Analify - prove it

Your certificate says you learned.
Prove you can.

Worked examples, blank templates and the checklist I hold my own work to, so the next thing you send is work - not a course completion badge.

No platform. No course. No upsell sequence. One email, one file.

01
Requirement, as it should arrive From the worked case: returns handling, mid-size retailer
REQ-014 · Refund on damaged delivery
As a customer who received a damaged item,
I want to start a refund without calling support,
so that I get my money back within the promised window.
Acceptance criteria
1. Photo upload accepted up to 3 files, 10 MB each.
2. Refund decision recorded within 48 h of the form submission timestamp.
3. Partial refunds allowed only above 40 EUR order value.

Three criteria, each one testable. One of them traces to a published rule; the 48 hour clock and the file limit are numbers I chose, and the case says so on its face. That is the difference between a note and an artifact.

Companies I have worked with

RTV EURO AGD Scholl British Council Vanish Roche Sitel Sanoma Nowa Era Durex OleOle! Dettol

You did the course. You passed the exam. Then the application form asks for a portfolio and you have a folder of lecture notes.

Show, do not tell

One artifact, open on the page

A returns process at a mid-size retailer. This is not a screenshot of a course slide - it is the actual work, with the decisions and the objections left in.

Built from public sources only: a published returns policy, its help centre articles and ten public complaint threads I picked myself. No client, no engagement, and nobody inside that company was asked anything. The case says so on its own face.

returns-refund.case · v1.2 · reviewed

How it works today. The exception path is the point: four of the ten complaint threads I read ended without a decision and with nobody owning the case.

DAMAGED Customer calls phone, 9-17 only Agent checks order + photos by mail EVIDENCE ENOUGH? YES Refund issued 2-5 working days NO Case parked no owner, no clock 4 OF 10 COMPLAINT THREADS I READ ENDED HERE

The proposed flow. Two changes only: evidence is collected before a human sees the case, and the parked branch gets an owner and a deadline.

DAMAGED Self-service form photos, 24/7 Automatic check rules + order value DECIDED IN 48 H? YES Refund issued same working day NO Escalated named owner, SLA clock THE PARKED BRANCH STILL EXISTS - IT JUST HAS A NAME AND A DEADLINE

Three requirements from the register. Each one traces to a rule or a statutory limit and can be tested without asking me what I meant. One of those rules is mine, proposed rather than observed, and the register says so.

REQ-014
Refund on damaged delivery. As a customer who received a damaged item, I want to start a refund without calling support, so that I get my money back within the promised window.
Acceptance criteria 1. Photo upload accepted, up to 3 files, 10 MB each.
2. Refund decision recorded within 48 h of the form submission timestamp.
3. Partial refunds allowed only above 40 EUR order value.
REQ-015
Escalation ownership. Every case that misses the 48 h decision window is assigned to a named person, not to a queue.
Traces to BR-07: the published line about resolving a refund case within 5 working days, which the register flags as possibly a target rather than a rule (OQ-02), and BR-12: a case that misses the decision window is assigned to a named person - a rule I proposed, not one the company has today.
REQ-016
Evidence retention. Uploaded photos are kept for 90 days after the case closes, then deleted.
Open question OQ-01 The 90 days is proposed, not confirmed: legal to check it against the statutory retention limits. Owner: legal. Due: before build starts.

What a reviewer said about this exact document. I publish the objections, not only the finished version - the objections are where the craft is.

01
"Under 48 h from what moment?" The first draft said "within 48 hours" without naming the start event. Two teams read it two different ways. Fixed by anchoring the clock to the moment the form is submitted, not received.
02
"Why 40 EUR?" The threshold was published, but nothing public said who set it or why. Now it is BR-11, with the rationale marked as my inference and the owner slot left open rather than quietly filled in.
03
"Your as-is is the happy path." The first version had no parked branch at all, so the to-be looked better than it was. That objection is the reason the scorecard has a check for it.
The scorecard

Someone has to say what "good" means. So I wrote it down.

Twenty-five checks across six artifacts, dated and versioned. Grade your own work before a reviewer does it for you - or hand the scorecard to a colleague and ask them to be unkind.

Read all twenty-five checks
5 of 25 checks
  • 01  Every requirement traces to a named business rule
  • 02  Acceptance criteria are testable without asking the author
  • 03  The as-is model shows the exception path, not the happy one
  • 04  Each stakeholder has a decision right, not just a job title
  • 05  Open questions are listed with an owner and a date

Version 1.0, published 2026. Changes are logged, not silently edited.

Public teardown

I want to review one reader's artifact in the open every month

With their permission, and with the same scorecard I use on my own work. You would see what a reviewer notices in the first thirty seconds, and what they never say out loud. Nobody has sent one yet, so there is nothing to read here. The teardown of my own work is the closest thing that exists today.

Read the one I did on myself

Want yours next? Reply to any email on the list.

Who is writing this

I am a working analyst, not a full-time teacher

My name is Sebastian Koczyk. I work as a business analyst on international projects, and I run a business analysis training platform in Polish that people pay for. Everything here comes out of that work: the templates I use and the standard I hold myself to. The job market pipeline runs daily for the Polish platform, and nothing counted from it is published on this site yet.

More about me
Sebastian Koczyk
4
Polish job boards scraped daily for my platform, one snapshot per day
6
artifacts in the library, one full worked case
25
checks in the public scorecard
PL
platform already live, paying members
What this is not

There is no platform here yet. There is no course, no cohort and no certificate from me. When I build the English version of my training platform, the people on this list will hear it first and will not be surprised by the price. Until then this site is a library and a notebook, and it costs nothing.

Straight answers

Questions I get before anyone downloads anything

Does this replace a certification?

No. A certification says you studied. A portfolio says you can do the work. The application form asks for the second one, and a certificate does not answer it. If you are sitting an exam anyway, the practice exams at ExamDeck are mine too: a sister product, and still not a substitute for the work sample.

Can I use these artifacts in my CV?

Yes, that is what they are for. Rewrite them with your own case so they are yours - a reviewer can tell the difference in one question.

Where do the market numbers come from?

Four public Polish job boards, refreshed daily, with a snapshot stored each day so trends are counted rather than remembered. The scraper runs for my Polish platform and has done since 2026. Nothing is published here yet; when the first count goes out, the method goes out with it, including what the sample does not cover.

Does it work outside Poland?

The artifacts and the scorecard do - the standard is not local. The job market data behind my platform is Polish: four Polish boards, scraped daily. When I publish any of it here it will say Polish on every chart, not European and not global.

Will there be a paid product?

Probably, and it will be the English version of the platform I already run in Polish. Nothing on this site depends on it.

What happens to my email address?

It goes into one list, used to send the letter and nothing else. One click to leave, and the file stays yours.