How Our Clients Reach a 98% Approval Rate: Three Short Stories
There is no single path to an approved CBA — that is why we offer four service levels. But the outcomes converge: across our client base, 98% of submissions are approved. Here is what that looks like through three different packages.
Sophie L. — Environmental EIT, EGBC (Guided 1-on-1 Coaching)
Sophie booked coaching convinced her examples were too ordinary. Two sessions in, we mapped her experience against EGBC indicators and found stronger material she had overlooked. “The coaching sessions helped me realize I had stronger examples than the ones I originally picked. Worth every session.”
Rajiv P. — Mechanical EIT, APEGA (Expert Draft Review)
Rajiv’s draft was well written — and scored like a team report. Our line-by-line review flagged exactly where he described team outcomes instead of personal actions. “The review caught exactly where I was describing team outcomes instead of my own actions. Fixed those five examples and resubmitted with confidence.” Approved.
Amara T. — Civil EIT, PEO (Full-Service Writing)
Three failed solo attempts, then a full structural rebuild — read her full story here. Approved on the next submission.
What the 98% is made of
No guarantees — no ethical provider can promise a regulator’s decision. What the number reflects is process: story selection against indicators, SAO structure on every example, validator strategy, and a licensed-P.Eng. review before anything is submitted. The same process is available at every price point, from the $149 DIY Toolkit upward. See full pricing or start your intake form.
Client story, shared with permission. Civil EIT, licensed via PEO — Full-Service CBA Writing.
The situation
Amara had everything an assessor should want: four years on municipal infrastructure projects, design and construction exposure, a supportive supervisor. She also had three failed CBA submissions behind her when she found PengCBA.
What was going wrong
Her drafts told the story of impressive projects — but not of Amara. Paragraphs opened with “the project team,” actions were listed as responsibilities, and outcomes stopped at “the project was completed successfully.” Each resubmission polished the prose without changing the structure, and each came back with the same verdict.
What we did
In the intake interview, we mapped her experience against all 34 competencies and found something important: her best examples were not the ones she had chosen. A small stormwater design she dismissed as “routine” demonstrated independent technical judgment far better than the flagship project she had led with.
We rebuilt her submission around nine stories selected for indicator coverage, interviewed her to extract the personal decisions inside each one, and drafted every example in strict Situation–Action–Outcome form with named methods, codes, and quantified results.
The result
Approved on the next submission. In her words: “Having someone who actually understood how assessors read these examples made all the difference.”
If you recognize your own drafts in her “before” picture, start with a free consultation — or read why assessors reject good engineers to diagnose the pattern yourself first.