Every module in Foundations is independently certifiable. You don't have to complete all 7 to earn a credential. Pick one, do the focused micro-portfolio at the end, submit it, get it peer-reviewed against the published rubric, and walk away with an Open Badges 3.0 micro-credential you can display on LinkedIn.
The lesson certs stack: earn all 7 + pass the final synthesis portfolio, and you've earned the full Adytum Certified · Brand Strategist · Foundations credential — the parent cert that subsumes the 7 micro-certs.
The stacking model
7 lesson certs (one per module) + final synthesis portfolio = full Foundations certificate 4 Tier certificates (Foundations → Practitioner → Expert → Master) = full Track Master credential
The 7 lesson certificates
adytum.bs.foundations.domain-theory
Module 1 — Domain Theory
What it proves: You can identify a brand's archetype and articulate its position with theoretical grounding.
Micro-portfolio (~45 min)
Pick a brand you don't own or work for. Write a 1-page archetype + position analysis covering: (a) primary Mark/Pearson archetype with evidence, (b) corresponding Adytum voice archetype, (c) brand's position expressed as a single customer-voice sentence (the way a satisfied customer would describe what the brand is for them), (d) 2-3 specific evidence samples that support your archetype call.
Rubric — 5 dimensions
Archetype identification — correctly applied with evidence, not just labeled
Voice archetype match — Adytum voice archetype aligns coherently with the character archetype
Position statement — written in customer voice, single sentence, captures actual benefit (not feature list)
Calibrated honesty — no hallucinated claims about the brand; everything traces to observable evidence
Evidence quality — at least 2 specific samples cited (URL, asset, quote with attribution)
Pass = ≥4 of 5 at threshold · 2 peer reviewers + 10% staff QA sample · Fail = 14-day cooldown then retry
adytum.bs.foundations.workflow-design
Module 2 — Workflow Design
What it proves: You can extract a brand voice from real samples and produce a usable voice document.
Micro-portfolio (~75 min)
Run a mini voice extraction on 10 samples from a brand of your choice (sourced from real public assets — website, social, podcast, newsletter, etc.). Deliver a 1-page voice document following the Module 2 §2.1 sample artifact format: vocabulary preferred/avoided, syntax markers, tone register, in-voice + out-of-voice examples with reasoning.
Rubric — 5 dimensions
Sample sourcing — 10 samples with channel diversity (not all from one source); each cited with link or screenshot
Vocabulary lists — preferred and avoided each have 5+ items with reasoning
In-voice + out-of-voice examples — at least 2 of each, with brief explanation of why each is or isn't in voice
Tool independence — the deliverable could have been produced with any toolchain; no Adytum-app dependency
Pass = ≥4 of 5 at threshold · 2 peer reviewers + 10% staff QA sample · Fail = 14-day cooldown then retry
adytum.bs.foundations.process-design
Module 3 — Process Design
What it proves: You can design an intake + governance system that scales brand work without becoming a bottleneck.
Micro-portfolio (~45 min)
Design a brand-request intake form for a real or fictional org (~50 people, mixed marketing/sales/product/HR needs). Include: 8 required fields from Module 3 §3.1, 3 explicit rejection criteria, SLA expectations differentiated by request type (rush vs. standard vs. project), and a decision-rights line (DACI or named approver field).
Rubric — 5 dimensions
Field completeness — all 8 required fields present and correctly scoped
Rejection criteria — operational and specific (not vague like "if it's bad")
SLA differentiation — request types have distinct, realistic SLAs
Audience-appropriate — would actually be usable by non-brand requesters without coaching
Decision rights — DACI matrix or named approver field present; escalation path clear
Pass = ≥4 of 5 at threshold · 2 peer reviewers + 10% staff QA sample · Fail = 14-day cooldown then retry
adytum.bs.foundations.edge-cases
Module 4 — Edge Cases
What it proves: You can recognize and handle the hard cases that distinguish a competent brand strategist from a checklist-follower.
Micro-portfolio (~60 min)
Pick 2 of the 12 cases from Module 4. For each, write a 1-page case-handling brief using the symptom → diagnostic → action → escalation pattern, applied to an invented or anonymized real scenario. Each brief should read like documentation a future brand assistant could use.
Rubric — 5 dimensions
Symptom correctly identified — case classification is accurate to the scenario described
Diagnostic discipline — distinguishes the alternative interpretations before action
Action scope — proposed action is within strategist authority, not handwaving
Escalation trigger — correctly names when this case should leave the strategist's desk
Documentation quality — suitable for inclusion in a brand edge-case log; specific enough to learn from
Pass = ≥4 of 5 at threshold · 2 peer reviewers + 10% staff QA sample · Fail = 14-day cooldown then retry
adytum.bs.foundations.stakeholders
Module 5 — Stakeholders
What it proves: You can read stakeholder dynamics and adapt your approach without compromising the brand.
Micro-portfolio (~45 min)
Pick 3 of the 7 stakeholder archetypes from Module 5. For each, write a 200-word memo describing: (a) a real or anonymized example of the archetype in action, (b) what they needed from you (stated and unstated), (c) how you adapted your approach (or, if it didn't go well, what you should have done).
Rubric — 5 dimensions
Archetype recognition — the example actually fits the archetype, with specific behaviors named
Behavior specificity — names what the person said or did, not just labels them
Adaptation strategy — matches what the archetype actually needs (vs generic "communicate better")
Reflective honesty — distinguishes what worked from what didn't; no defensive narration
Avoids textbook tone — reads like learned experience, not theory paraphrased
Pass = ≥4 of 5 at threshold · 2 peer reviewers + 10% staff QA sample · Fail = 14-day cooldown then retry
adytum.bs.foundations.ethics-governance
Module 6 — Ethics & Governance
What it proves: You can audit brand content for ethics, honesty, and disclosure compliance — and act on what you find.
Micro-portfolio (~60 min)
Audit one piece of brand content (your choice — email, landing page, social post, paid ad, podcast episode description, etc.) against (a) the calibrated honesty discipline from Module 6 §6.1, (b) FTC disclosure rules from §6.3, (c) inclusive-language considerations from §6.4, (d) AI-output ethics from §6.5. Produce a 1-page findings report.
Rubric — 5 dimensions
Calibrated honesty audit — issues identified with specifics, or absence noted with reasoning
Inclusive language review — applied without overreach; cites specific phrases or notes none flagged
AI-output consideration — whether the content involved AI is addressed and disclosure adequacy assessed
Actionable findings — recommendations are specific enough that someone could execute them; not vague
Pass = ≥4 of 5 at threshold · 2 peer reviewers + 10% staff QA sample · Fail = 14-day cooldown then retry
adytum.bs.foundations.measurement
Module 7 — Measurement
What it proves: You can design measurement that drives brand decisions instead of theater.
Micro-portfolio (~45 min)
Design a quarterly brand-health one-pager template for a real or fictional org. Must include: 5 consistency metrics, 1 trend metric, 1 strategic question for the quarter, and a brief explanation of why each metric was chosen and what decision it informs.
Rubric — 5 dimensions
Metric operationality — metrics are measurable in practice, not aspirational
Dimension coverage — includes both consistency and asset-lifecycle dimensions, not one-sided
Decision-bearing strategic question — the question is one a leader would actually act on, not a status report
Outcome connection — at least notes how operational metrics connect conceptually to brand equity
Goodhart resistance — anticipates how each metric could be gamed and notes safeguards
Pass = ≥4 of 5 at threshold · 2 peer reviewers + 10% staff QA sample · Fail = 14-day cooldown then retry
Anti-inflation rules — why these credentials mean something
No attendance certificates. Reading the module does not earn a credential. Only competence-proven work does.
14-day cooldown on retry after a fail. Prevents grinding the same submission until it passes.
Same quality bar as track-level portfolios — peer-graded against this published rubric + Adytum staff QA on a 10% sample of submissions.
Recertification every 3 years at the lesson level. Disciplines drift; credentials shouldn't pretend otherwise.
Public revocation for cause. Lesson certs can be pulled if the holder is found to have misrepresented the work or violated the Adytum Certified Code of Conduct.
Track-level reciprocal value (Plus subscription discount, partner-referral eligibility, listing in the public Adytum Certified directory) unlocks at full Tier completion, not at individual lesson completion. Lesson certs are valuable but partial; the parent cert is where the full value loop activates.
How submission works (today)
Foundations is in soft-launch. Lesson cert submissions are reviewed manually by Adytum staff for the first cohort while the peer-review infrastructure is being built. Submit via the enrollment portal at /certifications/brand-strategist/foundations/ — once enrolled, you'll receive instructions for portfolio submission per module.
When peer review goes live (Q3 2026 target), each submission will be reviewed by 2 other learners against this published rubric, with 10% of submissions also reviewed by Adytum staff to calibrate peer-reviewer accuracy. Open Badges 3.0 issuance is handled via Badgr.