Inside the ICF Competency Review Form: What Your Mentor Coach Signs in 2027

Quick answer. The Competency Review Form (CRF) is the cumulative, end-of-engagement document your MCS mentor coach completes across your observed coaching sessions — and for ACC and PCC Portfolio applications submitted after March 31, 2027, it is what you upload with your application in place of a Performance Evaluation recording. Your per-session Session Observation Forms (SOFs) stay on file with you and are only submitted if your application is audited. On the form itself, your mentor coach marks each competency behavior "Proficiency Demonstrated" or "Proficiency Not Yet Demonstrated" based on what appeared in at least one observed session, checks per-competency thresholds, writes evidence-based feedback for 2–3 competencies on strengths and 2–3 on development, and signs an overall verdict: proficiency demonstrated at your level in each competency area — or not yet. Sources: ICF — mentor coaching replacing ACC & PCC Performance Evaluations, ICF — ACC Competency Review Form

Two signals from coaching feeds this September, paraphrased to keep the authors anonymous:

A coaching-school webinar announcement led with the question its audience keeps asking: what does "enhanced mentor coaching" actually mean for your credentialing journey — and specifically, how does the transition from Performance Evaluations to enhanced mentor coaching with Competency Review Forms affect Level 1, Level 2, and Portfolio candidates differently?

Meanwhile, an ICF Mentor Coaching Community of Practice session on the same transition was explicit about its scope: it would explore mindset and emerging practice, but it was not a technical training on the forms and requirements — that webinar is planned for early 2027.

Which leaves a gap. The forms have been published since June 2026, mentor coaches start working on them in January, and the official walkthrough arrives after many engagements will already be underway. So this article does the unglamorous thing: it walks through the actual Competency Review Form, field by field, and answers the routing questions — Portfolio vs. Level 1/2 vs. MCC — with what ICF has published so far.

Important disclaimer. Mentor Coaching AI is not affiliated with or endorsed by the International Coaching Federation. We summarise publicly available ICF announcements, forms, and documents. Policies evolve — verify details directly at coachingfederation.org before making decisions. This walkthrough describes the English CRF documents ICF published in June 2026 (revision 06.18.26); check the resource pages for newer revisions before relying on specifics.

What exactly is the Competency Review Form?

ICF describes the CRF as a structured framework for reviewing a candidate's cumulative performance against the ICF Core Competencies — the document in which a mentor coach holding the Mentor Coach Specialization (MCS) consolidates what they observed across multiple sessions and states whether proficiency was demonstrated at the target level.

Three role clarifications that resolve most of the confusion we see:

• Your mentor coach completes it, not you. The candidate's written parts are limited to short reflections (more below). The observations, the proficiency decisions, and the signature belong to the MCS mentor coach.
• One CRF per engagement, many SOFs. Each observed session (minimum three on the Portfolio path) gets its own Session Observation Form during the engagement. The CRF is the single cumulative document that draws on all of them at the end.
• The CRF is submitted; SOFs are retained. ICF's instruction to Portfolio candidates: include the CRF in your credential application, and keep your Session Observation Forms on file — they are the supporting documents you produce if your application is selected for audit.

There is a version of the form for each level — ACC, PCC, and MCC — with identical competency titles and structure; what differs is the behavioral statements ("markers") and how many of them each competency contains.

What's actually on the form

Reading the June 2026 CRF documents top to bottom, the structure is:

1. Administrative header. Mentor coach and client names, the date of the final competency-skills review feedback session, the level of mentor coaching provided (ACC/PCC/MCC checkbox), an hours table (total individual / group / combined hours with the client), the count of observed sessions reviewed individually, and a session log — date, modality (in-person, virtual, recorded), and duration for each observed session. The form also carries a continuity note for candidates who worked with more than one specialized mentor coach (see below).

2. The mentor coach's self-review checklist. Before assessing anyone, the mentor coach attests to their own process — the same checklist that appears on the SOF.

3. Client reflections. You write two short pieces: a pre reflection identifying the main focus or goal you worked on with your mentor coach throughout the engagement, and a post reflection summarizing your progress and areas for further development. These bookend the engagement rather than any single session.

4. The competency body. Ethics comes first as a single verification — "I verify that the client has demonstrated understanding and consistent application of coaching ethics during the engagement: Yes / No" with a notes field for things like confidentiality and boundaries. Then, for Competencies 3–8, every behavioral statement at your level carries a binary checkbox: Proficiency Demonstrated or Proficiency Not Yet Demonstrated, followed by a per-competency threshold question ("Has the mentor coaching client demonstrated proficiency with at least N of the statements?").

5. Cumulative feedback. The mentor coach writes evidence-based feedback for 2–3 competencies as strengths and 2–3 as opportunities for development — each entry naming the specific statement and the feedback comments attached to it.

6. Verdict and attestations. One of two boxes: the client has demonstrated proficiency at the level in each competency area, or has not yet. Then a feedback-review confirmation — "The mentor coaching client has reviewed this form, and we discussed the feedback provided in real time" — plus printed name, signature, and date. The feedback conversation is part of the form, not an optional courtesy.

How does proficiency actually get decided?

This is the mechanical heart of the form, and it is where the CRF and the SOFs connect.

The CRF's instruction says to indicate where the client demonstrated each required skill at a competent level across their observed sessions. In practice, the mapping from SOFs to the CRF works like this on the current forms:

• ACC and MCC: a statement counts as demonstrated if at least one Session Observation Form rated it "Meets the standard" or "Exceeds the standard."
• PCC: a marker counts as demonstrated if at least one SOF marked it "Observed."

Two properties follow that candidates should internalize:

It's cumulative, not an average. You do not need every skill in every session. A behavior demonstrated convincingly in one observed session is demonstrated, period. This is the structural kindness of the new model compared with the one-recording Performance Evaluation: a weaker session doesn't erase a stronger one. The flip side: across the whole engagement, each competency needs enough of its statements demonstrated somewhere.

It's traceable. Every "Proficiency Demonstrated" on the CRF should be documented in a Session Observation Form — that's what an audit checks. Mentor coaches who keep sloppy SOFs will find the CRF hard to defend; candidates should want each SOF to be specific about which behaviors appeared and where.

The thresholds — read the numbers, not the headline

The form's instruction text says at least "two-thirds (67%)" of skills in each competency must be demonstrated at a competent level. But the actual per-competency gates printed on the June 2026 forms are integers, and because several competencies have four or five statements, rounding pushes the real bar to 75–80% in places:

So treat "two-thirds" as a floor, not the rule: what governs is the specific "at least N" question printed under each competency on your level's form. A PCC candidate, for example, needs four of the five Maintains Presence markers demonstrated across their observed sessions — that's 80%, not 67%. If you're tracking your own readiness between sessions, track against those integers.

(Counts above are from the June 2026 English form revisions — verify against the current form before planning around them.)

How does this affect Level 1/2 vs. Portfolio candidates?

The webinar question, answered path by path with what ICF has published:

Portfolio (ACC and PCC). This is where the CRF replaces the Performance Evaluation outright. For applications submitted after March 31, 2027, ICF's support guidance is blunt: the performance evaluation is no longer an option, and the application carries the CRF completed by an MCS mentor coach instead. For PCC Portfolio applicants there is a published overlap window: between January 1 and March 31, 2027, you may either submit recordings for assessor review or submit a CRF from an MCS-PCC. (ICF's ACC guidance is written less precisely on the overlap; if you're an ACC Portfolio candidate planning a Q1 2027 application, confirm your options with ICF support directly rather than assuming symmetry.)

Level 1 / Level 2. Two separate reassurances. First, if you complete your coaching education before April 1, 2027, your program certificate is accepted even if you apply afterward — you are not retroactively pulled into the new evidence model. Second, from April 1, 2027, accredited programs are no longer required to include a Final Performance Evaluation; ICF's accreditation standards replace it with a formative evaluation process inside enhanced mentor coaching, including structured documentation and a documented overall skill evaluation at the program's conclusion — and mentor coaches and assessors within accredited programs must hold the MCS by that date. What ICF has not published is whether programs must use the ICF SOF/CRF templates themselves or may run an equivalent formative process; if you're in a program, ask them how their documentation will work.

MCC. The Performance Evaluation remains for MCC — but from January 1, 2027, any new mentor coaching hours must be with an MCS-MCC mentor coach. ICF publishes an MCC Session Observation Form and CRF, and states a completed form "may be requested if an MCC application is selected for audit." Whether MCC applications will routinely include a CRF has not been explicitly established — MCC candidates should watch for further guidance rather than assume either way.

"I already did my mentor coaching" — the bridge rule

Hours completed before January 1, 2027 with a qualified (pre-MCS) mentor coach continue to count. But counting hours and having a submittable evidence document are different things. ICF's guidance for ACC and PCC candidates who complete mentor coaching under the current rules:

• Apply before the cutover, and submit a Performance Evaluation the traditional way; or
• Apply after March 31, 2027, keep your original hours, and work with an MCS mentor coach to receive a completed Competency Review Form — a bridging engagement on top of the hours you already have.

ICF has not published how many observed sessions or SOFs such a bridge requires. If you're finishing mentor coaching now with plans to apply late in 2027, have that conversation with an MCS mentor coach early — the MCS badge-matching rules determine who can bridge you at your level.

What if I work with more than one mentor coach?

The form anticipates this. The CRF carries a continuity note: clients working with more than one specialized mentor coach at a level must give future mentor coaches the prior completed CRF — the next mentor coach builds on a documented picture rather than starting blind. Worth knowing: ICF's PCC support guidance says applications will include "Competency Review Form(s)," plural — how multi-mentor engagements consolidate into one or several submitted forms is another detail to confirm with ICF support if it applies to you.

Do I need these forms to renew?

No. ICF's renewal guidance states plainly that the Session Observation and Competency Review forms are not required to renew a credential. The forms belong to initial credentialing evidence; renewal has its own 2027 rules.

Where MCAi fits — honestly

Everything on the CRF is decided by one thing: which behaviors actually showed up in your observed sessions. That makes the highest-leverage preparation unglamorous — knowing, before each observed session, which statements at your level you reliably demonstrate and which haven't appeared yet. That self-audit is the specific job Mentor Coaching AI does: upload a session recording and get an ICF-competency-aligned analysis of where evidence appears, marker by marker, so you walk into observed sessions knowing your gaps instead of discovering them on the form.

The boundary, stated plainly: MCAi is not affiliated with or endorsed by ICF, and nothing about the CRF is automatable. The observations, the proficiency decisions, and the signature belong to your MCS mentor coach. AI analysis is rehearsal insight between sessions — the form is theirs.

FAQ

Who uploads what, exactly?

You upload the completed CRF with your Portfolio application. You keep every SOF on file and submit them only if audited. Your mentor coach signs the CRF after discussing it with you in real time — that discussion is attested on the form.

Can my mentor coach complete a CRF without Session Observation Forms?

Not defensibly. The CRF is explicitly cumulative across observed sessions, and its entries need to be traceable to SOFs — which is exactly what an audit would examine. An engagement that produces a CRF should have produced the per-session SOFs first.

What happens if I land "Not Yet Demonstrated" on too many statements?

The form's verdict box has two options: proficiency demonstrated in each competency area, or not yet. "Not yet" is formative language by design — the expected path is additional mentor coaching and further observed sessions until the missing behaviors appear, not a failed exam. Discuss with your mentor coach which statements are outstanding and target them; see our guide to coaching consistently across observed sessions.

Are the observed sessions live or recorded?

Either — sessions may be observed live or via audio/video recording. The modality of each is logged on the CRF's session table.

Sources

• ICF — Mentor Coaching Requirement Replacing ACC & PCC Performance Evaluations
• ICF — Introducing the Mentor Coach Specialization
• ICF — Standards and Compliance Updates
• ICF — ACC Competency Review Form / PCC Competency Review Form / MCC Competency Review Form
• ICF Support — Applying for your PCC in 2027
• ICF Support — 2027 changes to credential renewal requirements
• ICF Support — Guidance for ACC applicants completing mentor coaching before January 1, 2027

The Performance Evaluation asked whether you could produce one excellent recording. The Competency Review Form asks a quieter question over three months: which coaching behaviors are actually yours — reliably, observably, session after session. The coaches who will find January 2027 uneventful are the ones who can already answer that about themselves before a mentor coach writes it down.