"Yes, we do monitoring: I read newsletters, I follow LinkedIn groups." In an audit interview, this answer is worth zero. Not because it's false - but because it can't be proven. Indicators 23, 24, and 25 don't audit your curiosity: they audit your system. And the good news is that a single, well-maintained table covers all three.
Three indicators, one logic
The standard distinguishes three types of monitoring. Indicator 23 covers legal and regulatory monitoring in the field of vocational training: reforms, decrees, obligations of training organizations (OFs) and apprentice training centers (CFAs). Indicator 24 concerns monitoring of skills, professions, and jobs in your intervention sectors: changes in certification frameworks, labor market needs, expectations of professional branches. Indicator 25 aims at monitoring pedagogical and technological innovations: new modalities, tools, methods.
The logic is identical for all three, and it boils down to two verbs from the standard: carry out monitoring and exploit its lessons. It's the second verb that trips up organizations. Everyone collects information. Demonstrating that this information has modified something in your practices - an updated program, a revised procedure, an adopted tool - that's where compliance lies.
What the auditor actually asks for
The interview almost always follows the same path. First, the sources: "How do you keep yourself informed?" Citing three precise and relevant sources for your activity is enough - Centre Inffo, your professional branch's publications, the certifier's website, your OPCO's newsletter. Then the trace: "Show me." This is where a folder of unread newsletters is useless, and where a dated monitoring table does all the work. Finally, the exploitation: "Give me a concrete example where your monitoring changed something."
This third question is the one to prepare for. One example per indicator, dated and verifiable, closes the interview in five minutes. A CFA can cite the integration of a BTS reform into its pedagogical processes (24), the adaptation of its agreements after a regulatory change (23), the deployment of a new positioning tool tested after reading an article or attending a webinar (25). Without an example, the interview gets bogged down - and the auditor notes that monitoring exists "without demonstrated exploitation."
The single table that covers all three indicators
No need to build three systems. A single table, kept up-to-date, is enough - with five columns: the date, the source (precise name, not "internet"), the information retained in one sentence, the indicator concerned (23, 24 or 25), and especially the column "what we did with it" - even when the answer is "nothing, not applicable to us." This last mention is invaluable in an audit: it proves that the information has been read, evaluated, and consciously set aside. This is exactly the difference between proactive monitoring and passive monitoring.
The realistic pace: one line per week on average, fifteen minutes per month of updating. A forty-line table over a year, with a few concrete actions traced, is infinitely more robust than a folder of a hundred never-opened PDFs.
The trap of the moment: the 2026 reform
There's an irony that auditors won't miss this year. The Qualiopi 2026 reform is the major regulatory event in the sector - exactly the type of information that indicator 23 asks you to capture. An organization audited at the end of 2026 whose monitoring table mentions neither the draft decree, nor its consequences, nor an initial action plan, directly demonstrates that its monitoring is not working. Conversely, a line dated summer 2026 on the draft reform, followed by a line "impact analysis carried out, action plan initiated," transforms current events into proof of compliance.
Add this line to your table this week. It's probably the most profitable proof of monitoring this year.
Self-diagnosis in one question
If the auditor asked you tomorrow morning for a dated example where your monitoring modified one of your practices, would you have an answer in less than thirty seconds - with documentation to support it? If yes, indicators 23, 24, and 25 are acquired. If the answer is hesitant, the work can be done in half a day: create the table, report the last six months from memory, and trace two or three real exploitations you've already made without documenting them.
To check the rest
With monitoring verified, there are 29 indicators left. Our free D-30 checklist reviews them all, with the expected evidence for each. And the Qualiopi Audit Guide deciphers each indicator like this article: what's expected, the auditor's real questions, the pitfalls observed in audits.
Article written by the founder of Objectif Certif, pedagogical director and quality referent of an active CFA. Reference texts: decree n°2019-565 and the RNQ reading guide - check the version in force before your audit.