Disciplinary Policy.
How PCI responds to confirmed misconduct — fairly, consistently and proportionately.
Overview
When misconduct by a candidate or certified professional is confirmed, PCI responds through a fair, defined process. The goal is proportionate, consistent outcomes that protect the credential without being arbitrary.
At a glance
Grounds for disciplinary action
- Examination misconduct or integrity breaches
- Serious breaches of professional conduct
- Providing false information to PCI
- Misuse of credentials or marks
The process and outcomes
PCI applies this consistently and records what it does, so the process can be checked and improved. The detail is governed by the related policies linked below and is published as the institute matures.
Common questions
Who decides disciplinary outcomes?
Competent people free of conflicts, following the investigation procedure.
Are outcomes proportionate?
Yes — sanctions match the seriousness of the confirmed conduct.
Can I appeal a disciplinary decision?
Yes — every outcome carries a right of appeal.
Why this matters
Clear policies matter because they are how fairness is made real. A certification body that treats everyone consistently — on eligibility, conduct, security, impartiality and appeals — is one whose decisions can be trusted, and whose credential therefore means the same thing for everyone who holds it. These pages set out those commitments plainly.
PCI states its position honestly, including where processes are still being established. The aim is not legal cover for its own sake but genuine, transparent governance — the substance that lets a credential, and the body behind it, earn and keep professional trust.
- Substance over marketing
- Fair, transparent process
- Honesty about our status
- Responsible, governed use of AI
Founding-stage document · Version 1.0 — effective date to be confirmed · Reviewed under PCI governance. PCI makes no claims of accreditation or recognition beyond what is true today.
How a case proceeds
Discipline follows investigation; it never begins with a sanction. A case moves through six stages, each with its own protection.
1. Referral
A matter arrives only after the investigation procedure has established there is a case to answer, supported by evidence.
2. Notice
The person is told what is alleged and what evidence supports it — specifically, not in outline.
3. Response
They are given a fair opportunity to respond, provide their own evidence and be heard before anything is decided.
4. Decision
Competent people with no conflict of interest — and no role in the investigation — weigh the evidence and make findings.
5. Sanction
If misconduct is confirmed, an outcome is selected from the published range under the sanctions policy.
6. Appeal
Every outcome carries a right of appeal, heard by people who played no part in the original decision.
How a sanction is weighed
Consistency does not mean uniformity — it means the same factors are weighed the same way in every case:
- The seriousness of the conduct, and whether it was deliberate, reckless or careless;
- The harm done — to candidates, to those relying on the credential, and to the integrity of the examination;
- Pattern: a one-off lapse and a repeated course of conduct are different things;
- Cooperation, honesty during the process, and remediation already undertaken;
- Consistency with how comparable cases have been decided.
What discipline protects
This policy exists for the people who never appear in it. Every honest holder's credential is worth what PCI is willing to defend, so confirmed misconduct changes certification status where it must, the record is corrected, and verification reflects the true position. The process is deliberately not punitive by default: where advice or remediation protects the credential adequately, that is the proportionate outcome. What it will never be is arbitrary — the same grounds, the same process and the same factors apply to everyone, and the decision-makers answer to the evidence rather than to reputation, seniority or commercial pressure.
Keep going
Grounds, process and your rights
Disciplinary matters arise from breaches of the ethics code, examination misconduct, misrepresentation of credentials, or conduct that damages trust in the certificate. The process separates roles: one party investigates, a different panel decides, and appeal lies to people involved in neither.
Rights are constant throughout: you are told the allegation and the evidence, you respond before any decision, proportionality governs the outcome, and interim measures are used only where risk demands them. Outcomes range from advice to sanctions up to revocation — each reasoned in writing.