Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
German legal practitioners have tried to address complaints about professional exams. Two Supreme Court rulings suggest that a prediction of a candidate's future success in a professional examination cannot be verified or rebutted by a court or anyone else, but only by the individual examiner. In contrast to the apparent understanding of legal professionals, this type of knowledge is not an "unknown territory"; it is traditionally covered in research, e.g., in psychology or human resource management. It also undermines internationally recognised principles of sound assessment governance, such as validity, reliability, transparency, and fairness, as emphasised in UNESCO's global guidance on learning assessments and in OECD frameworks for evaluation and quality assurance in education systems. Situating these issues within a broader sustainability perspective, this paper argues that assessment regimes form part of society's knowledge infrastructure, and their integrity is essential for both cognitive sustainability – the long‑term capacity of institutions to maintain transparent, evidence‑based and error‑correcting knowledge practices – and for the realisation of Sustainable Development Goals. In particular, SDG 4 (Quality Education) requires equitable, valid and reliable assessment mechanisms as a foundation of fair and merit‑based professional pathways. At the same time, SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) calls for accountable, transparent and trustworthy institutional processes in all sectors, including regulated professions. Assessment systems that shield examiner judgment from external scrutiny impede these sustainability commitments by eroding public trust, weakening institutional resilience, and preventing the correction of systematic errors. This paper draws on a range of disciplines to highlight the decisions and errors made in practice. In addition, an International Education standard by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) is used to contrast findings. The paper thereby contributes to cognitive sustainability by examining how assessment systems can either sustain or undermine the long‑term resilience and transparency of societal knowledge practices.
Stephan Kühnel (Sun,) studied this question.