There is one document that changes a Qualiopi auditor's view of your organization. It's not your catalog, nor your procedures: it's your analysis of dropouts and terminations. If well-constructed, it simultaneously proves two indicators—12 and 32, one of which is "exclusively major"—and demonstrates something no procedure can simulate: an organization that confronts its failures to improve. Here's how to build it.
What Indicator 32 Requires – The Complete Loop
Indicator 32 requires the implementation of continuous improvement measures resulting from the exploitation of your observations: satisfaction surveys, complaints, results... and analyses of dropouts. What the auditor is looking for is a complete and traceable loop:
Dated observation → cause analysis → decided action → driver → deadline → realization → measured effect
And this is where the analysis of dropouts becomes your best asset: training departures are painful but rich observations. An organization that seriously analyzes them automatically ticks all the boxes in the loop—with material that the auditor knows cannot be invented.
Please note: Indicator 32 directly leads to a major non-conformity. An action plan "written for the audit," whose actions are not linked to any real observation, is detected with two questions: the auditor always traces back to the source of an action. Note: for new entrants (less than one year of activity), this indicator is only audited starting from the surveillance audit.
First step: distinguishing between termination and dropout (the reflex that builds credibility)
This is the distinction that too many organizations overlook, and that CFA auditors almost systematically test:
- Termination of an apprenticeship contract is not necessarily a failure: a young person who changes employers and signs a new contract continues their training. It's often even a sign of successful mediation.
- Definitive withdrawal (actual abandonment of training) is the event to analyze in depth: it's what counts in your dropout rate.
Presenting the two rates separately—and being able to explain them during the session—is one of the clearest markers of mastery when facing an auditor. Conversely, confusing the two casts doubt on your entire interpretation of the figures.
The Method: The Annual Analysis in 4 Blocks
Block 1 – The Figures. By training: headcount, contract terminations, including continuations with a new contract, definitive withdrawals, dropout rate. A half-page table, consistent with your published rates – the auditor will cross-reference.
Block 2 – Case-by-case analysis. For each definitive withdrawal: initials, training, date, main cause (reorientation, difficulty in the company, personal reasons, level…), and especially the column that makes the difference: “actions attempted before withdrawal” – interviews, tripartite mediation, accommodations, search for a new employer. It proves that each departure was supported, not merely endured.
Block 3 – Cross-cutting lessons. This is where we move from observation to improvement: "4 out of 6 withdrawals occurred before December → our first-quarter integration system needs strengthening." "3 out of 6 causes are linked to the company → the briefing for mentors upon contract signing needs to evolve."
Block 4 – Decisions. Each lesson becomes a line in your improvement plan, with its source, driver, and deadline. The following year, you measure the effect: it is this multi-year continuity that makes a surveillance or renewal audit shine.
Example: What it looks like in an audit interview
Auditor's question: "Did you have any dropouts this year?"
Weak answer: "Very few, we have good follow-up." (No proof, and the auditor will check themselves.)
Strong answer: "Six definitive withdrawals out of 180 learners, or 3.3%. Here's our analysis: four concerned the first quarter, which led us to create an enhanced integration system – this is action AC-2025-07 of our plan, completed in September, and this year first-quarter withdrawals have decreased from four to one."
Thirty seconds. Three documents shown (the analysis, the action plan, the figure for the following year). And an auditor who has just understood that they are dealing with a system that works.
The 3 mistakes that spoil the exercise
- Not knowing your figures during the session. Searching for your dropout rate for three minutes in front of the auditor negates all the benefit of the document.
- Causes too vague. "Personal reasons" across six out of six lines indicates a lack of analysis. Dig deeper: an exit interview (even by phone) almost always yields an exploitable cause.
- An orphaned analysis. If no action in your improvement plan cites the analysis of dropouts as its source, the loop is broken — and it is precisely the loop that is audited.
Take action this week
The complete framework for this analysis (the 4 blocks, ready to fill), the register of terminations that feeds it, and the continuous improvement plan with its source/driver/deadline/measured effect columns are part of the Cap Certification Kit — 81 pre-filled templates, alongside the indicator dashboard with graphs that visually presents your trajectory to the auditor.
To understand how indicator 32 articulates with the other 31—and which ones, like it, fall under direct major non-conformity—the Qualiopi Audit Guide deciphers them one by one, with the actual questions asked in interviews.
Article written based on experience from real Qualiopi audits in multi-program CFA centers. Official requirements are listed in the National Quality Framework and its reading guide (Ministry of Labor) — consult the current version before your audit.