From Datadock's 21 indicators to Qualiopi's 32: what maps over, what is new

Organisations that went through Datadock all remember the dashboard: 21 indicators to cover, grouped into 6 criteria, with evidence to upload. Those preparing for Qualiopi certification today find a familiar mechanism — criteria, indicators, evidence — familiar enough to believe it is simply an extension of the same system. That belief is partly true and partly dangerous. Here is what genuinely corresponds between the two frameworks, what changed in nature, and what is entirely new.

Two frameworks, two generations

Datadock’s grid flowed from quality decree no. 2015-790 of 30 June 2015, which set 6 criteria funders had to verify. The joint funders broke them down into 21 shared indicators, which served as the filing grid in the Datadock database between 2017 and 2021.

The National Quality Framework (the RNQ, for Référentiel National Qualité), created in the wake of the law of 5 September 2018, structures Qualiopi certification into 7 criteria and 32 indicators. Beyond the numbers, three design differences stand out:

• Scope. The RNQ covers four categories of services — training, skills assessments, VAE (validation of prior experience), apprenticeship — with indicators specific to some of them, whereas Datadock targeted services funded by the OPCAs/OPCOs.
• Level of proof. Datadock validated filed documents; the RNQ is audited on paper and on site, with checks on actual application. Our comparison Datadock vs. Qualiopi covers that shift in detail.
• The improvement logic. The RNQ devotes an entire criterion to collecting feedback, handling complaints and implementing improvements — a full loop, where Datadock mostly asked for the collection.

The real thematic overlaps

There is no official correspondence table between Datadock’s 21 indicators and the RNQ’s 32. At the level of themes, though, the overlaps are real. The table below presents them at criterion level — the only level at which the comparison is honest.

Theme	In the 2015 decree (Datadock)	In the RNQ (Qualiopi)
Public information	Course objectives identified and announced	Criterion 1: detailed, verifiable, up-to-date information on services, prices, lead times, results
Adaptation to audiences	Reception and follow-up arrangements adapted to audiences	Criterion 2 (needs analysis, objectives) and criterion 3 (reception, follow-up, learner assessment)
Teaching and technical resources	Resources matched to the offer	Criterion 4: human, technical and supervisory resources fitted to the services
Trainer qualifications	Professional qualification and continuing development of trainers	Criterion 5: competence of all actors, and its continuous development
Professional environment	Embeddedness in the professional environment	Criterion 6: legal watch, occupational and pedagogical monitoring, partner network
Learner feedback	Collection of participants’ feedback	Criterion 7: collection, complaint handling, continuous improvement

A serious former datadocked provider therefore has material on all six rows. But every row has thickened: where a satisfaction questionnaire once sufficed to document feedback collection, the RNQ expects the questionnaire, its consolidated results, evidence of complaint handling, and proof that improvements followed.

What is genuinely new in the RNQ

Four families of requirements had no direct equivalent in the Datadock grid — these are the classic blind spots of files built by transposition:

• Disability. Welcoming, supporting and orienting learners with disabilities, with an identified referent and partnerships to draw on, runs through the current framework.
• Subcontracting. The RNQ regulates the use of subcontractors and requires checking that they meet the applicable requirements — a subject absent from the Datadock filing grid.
• Category-specific requirements. Apprenticeship, skills assessments and VAE carry dedicated indicators (a perfection council for apprenticeship centres, for instance) that did not exist in a scheme designed for continuing training funded by the joint bodies.
• The formalised improvement loop. Moving from “collect” to “exploit, correct, trace” is, in audit, one of the highest steps for former datadocked providers.

This finding matches what research observes about audited quality frameworks: their effect comes less from the list of requirements than from the implementation discipline they impose. The study by Ann Terlaak and Andrew King published in 2006 in the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization shows that third-party certification only works as a credible signal because it is costly to obtain — it is precisely the independent verification that separates compliant organisations from the rest (see the study). A declarative 21-indicator grid could not play that role; an audited 32-indicator framework can.

How to use the correspondence without falling into its traps

The right method is not to “translate” your old file, but to start from the current framework and pour your existing material into it:

1. Take the 32 indicators as your target structure. Our 32 indicators guide describes, for each one, the obligation, the expected evidence and the common mistakes.
2. Assign each Datadock document to one or more RNQ indicators. A single satisfaction survey can feed several criterion 7 indicators; a reception procedure may split across criteria 2 and 3.
3. Flag the indicators with no inherited material at all. These are your priority workstreams — most often disability, subcontracting and continuous improvement.
4. Refresh everything dating from the Datadock era. A piece of evidence from 2020 demonstrates a 2020 practice; the auditor will want recent traces.

For the full piece-by-piece recycling method, see our dedicated guide: reusing your old Datadock file to prepare for Qualiopi.

Take action

The Datadock page in the certifications hub sums up the historical scheme’s status and its replacement. If you are preparing for the current certification, build on the 32-indicator structure from day one: that grid, not the old one, is what the auditor will have in front of them.