The Qualiopi monitoring table: a column-by-column template, with worked examples

Indicators 23, 24 and 25 of the framework require three watches — legal, occupational, pedagogical — and above all proof of their exploitation. The tool auditors agree on is the simplest one: a table. Provided it has the right columns and is kept in a way that proves regularity. Here is the full template, column by column, with sample rows for each of the three watches. For the substance (what each watch covers, which sources to follow), our guides to the Qualiopi watch: indicators 23, 24 and 25 and the official monitoring sources set the scene; here, we build the tool.

Why a table, not a folder of newsletters

The classic mistake is to present the auditor with an inbox full of subscriptions: Légifrance, Centre Inffo, France compétences. That is proof of reception, not of monitoring. The framework expects a system: capture the information, sort it, draw consequences for your services. The table materialises exactly that chain — each row links a piece of information to a decision.

Nor is this just an audit requirement. The foundational work of Ethel Auster and Chun Wei Choo, published in 1994 in Information Processing & Management (“How senior managers acquire and use information in environmental scanning”), shows that the value of environmental scanning lies not in the volume of information collected but in its actual use in decisions (see the study). That is precisely what the “action” column of your table documents.

The 7 columns of the template

Column	Content	Example
Date	When the information was spotted	12/06/2026
Source	Where it was found	Official journal, DGEFP newsletter, trade press…
Information spotted	One-sentence summary	“Decree amending the national quality framework published”
Indicator	23, 24 or 25	23
Impact	How it affects your services	“Our quality procedures need updating”
Action decided	What you concretely do	“Revise procedure X before 01/11”
Status / completion date	Done, in progress, no action (with reason)	“Done 28/08/2026”

Three usage notes:

• The “impact” column is allowed to conclude “no effect for us” — as long as the reason is stated (“only concerns CFAs”). Discarding information is also exploitation: it proves the sorting.
• The “status” column closes the loop. An action decided but never carried out is a non-conformity in the making on continuous improvement; date your completions.
• Add a “responsible” column only if there are several of you. Solo, it is noise.

The table filled in: three examples, one per watch

Legal and regulatory watch (indicator 23) — the only one of the three classed as a major non-conformity:

04/08/2026 · Official journal · “Decree no. 2026-728: the framework moves to 33 indicators on 01/11/2026” · Ind. 23 · Our procedures and evidence need adjusting (indicators 12, 14, 15) · Update the reporting channel + brief the team · In progress, due 15/10/2026

Occupational and skills watch (indicator 24):

20/05/2026 · Sector study + client conversations · “Growing demand for generative-AI modules in administrative roles” · Ind. 24 · Our office-software programme does not cover it · Create an “everyday AI” module tested at the September session · Done 10/09/2026

Pedagogical and technological watch (indicator 25):

11/04/2026 · Edtech webinar + internal test · “Automatic subtitling tool for video replays” · Ind. 25 · Improves the accessibility of our virtual classrooms · Adopted for all replays, noted in the accessibility register · Done 30/04/2026

Note the shared mechanics: the auditor can read each row as a miniature story — I saw, I analysed, I acted, on such a date. That documented narrative is what turns the table into evidence.

The medium: a spreadsheet, and that’s all

A shared workbook (Excel, Google Sheets, or a Notion table) is plenty; since indicators 24 and 25 are classed as minor non-conformities, the stakes justify no paid automated monitoring tool. Two settings are worth it:

• a single tab, filterable by indicator, rather than three scattered files;
• a routine in the diary: one hour a month, recurring slot, during which you go through your sources and fill in the rows. The regularity of the dates in the table is the first thing the auditor scans.

On audit day, present the table together with two or three downstream proofs: the amended programme, the revised procedure, the message briefing the team. The table indexes; the documents prove.

The mistakes that ruin the table

• Retroactive filling: ten rows entered the same week, just before the audit — the file’s modification dates can betray the manoeuvre.
• Watch without action: dozens of rows, “action” column empty. Five exploited rows are worth more.
• Copy-pasting newsletter summaries: the auditor is looking for your sorting, not a transcribed RSS feed.
• Forgetting watches 24 and 25: the legal watch is usually kept, the occupational and pedagogical watches forgotten — yet they are two distinct indicators, audited separately.

Take action

The Complete Kit Certif (€297, 14-day guarantee) provides the full system — monitoring table, procedures and evidence templates for all 32 indicators. To place the watch within the framework as a whole, our list of the 32 Qualiopi indicators gives the overview, and the full pack (€347) adds the creation ebook for those starting from scratch.