset is 60 days old and a call-review measurement plan is in place with Sarah T. as owner. Review date: 90 days. |
| EN-012 | Objection Handling Guide | Negotiation: Handling Pushback | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | REBUILD | No behaviour evidence despite 18 months in library. Rebuild brief: convert to scenario-based practice tool with assessed role-play. Owner: Jamie R. Deadline: 6 weeks. |
| EN-031 | Sales Process Overview Deck | Unmapped | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ARCHIVE | Could not be mapped to a single competency. General awareness content with no behaviour change intent. |
When NOT to Use This Scorecard
- Do not use it to evaluate onboarding programmes as a whole. Onboarding has interdependencies that make asset-by-asset scoring misleading. Score the assessed competency outcomes of onboarding instead.
- Do not use it for assets that are compliance or legal requirements. Those are kept regardless of score.
- Do not use it as a substitute for a curriculum review. A pattern of Archive verdicts across a competency means you have a curriculum gap. This scorecard surfaces that finding; it does not resolve it.
The thinking behind this
Your Enablement Content Audit Is Asking the Wrong Question is the argument this resource puts to work.