Use this material to examine your own work. Confirm current requirements, forms and dates with ICE before applying.
Each scenario presents several accounts of the same evidence. The projects, people, figures and outcomes are fictional, allowing you to compare the versions without referring to real project records.
What changes between the levels
Compare how each account explains the work:
- the decision becomes visible: a first-person verb appears where there was a passive one;
- an alternative appears, with the reason it lost and what would have made it win;
- a number gets a baseline, or is removed because it could not be supported;
- the limit of the candidate's authority is stated, which makes everything else more credible rather than less;
- the reflection becomes specific, and can be shown landing somewhere later;
- something points at a document that would support the claim.
Remove unnecessary project description to make room for your reasoning and contribution.
A note on the small examples
Two of these scenarios are deliberately small: 180 m of sewer, seven minor works packages. They are here because the most common thing a candidate says about their own work is that it is too routine to evidence competence.
It almost never is. Routine work contains judgement constantly: when the standard detail does not fit, when the survey disagrees with the drawing, when the assumption behind the guidance does not hold here. ICE's own position is that the depth and extent of experience varies with the role, and that the attributes can be achieved in a range of ways by anyone working as a civil or infrastructure engineer.
What you need is a demanding *problem*, which is not the same as a large project.
Official sources
Selected publisher pages were rechecked in September 2026. Other source records were last checked in July 2026. Open the latest official document before relying on a requirement.