🇮🇪 QQI Draft Review & Criteria Check · Level 1 to Level 6
If you've reached the point where you're typing "do my QQI assignment" into Google, you've usually already written something — and you're no longer sure it will pass. Send us the draft, the module brief and the assessment criteria. A subject-matched Irish reviewer assesses your QQI Level 5 assignment or Level 6 coursework against every learning outcome, verifies each source, and shows you exactly what to fix before it goes in.
Fill in details — we reply within 10 minutes
Yes. You send the module brief, your assessment criteria sheet and whatever you've drafted so far. We match you with a reviewer who already knows that component — Care Skills 5N2770, Care Support 5N0758, Communications 5N0690, Safety and Health at Work 5N1794, whichever it is — and they assess your work against each learning outcome in turn. You get back a marked-up document plus a written report: what's already meeting the criteria, what's missing, which sources don't check out, and an indicative band against your criteria. Reviews start at €29 and a first quote reaches you in about ten minutes.
⏳ The night before
This is the specific problem we exist to solve, and it's worth naming plainly — because every other option available to you leaves it wide open.
Nobody starts a further education course planning to have their coursework checked by anyone. It happens when a submission date gets close and confidence runs out. These are the six situations that bring people here, week after week.
Healthcare assistants, retail supervisors, crèche staff — most QQI learners already hold down a job. The draft got written, but at 1am after a long shift, and you genuinely can't judge it any more. A fresh set of trained eyes fixes that in hours.
Major awards stack their deadlines. A learner record, a project, a skills demo and a work experience diary can all land in the same fortnight. Learners send us the two they're least sure about and keep the rest — that split is completely normal here.
Plenty of learners are excellent on placement and lost on the page. Explaining why you repositioned a resident, in academic register, with a citation behind it, is a different skill from doing it well. We show you where that gap shows up in your text.
A referral is not a fail, but it is a second deadline on top of your existing ones — and this time the tutor has written down exactly what was missing. We use that feedback as the checklist and show you, point by point, what still isn't answered.
Ireland's further education classrooms are genuinely international. A learner who works fluently in Portuguese or Romanian can still find QQI's outcome wording — "demonstrate", "evaluate", "appraise" — hard to convert into marks. We translate the criteria into plain instructions.
Applying for advanced entry, a CAO route or a promotion? The grade band matters. Learners chasing 80%+ come to us to find the difference between a competent submission and one that shows genuine evaluation.
Most services stay vague about the deliverable. Here is the honest version, so you know what you're buying before you pay a cent.
Send whatever you have. If something's missing we'll tell you within ten minutes rather than guessing and getting your module wrong.
Learners moving up from a Level 5 certificate to an Advanced Certificate are often caught out. The word count barely changes. What changes is what the assessor wants to see between the words — and that shift is where most referrals come from.
| What the assessor looks for | At QQI Level 5 | At QQI Level 6 |
|---|---|---|
| Depth of thinking | Describe what you did and why it mattered | Evaluate options, justify the one you chose, weigh the trade-offs |
| Use of sources | A handful of credible references supporting your points | Sources argued against each other, not just quoted in agreement |
| Independence | Working competently under supervision | Leading, delegating, taking responsibility for outcomes |
| Typical assessment mix | Learner record, skills demonstration, collection of work | Extended project, work practice portfolio, applied research |
| Evidence expected | Clear examples from placement or the workplace | Examples plus measurable outcomes and reflective analysis |
| Most common referral cause | Outcomes described but never explicitly linked | Description used where critical evaluation was required |
Short structured tasks and simple learning records. We keep the feedback plain and the fixes concrete.
Introductory projects and portfolio pieces with light referencing and practical examples.
Structured reports and reflective tasks that must connect directly to stated module outcomes.
The busiest level on our desk. Learner records, portfolios and projects across major awards like 5M4339 and 5M2468. Level 5 help →
Advanced Certificate work — 6M4978, 6M4985 and similar. Extended projects with genuine critical analysis. Level 6 help →
Progressed to an Institute of Technology or university programme? We review those briefs too — just tell us the level.
Ask a general proofreading service to check your QQI assignment and you'll get grammar notes. Ask us and you get someone who knows that 5N2770 is assessed on skills demonstration and a learner record, not an exam. These are the components we're asked for most often.
The busiest area on our desk. Healthcare Support (5M4339) learners come to us mid-placement with good practical notes and no confidence in the write-up.
ELC learners now complete extended professional practice hours in Tusla-registered settings, which means far more observation and reflection to evidence. We check every activity is explicitly linked to Aistear and Síolta.
Business Administration (5M2468) and the Level 6 Advanced Certificate (6M4985) run heavy on applied projects. If your task analyses a real organisation, we check the evidence is specific enough to carry the marks.
Almost every major award carries one of these. They look like the easy modules and then quietly cost people their award, because the diary and reflection sections are marked far more strictly than learners expect.
The format changes what an assessor is hunting for. A learner record is marked on evidence trails; a skills demonstration on process and justification.
These modules ask for genuine engagement with Irish social policy. We check you've referenced actual legislation and service structures rather than filling space with generic theory.
QQI components are graded in bands, and the band usually comes down to how evidence is presented rather than how much you know. Your review includes an indicative band against your criteria and the reasoning behind it.
Every criterion is addressed and the evidence is present. Nothing is missing, but nothing is developed much beyond the requirement either.
The work explains as well as describes. Examples are specific, sources are used deliberately, and the assessor can follow your reasoning without hunting for it.
Analysis, not narration. Practice is weighed against theory, choices are justified, and every outcome is evidenced with something concrete rather than asserted.
Some services promise anything to take the order. We'd rather tell you upfront what a timeframe actually buys you, because a rushed portfolio review helps nobody.
| Time you have left | What's comfortably achievable | What to expect |
|---|---|---|
| Under 6 hours | A single criterion check or a source verification pass | Availability checked first, urgent rate applies |
| 6–24 hours | A standard Level 5 assignment or reflective journal | Tight but solid, prioritised fix list included |
| 1–2 days | Most Level 5 projects, case studies and learner records | Our sweet spot — full criteria mapping and source checks |
| 3–5 days | Portfolio evidence sets and Level 6 project work | Comfortable, follow-up questions answered free |
| 1 week or more | Multi-module bundles across a full major award | Module by module, so you can act on each as it lands |
One thing worth knowing: the clock starts when we have the draft and the criteria, not when you pay. If your assessment criteria sheet is sitting in a class WhatsApp group, grab it before you order — it's the difference between general feedback and an exact criteria map.
Paying a stranger online to look at something your qualification depends on is a real decision. Here are straight answers to the things people usually hesitate to type out.
No. We hold your draft and your email address, nothing more. We never contact your college, we never appear in your work, and we don't need your student number, your PPS number or your login for anything.
Never. Your draft is read by one reviewer and returned to you. We keep no reusable bank of QQI submissions and your document is removed from our systems once your follow-up window closes.
Pricing is agreed in writing before anything starts, and for multi-module bundles you can pay per module as each review lands. You'll always know what's coming and when, and you're never asked for the full amount on a promise.
Feedback on your own draft is normal academic practice — it's what a writing centre or a study buddy does. You make every edit yourself, so the submitted work stays yours. That said, policies differ, so check your provider's rules on external feedback before you order.
You'll be able to answer, because you wrote it and you made the changes. That's the whole advantage of this route over having something handed to you — every line is defensible in a conversation.
Getting a quote costs nothing and commits you to nothing. Plenty of people ask, read the reply, and decide later. That's completely fine with us.
Ask a Question First →This has become a normal conversation for us. A learner generates a draft at midnight, reads it back the next morning, and something feels off — the tone is too smooth, the references don't resolve, and none of it mentions the crèche or the ward they actually worked in. If that's you, you're not in trouble. You're in the fixable stage.
When you ask us to check your QQI assignment, it doesn't go to a general proofreader. It goes to someone who has worked inside Irish further education or the sector your component comes from, and who is assigned only to component areas they genuinely know. That's the difference between being told a sentence is unclear and being told criterion 3(b) was never evidenced.
"Most drafts I read do more than they say. The care happened — it just never made it onto the page where an assessor could see it."
"An observation without a framework link is a nice story about a child. The connection is where the mark actually sits."
"Every Level 6 portfolio describes a good manager. About one in five actually evaluates a decision. That one gets the Distinction."
"Business projects lose marks in the method section, never the findings. Show how you chose your sources and the grade follows."
One recent Level 6 review, described in full — what the learner arrived with, what the reviewer flagged, and what came back from the assessor.
R.T. supervises a nine-person team on a supermarket floor and had signed up to a Level 6 award to move into store management. The brief asked him to analyse a supervisory issue in his own workplace, apply management theory to it, and evaluate the outcome. He had 1,800 words written and no idea whether any of it hit the criteria. His words: he knew how to run the shift, not how to write about running it.
Level 6 assessment doesn't reward describing your job. His draft was a well-written shift diary: three criteria fully evidenced, two only partly, and the evaluation criterion not addressed at all. Two of his six sources couldn't be traced. Indicative band at that point sat at the bottom of Pass.
He rewrote the flagged sections himself over four evenings and submitted on day nine. Graded at Distinction, with the assessor noting the theory-to-practice link as the strongest element. ✅
Distinction on first submission. Two further Level 6 modules sent for review the following month.
Feedback shared by learners who used our criteria review. Names shortened at their request. More on our reviews page.
"I work nights in a nursing home and had written the Care Support module in bits over three weeks. The review came back with a table showing two outcomes I hadn't evidenced at all. Fixed them in one evening. I'd never have spotted them myself."
"Three modules due in the same fortnight. I sent the two I was least sure about. Both came back mapped to the criteria sheet so clearly I could see exactly where the marks were hiding. Best €80 I spent all year."
"Honestly I'd used an AI tool for the first draft and panicked when I couldn't find half the references it gave me. They went through every one and told me straight which were made up. I rewrote those parts and went in with a clear head."
"My first ELC portfolio attempt was referred — feedback said my observations weren't linked to Aistear. The review showed me exactly which observations needed the framework connection and how to word it. Accepted second time."
"English is my third language and the Level 6 brief may as well have been in code. The comments told me what to change in plain sentences, not academic language. I understood every instruction, which mattered to me."
"I needed a distinction for advanced entry, not just a pass. The indicative band came back at low Merit with a list of what was holding it there. Did the work, submitted, got 86%. Knowing the gap was the whole thing."
Two things move the price: the level, and how much time we have. Nothing else gets added later. Everything below is a starting figure for a complete review of one assignment.
| QQI Level | Standard (3+ days) | Priority (24–48 hrs) | Urgent (under 12 hrs) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Level 3 / Level 4 task | €29 | €39 | On request |
| Level 5 module assignment | €35 | €48 | €62 |
| Level 5 learner record / portfolio | €49 | €65 | Availability checked |
| Level 6 module assignment | €45 | €59 | €78 |
| Level 6 extended project | €69 | €89 | Case by case |
| Referral re-check after feedback | €25 | €35 | €48 |
Looking for something narrower than "do my QQI assignment"? Start from your level, your component code or where you're studying.
Cavan to Cork, an ETB classroom or a fully online provider — attach the file and we'll take it from there.
Start My Review →Pulled from the questions that actually arrive in our inbox and the ones people post anonymously in Irish student forums before they work up the nerve to email anyone.
You don't have to decide anything yet. Attach what you've written, tell us the module code and the deadline, and within ten minutes you'll have a price and a turnaround time. If we can't help with your component, we'll say so plainly and you've lost nothing but ten minutes.
You already wrote it. Attach the draft, tell us the deadline, and let a subject reviewer show you exactly what to fix — Level 5, Level 6, any module, anywhere in Ireland.