State the role you actually operate
Begin with your organisation’s identity, discipline and actual responsibilities. Explain whether the discussion concerns teaching, independent assessment, publishing or another function. A relationship should be considered against what each operator can responsibly deliver, not simply against the similarity of names or a desire to appear in a network.
Describe the learner experience
For a learning discussion, outline the programme scope, entry requirements, practical arrangements, supervision and assessment. Identify the records your organisation approves and the information learners receive before committing. These details make the proposed relationship easier to evaluate without inventing a partnership or implying approved-provider status.
Separate assessment and issuance decisions
Clarify who determines examination eligibility, who assesses work and who authorises a result or record. A learning relationship should not silently become a claim of independent recognition. Any proposal involving shared records needs an approved purpose, an authorised process and clear responsibilities for corrections or disputes.
Treat information sharing as a separate question
A website link is not permission to transfer learner information. Establish consent, access, retention and correction arrangements before discussing an integration. Do not include private learner records, sample identity documents or unapproved result files in an introductory message. The planned Skill Passport has no active institutional data connection.
Begin with a bounded proposal
Prepare a short account of your organisation, the precise subject and the outcome you want to explore. The CSI enquiry interface creates a private draft only. It does not approve a partnership, accredit a programme, assign a territory or establish a commercial or data-sharing agreement. Actual arrangements require review and written confirmation by the responsible parties.