Your knowledge of the Scrum Guide Expansion Pack (SGEP). That's it. It's a knowledge reading, not a skills test, and we don't pretend otherwise.

No. It certifies that you knew the SGEP, on a date. It doesn't claim you're a better practitioner, a master, or more capable. It claims exactly what it measures, and nothing more.

There aren't any, deliberately. This is a practitioner test of one thing: your knowledge of the SGEP. Whether you're a Scrum Master, a Product Owner, a Product Developer, a leader, or a stakeholder doesn't change what the SGEP says.

Role-split certifications carry an assumption we reject — that only one or two people on a team need to know how this works. Everyone should know how this works. One assessment, same questions, whoever you are.

No. This test measures SGEP knowledge. It produces no number that ranks people or teams. (We build separate adaptiveness instruments — and those don't rank anyone either.)

A fair challenge, and we took it seriously.

Every question is framed according to the SGEP. We're not claiming a universal best practice — we're testing whether you know what a specific, published document says. "What does the SGEP say about X" has a correct answer the way "what does the offside rule state" does. Testing it implies nothing about whether the SGEP is the last word.

And where the honest answer is "it depends," "it depends" is a correct answer. Contextual judgment scores as fluency, not as a cop-out. The wrong answers are things that are wrong in any context — misconceptions and anti-patterns — never things that are defensible elsewhere and merely lose on balance. If an expert could pick a "wrong" answer and defend it with a real context, that's a bad question, and we cut it.

The SGEP is openly published. I, John Coleman, co-authored it, alongside the Kanban Guide and the Open Guide to Kanban. The test measures knowledge of the SGEP — the SGEP is the authority, not us.

You don't have to think the SGEP is the final word on anything. You take this because you value the SGEP. If you don't value it, this isn't for you — and that's fine.

First, the distinction that matters: we really value projects. A project is often a short-term to medium-term construct for getting money and work committed and done, and sometimes that's exactly what a context needs. Much of the demand for project managers, though, is caused by flaws in organizational budgeting — fund the work differently and many "project manager roles" have less need to exist.

Where we part ways is the need for project managers as a standing role. We've seen brilliant project managers and we've seen terrible ones — this isn't about the people. It's that the project manager role often sits on top of a construct we think organizations should need less of, not more.

And practically: project management is already a well-served community, with mature bodies, credentials, and content of its own. We are not that community, and we won't pretend to be.

I'll name it plainly, because it's the obvious suspicion: renewable certs have a bad reputation, and they earn it when they're rent on something you already bought.

This isn't that. We don't sell permanent entitlement. The badge is a dated fact: you knew the SGEP, then. It was never "yours to keep forever," because we won't pretend a 2025 fact is a 2027 fact.

The decay is real, not invented. The SGEP launched June 2025, had a major update in January 2026, and another major update lands in the fall of 2026. A lifetime badge would let you trade forever on a claim everyone knows went stale. We just won't forge the date.

The commitment that keeps this honest: the clock tracks progress, not the calendar. If a cycle passes with no material change, renewal is light or automatic. You don't pay us for a fact that didn't decay.

Yes. So here's exactly what I criticized, and why this isn't it:

• Recall tests that imply mastery — this claims only knowledge, openly.
• Permanent badges trading on stale claims — this expires, honestly, on a real cadence.
• Theatre — this tests one specific, named thing, and says so.

If this ever drifts into the thing I mocked, say so publicly. I'd rather be held to it than quietly become it.

Three things, doing three different jobs — worth not confusing:

• The SGEP moved (decay) — new and changed content to know. This is the real reason renewal isn't rent.
• The questions improve (value) — broader, sharper, community-informed.
• The bank rotates (integrity) — so answers can't be memorized or passed around.

That's hygiene, not a reason you owe anything; every honest exam does it.

Straight answer: it's a knowledge reading, and yes, a model can answer SGEP questions. We're not pretending otherwise.

What you're buying isn't "questions AI can't do." It's a dated, verifiable indication that you engaged with the current SGEP and knew it, under test conditions, on the record. That's different from asking a chatbot.

It's also the entry point, not the whole product. The knowledge test is the most replaceable thing we offer — on purpose. It's the front door. The harder, less copyable instruments sit behind it.

$49 per seat. Individual or group. No discounts (other than alpha/beta testing). Priced to be accessible and expensable, not to extract — the margin was never the point.

Open application, public terms, the same terms for everyone — including competitors, if they qualify. Entry is gated on track record, because every ambassador's audience ends up wearing the badge, so we care who that is. The gate protects the credential; it isn't there to shut people out.

Read the full ambassador program →

Consent-based, always. Your individual reading is yours.

The group option produces an aggregate summary only — what's going OK across the group, and what's worth asking more questions about. No individual breakdowns, no leaderboard, nothing a manager can use to rank or single out a person. It's developmental, opt-in, and it is not a surveillance tool. Where your context requires explicit consent (works council, union, co-determination), that's built in.