Qualiopi indicator 2 (result indicators): which figures to publish and how to prove them

An undated figure convinces no one — not a prospective trainee, not a Qualiopi auditor. That is the whole point of indicator 2: after describing your services under indicator 1, the National Quality Framework asks you to publish measured results, so beneficiaries can compare providers with full knowledge. Less well known than its neighbour, this indicator still generates a significant share of the findings raised at audit, often for avoidable reasons. Here is what it actually requires, the evidence that reassures an auditor, and the pitfalls that keep coming up from one report to the next.

What indicator 2 requires

Attached, like indicator 1, to criterion 1 (conditions for informing the public), indicator 2 requires the provider to publish result indicators adapted to the nature of its services and audiences. Unlike indicator 1, which covers descriptive information (duration, prices, prerequisites…), indicator 2 covers measured, numerical data: what your activity actually produces.

The word “adapted” is central: the framework does not impose a fixed list of figures, but a consistency between the chosen indicator and the nature of the service.

• A non-certifying training organisation (soft skills, office software, personal development) will typically display a satisfaction rate and possibly a recommendation rate.
• A provider preparing beneficiaries for a certification or professional title will add the success rate and the exam attendance rate — two figures auditors expect as soon as a certification is targeted.
• A skills assessment provider will track satisfaction and the completion rate of the six-month follow-up interviews.
• An apprenticeship centre (CFA) completes the picture with employment and further-study data, linked to indicator 3.

Like indicator 1, this is a core indicator, but it benefits from a new-entrant adjustment, detailed below — an important nuance for anyone preparing their first audit.

Why numerical information changes decisions

This indicator could look like a mere communication formality. Economic research shows that publishing result indicators has real effects on an educational-services market. A landmark study by Tahir Andrabi, Jishnu Das and Asim Ijaz Khwaja, published in 2017 in the American Economic Review (“Report Cards: The Impact of Providing School and Child Test Scores on Educational Markets”), measured the effect of randomly distributing school report cards to families in Pakistan: villages that received these report cards saw test scores rise by 0.11 standard deviations, private-school fees fall by 17%, and enrolment increase by 4.5%, as the information reduced the asymmetry between families and schools (see the study). Transposed to vocational training, the principle holds: a published, reliable success or satisfaction rate helps prospective trainees choose, and mechanically pushes providers to perform better.

The evidence that convinces the auditor

The auditor looks for three qualities in your indicators: they must be relevant to your activity, published somewhere accessible before any contract is signed, and reliable, meaning verifiable against source documents.

Evidence	What the auditor looks for
Website page, catalogue or programme sheet	The indicators displayed, dated, with the reference period and sample size
Spreadsheet or tool compiling the questionnaires	The raw data behind the published rate, consistent with the displayed figure
Written calculation rule	Formula, period and population considered for each indicator
Hot and cold satisfaction questionnaires	The collection tools actually used
Exam or certification result records	The success and attendance rates, for certifying services

The auditor systematically traces the published figure back to the raw data: if your website announces 96% satisfaction, they may ask for the spreadsheet compiling the individual answers to check the calculation. A figure you cannot justify in thirty seconds is a figure at risk.

Publishing the right figures, with the right details

Three details turn a figure into solid evidence: the value, the reference period and the sample size — for example “94% satisfaction, 58 respondents, first half of 2026”. Without these, the indicator is unverifiable, and therefore contestable at audit.

A few pointers for building your baseline:

1. Choose two to four indicators consistent with your activity rather than a long, hard-to-read list.
2. Document the calculation rule for each one in writing — this document, often more than the figure itself, is what convinces the auditor.
3. Update at least once a year, in line with your BPF (annual training activity report), which already records your activity volumes.
4. Display it in the same place as the indicator 1 items, usually on the programme sheet or a dedicated page of the website.

For the satisfaction rate calculation itself, method and examples are detailed in calculating your training satisfaction rate and in satisfaction rate and result indicators.

The case of the new entrant

If your initial audit takes place before you have run a single session, you logically cannot display any results yet. The reading guide plans for this: the auditor instead assesses the planned system, not figures that do not yet exist. Prepare your satisfaction questionnaires, your tracking table and a note describing the indicators you intend to publish, along with their calculation rule. On your materials, a transparent statement is enough, such as “organisation created in 2026, first result indicators published after the first sessions”. At the surveillance audit, roughly 18 months later, the adjustment ends: the auditor then expects real, published figures.

The common mistakes

The findings raised on indicator 2 repeat from one audit report to the next:

• a published rate with no date, period or sample size, and therefore unverifiable;
• inconsistency between the published figure and the raw questionnaire data;
• poorly chosen indicators, such as a success rate displayed for a non-certifying service;
• figures never updated, sometimes several years old;
• confusion with indicator 1: the auditor is looking for result data, not a description of the service.

A gap on indicator 2 remains a minor non-conformity, less blocking than a gap on indicator 1, but it regularly ranks among the most frequent non-conformities — often for lack of a formalised calculation rule. Link this indicator to indicator 30 (collecting feedback) and to indicator 32 (continuous improvement): the same satisfaction questionnaires often feed all three, which considerably simplifies your quality system. A Qualiopi self-assessment carried out a few weeks before the audit helps you catch these inconsistencies before the auditor does.

Take action

The Complete Kit Certif (€297, 14-day guarantee) includes the spreadsheet for compiling satisfaction questionnaires, calculation-rule templates for each indicator, and the programme-sheet template that displays your results in the right places. The ebook “Create your training organisation in 30 days” (€67) helps you set up your indicator system from launch, even without a first session run yet, and the full pack (€347) bundles both.