Verify Academic Awards with Candidate Consent
Design a candidate consent workflow for academic award verification through NAD. Handle unavailable records and record the source of each review decision.
Start an academic award check with a specific award and a clear reason for verification. Give the candidate the information they need to decide whether to share it. Then record the source and outcome of the check.
The National Academic Depository, or NAD, describes an API Setu registration path for verifiers. Its published flow includes candidate consent and a response based on award availability. NAD verifier guide NAD FAQ
Prepare the verifier's request
| Item | Example |
|---|---|
| Requester | Admissions team reviewing an application |
| Award | Degree from the institution named by the candidate |
| Purpose | Check the qualification required for this programme |
| Consent | Evidence linked to this request and candidate |
| Source | Approved NAD verifier route |
| Alternative | Document review through the institution's accepted procedure |
Use the actual requirements of the approved workflow. The fields needed to locate a record can depend on the award and provider.
Distinguish the outcomes
A candidate can grant consent, decline, or leave the request incomplete. A permitted lookup may still fail to find an award. Give each outcome its own status and next step.
In a synthetic hiring case, a person consents to a degree check. The search returns no record for that institution and year. Ask for the relevant clarification or use the approved alternate route. Preserve the lookup result as “unavailable” while the review proceeds.
For a conflicting result, check the institution, award type, and matching identifiers. An authorised reviewer should resolve the discrepancy using the available evidence.
Limit access after the check
Keep the result attached to the candidate and stated purpose. Give hiring or admissions staff only the fields needed for their role. A separate team should receive the result only under the applicable access policy.
Record the consent reference, source, check time, and outcome. Record any manual decision separately. Define the retention and deletion rules before the first review.
Test before adding the workflow
- Run a synthetic permitted request.
- Run a declined request.
- Simulate an unavailable award.
- Try retrieval from an unrelated candidate's account.
- Confirm the case follows the approved alternate route.
The institution controls its award records. Ask your provider what coverage applies to the programme and year you need. NAD institutional overview.
Review candidate access with NamoID
NamoID engineers can help design candidate sign-in, consent tracking, and reviewer permissions around your approved academic workflow. Bring a synthetic example and your intended verifier route. Message the NamoID team in Slack