Profile gap analysis, explained
How org-leaders read a profile gap, how the numbers are computed, and how to act on the result — including the jurisdictional caveat and a sponsor-ready summary for professional bodies.
Profile gap analysis compares any org-scoped competency profile to the canonical future-ready profile in that organisation's jurisdiction. The output is a per-item ΔIRI / ΔICI table, a list of missing and additional items, the information-use changes, and the material substitutions that are valid in your jurisdiction.
Three audiences read the gap differently. Org leaders read it as a roadmap. Practitioners read it as a personal plan. Professional bodies read it as a publishable structure — the artefact you sponsor, validate, and ground a credential in.
What is profile gap analysis?
Every org-scoped competency profile in RPF has a canonical counterpart — the future-ready profile published for that discipline in the organisation's jurisdiction. The gap is the structured difference between the two: per-item IRI (Information Requirement Index) deltas, per-item ICI (Information Competency Index) deltas, additive items (extra on the org side), substitutive items (missing on the org side), information-use coverage changes, and material substitutions valid for the local jurisdiction.
It is computed, not authored. There is no "gap editor". The gap is a live read over your published profile and the canonical published profile in your jurisdiction, recomputed every time either side changes.
Three audience views
Where is our org against the canonical future-ready profile, and what does the local adaptation cost us? The gap is your roadmap. Read the missing items first — those are the additive moves. Then read the per-item ΔICI — those are the depth moves. Substitutions tell you which canonical materials your jurisdiction lets you swap (ISO 19650 → ABNT NBR ISO 19650 in Brazil; ISO 19650 → IS EN ISO 19650 in Ireland).
What does my role become in 5 years in my market, and what's the journey? Open the gap from your org's profile against the canonical future-ready profile — the missing items are your learning targets, the ICI deltas are your depth targets, and the information-use changes hint at the flows you'll be expected to participate in. Pair this with the Persona Analyser to get an action-statement-level plan.
What does future-ready look like for our discipline in our jurisdiction — evidence-backed, machine-readable, citable? The gap surface gives you a publishable structure: cited materials, IRI/ICI thresholds, jurisdictional substitutions. Sponsor the canonical, host a workshop to validate it, and the gap becomes the artefact your members read against their organisation's profile.
The canonical journey
- 1Open the gap from a profile detail page — the "Compare to canonical" CTA picks the canonical future-ready profile in your jurisdiction automatically.
- 2Read the summary bar first — common, missing, extra, ΔIRI total, ΔICI total. These seven counts tell you the gap's shape in one glance.
- 3Drill into the per-item delta table — large positive ΔIRI values are where the canonical demands more information than your profile provides. Large positive ΔICI is where the canonical demands more competency depth.
- 4Check the missing-items list — these are the additive moves. Check the extra-items list — these are over-coverage on your side (not always bad; sometimes a local specialism, sometimes legacy).
- 5Read the substitutions section — the canonical references global materials; your jurisdiction may have local equivalents. These are not gaps, they are localisation choices.
- 6Ask the agent — the action chips on the gap page resolve to curated explanations with citations. Use them to dig into a specific row without leaving the page.
Known limitations
- Gap is computed against the canonical in the organisation's stated jurisdiction. If no canonical exists for that jurisdiction, the empty state offers a sponsorship or workshop path — see the body one-pager for what sponsorship looks like.
- Gap is profile-to-profile, not profile-vs-many-orgs. Cross-org gap views are deferred to a later phase (privacy + consent design).
- Auto-fix ("import canonical items into this profile") is intentionally not provided. Profile changes go through the existing authoring flow so they pick up validation + agent-grounded citations.
- The gap reflects what is published. Drafts are not in the comparison.
- Material substitutions are curated. If your jurisdiction has a substitution that is not yet in the canonical materials registry, propose it via the sponsorship or workshop CTAs on the empty state.
Next steps
Sponsor a canonical future-ready profile
Your jurisdiction has no canonical for this discipline yet — sponsor one and your organisation's profile is the first reference fork.
Propose a profile through a verification panel
Convene a half-day verification panel at your professional body — invited members vote on candidate items, and the output is a publishable canonical with vote-grounded provenance.
