# Summit APC Mock Interview - Corporate Real Estate

## Script B (second variant, for repeat practice)

> Same 60-minute structure as Script A. A different scenario angle so you do not memorise answers, you build judgement. Script A ran a portfolio rationalisation and lease-versus-own exit. Script B runs the opposite direction: acquiring and fitting out a new regional headquarters for a growing organisation. Read aloud with a counsellor or study partner playing the chairperson and technical assessor. Answer cold, in the time bands, then grade with the panel marking sheet.
>
> Scenarios are generic and illustrative. No real firm, employer, client, or transaction is named. Your live answers must come from your own Summary of Experience and case study.

---

## Candidate brief (generic, Script B)

You are a Corporate Real Estate candidate practising in the region, working in-house for a growing organisation that is consolidating several scattered offices into a single new **regional headquarters**. Your case study is the **acquisition, lease negotiation, and workplace fit-out** of that new HQ: you ran the search and selection, you built the business case for the move, you negotiated the agreement for lease with the landlord from the occupier side, and you led the workplace design and the supplier procurement for the fit-out. Your declared optional competencies include **Procurement and tendering (L2)** and **Supplier management (L2)**. Your day-to-day work covers business alignment, business case preparation, occupier-side landlord and tenant work, workspace strategy, and the facilities management interface.

---

## Interview structure (same as Script A)

| Stage | Time | Who leads |
|---|---|---|
| Candidate presentation on the case study | 10 min | Candidate |
| Questions on the presentation | 10 min | Technical assessor and chair |
| Discussion on overall experience, including CPD, Rules of Conduct, professional practice | 30 min | Technical assessor (core/optional) and chair (mandatory) |
| Chairperson's areas of questioning and close | 10 min | Chair |
| **Total** | **60 min** | |

Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, "Interview structure".

---

## Stage 1 - Presentation (10 minutes)

**Chair opening:** "Good morning. I am the chairperson, my colleague is the technical assessor. Please show us a full scan of the room. Thank you. You have ten minutes for your case study. Please keep to time."

**[MODEL PRESENTATION SHAPE]**
- The instruction: who commissioned the HQ project (the property steering committee, reporting to the board), the business objective behind it (consolidation to support growth and a single collaborative workplace), and the scope of your role.
- The requirement: the organisation's space need derived from headcount and operating model, the location criteria, the budget, and the target occupation date.
- The key issues: the search and selection of the building, the lease-versus-own decision, the agreement for lease terms negotiated from the occupier side, the fit-out budget, and the procurement of the design and build supply chain.
- Options considered and rejected, with reasoning: for example a shortlist of buildings, and a turnkey developer fit-out versus a self-managed fit-out.
- Your recommendation, the business case logic, the alignment to the growth strategy, and the lessons learned.

**Self-marking note - what the panel listens for:** structure, time discipline, your own role isolated, the business objective driving the property decision, and a recommendation that survives challenge. In Corporate Real Estate the panel wants the acquisition framed as a business decision aligned to growth, not as a property transaction in isolation. Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, "Weighting".

**Red flag:** reading a script, no clear business driver, the property described without its alignment to the organisation, team work presented as your own.

---

## Stage 2 - Questions on the presentation (10 minutes)

### Q1. You ran the search and recommended one building from a shortlist. How did your selection align to the business strategy, not just the property merits?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Business alignment L3]**
- I derived the brief from the business first: the growth headcount plan, the operating model, the talent catchment the organisation needed to recruit from, and the budget the board would support. The building had to serve those, not the other way round.
- I scored the shortlist against business-weighted criteria: location relative to the workforce and clients, the floorplate's fit to the target workplace and headcount, lease flexibility for further growth, total cost of occupancy, and sustainability and running cost.
- I built contingency into the recommendation: expansion options or a right to take adjacent space, so a single growth surprise would not force a second move.
- I presented the recommendation as a contribution to the organisation's business planning, with the operational performance implications, so the board saw a business case with a property answer, not a property pick.

**Self-marking note:** L3 Business alignment is reasoned advice that aligns real estate and workplace strategy with the business. The panel listens for business-weighted selection criteria, contingency for growth, and a recommendation framed to the board. Source: RICS Corporate Real Estate Pathway Guide, December 2025, Business alignment L3 descriptor.

**Red flag:** selecting on property merits alone (rent, building quality) with no business driver. No contingency for the growth that justified the move. Treating it as a transaction, not a strategy.

**Cites:** RICS Corporate Real Estate Pathway Guide, December 2025, Version 1.1, Business alignment L3 descriptor (developing and aligning real estate and workplace strategies with the business; CRE contribution within business planning; contingency plans to maintain operational performance).

### Q2. You built the business case for the move. How did you evaluate the options financially, and how did you make it credible to the board?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Business case L2]**
- I structured it around the rationale, the options, the benefits and costs, the financial evaluation, the risks, and a clear recommendation.
- The financial evaluation compared total cost of occupancy under each option over the appraisal period: rent, service charge, rates, fit-out capital, dilapidations on the vacated offices, and moving cost, against the benefits of consolidation, discounted to a comparable basis where the organisation's convention required it.
- I collected the data from the owners (finance for the cost of capital and the lease accounting treatment, HR for headcount, facilities for running cost) and I applied the relevant financial standards, including how the new lease would be recognised on the balance sheet.
- I presented it to the steering committee and the board with a clear recommendation, took feedback, revised, and supported it through approval.

**Self-marking note:** L2 needs the business case structure, a genuine financial evaluation of options, stakeholder-sourced data, the financial standards applied, and the case carried to a recommendation.

**Red flag:** a single option with no alternatives. No financial evaluation. Not knowing how the new lease is treated in the accounts.

**Cites:** RICS Corporate Real Estate Pathway Guide, December 2025, Business case L2 descriptor (preparing a business case, engaging stakeholders, financial impact including applicable financial standards). RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 3 (good-quality diligent service).

**Jurisdictional note:** ZW: most large corporates report under IFRS 16, so the new lease comes onto the balance sheet; state the cost of occupancy in the reporting currency, usually USD, with any ZiG element at the RBZ rate on the appraisal date. SA, KE: IFRS 16 applies. UAE: IFRS 16, AED peg removes currency risk. The board reads the decision through the accounting treatment, so get it right.

### Q3. You negotiated the agreement for lease from the occupier side. What did you push for, and how did you protect the organisation?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Landlord and tenant L2, occupier side]**
- I started from the lease the landlord proposed and read it against the organisation's needs: the term, the break options, the rent and review basis, the repairing and dilapidations liability, the alienation rights to sublet or assign if the business changes, and the rent-free or fit-out contribution.
- From the occupier seat I pushed for flexibility: a break option aligned to the business planning horizon, a capped or controlled repairing liability, and a rent-free period or landlord contribution to offset the fit-out capital.
- I prepared and exchanged the relevant documents and notices to time, instructed legal advisers on the drafting, and kept within my role as the occupier's adviser.
- I analysed comparable lettings on a common basis to support the rent and incentive negotiation, ran it to a settlement, and reported the agreed terms and their cost-of-occupancy effect to the business.

**Self-marking note:** L2 is application from the occupier's seat: read the lease, align it to the business need, push for flexibility and incentive, serve documents correctly, conclude the negotiation. The panel listens for the dilapidations and break-condition awareness that protect an occupier.

**Red flag:** accepting the landlord's draft without negotiating flexibility. Ignoring dilapidations and reinstatement liability. Confusing the occupier adviser role with that of an independent expert.

**Cites:** RICS Corporate Real Estate Pathway Guide, December 2025, Landlord and tenant L2 descriptor (reading and interpreting leases; preparing, serving and responding to legal notices; entering into negotiations; instructing legal advisers and seeing matters to conclusion).

**Jurisdictional note:** ZW: commercial leases are often USD-denominated with US-style terms; the occupier's protections live in the negotiated lease, since SI 32 of 2007 rent control covers residential, not commercial. SA: common-law leases plus the relevant rental statutes. KE: leases under the Land Act 2012 framework. UAE: RERA index and Dubai rent cap shape review and renewal. UK is a comparator only: the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 security regime has no direct Africa or Middle East equivalent.

---

## Stage 3 - Discussion on overall experience (30 minutes)

### Core: Business alignment (L3)

#### Q4. How do you make sure a workplace strategy for the new HQ actually serves the business and not just a design trend?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Business alignment L3 plus Workspace strategy]**
- I anchor the workplace to the operating model and the way the organisation needs people to work, then to the headcount plan, so the design serves the business, not a trend.
- I use evidence: utilisation data from the old offices, an occupant survey, and the activity mix (focus versus collaboration), to size and shape the space rather than copying a fashionable open plan.
- I align the workplace to the growth strategy: enough flex to absorb planned headcount, settings that support recruitment and retention, and a design that the change management can land with people.
- I present the strategy to the steering committee with the data and the operational performance implications, and I set KPIs (utilisation, cost per head, satisfaction) so the business can judge whether it worked.

**Self-marking note:** L3 needs the business-first sequence, evidence-led design, alignment to growth, and a recommendation with KPIs. Source: RICS Corporate Real Estate Pathway Guide, December 2025, Business alignment L3 descriptor.

**Red flag:** a design-led answer with no business driver or evidence. No KPIs. Copying a workplace fashion without testing it against the operating model.

**Cites:** RICS Corporate Real Estate Pathway Guide, December 2025, Business alignment L3 and Workspace strategy descriptors.

#### Q5. Halfway through the project the board cut the fit-out budget. How did you re-align the strategy without derailing the move?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Business alignment L3 plus Change management]**
- I re-read the business priority: cost control now outweighed the original specification, so the strategy had to deliver the move and the consolidation benefit within a tighter budget.
- I re-prioritised the fit-out: protect the elements that drive the business benefit (the collaboration space and the utilisation gain that justified the move) and trim the elements that are specification rather than function.
- I assessed the operational risk of each cut and I took a revised, costed recommendation back to the steering committee, with the trade-offs stated, so the board re-approved on current facts.
- I managed the supply chain and the stakeholders through the change so the programme held.

**Self-marking note:** the panel listens for re-prioritisation against the new business driver, protection of the benefit that justified the project, risk assessment of the cuts, and re-approval on current facts.

**Red flag:** holding to the original specification after the budget was cut. Cutting the elements that deliver the business benefit. No re-approval.

**Cites:** RICS Corporate Real Estate Pathway Guide, December 2025, Business alignment L3 and Change management descriptors (developing a strategy for change; assessing risks presented by change).

### Core: Business case (L2)

#### Q6. The fit-out needed a large capital approval. How did you build and present that part of the business case?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Business case L2]**
- I treated the fit-out as a capital project competing for the organisation's money: I set out the cost, the benefits (consolidation saving, utilisation gain, recruitment and retention), and the financial evaluation over the appraisal period.
- I built the cost with the supply chain and a quantity surveyor or cost consultant where the scale needed it, and I included a contingency, so the number was defensible.
- I applied the financial standards: how the fit-out capital and the lease are recognised, and the metrics finance uses (net present value, payback) so the board could compare it to other capital calls.
- I presented it to stakeholders with a clear recommendation, took feedback, revised, and obtained approval.

**Self-marking note:** L2 needs the business case structure, a defensible cost built with the supply chain, the financial standards applied, and approval obtained.

**Red flag:** a fit-out cost with no benefit case. No contingency. Not knowing how the capital is treated in the accounts.

**Cites:** RICS Corporate Real Estate Pathway Guide, December 2025, Business case L2 descriptor.

#### Q7. What is the difference between the cost of occupancy and the capital cost of the move, and why does the board care about both?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Business case L2 plus Accounting L1]**
- Capital cost is the one-off spend to make the move happen: the fit-out, the moving cost, and the dilapidations on the vacated offices. Cost of occupancy is the ongoing annual cost of being in the building: rent, service charge, rates, and running cost.
- The board cares about both because they hit different lines: capital is a one-off call competing with other investment, while cost of occupancy is a recurring liability that, under IFRS 16, also sits on the balance sheet as a lease liability.
- I present them separately and together, so the board sees the upfront spend and the long-run commitment, and can weigh the payback of the capital against the occupancy saving.
- I stay within my competence and rely on finance for the formal accounting judgement.

**Self-marking note:** the panel listens for a clean distinction between one-off capital and recurring occupancy cost, the balance-sheet effect, and the board's view of both. Accounting is mandatory L1, so a working grasp is expected.

**Red flag:** conflating capital and occupancy cost. Not knowing the lease sits on the balance sheet. Overstating accounting expertise.

**Cites:** RICS Corporate Real Estate Pathway Guide, December 2025, Business case L2 and Accounting principles and procedures L1 (mandatory). RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 2.1 (work within competence).

### Optional: Procurement and tendering (L2)

#### Q8. You procured the design and build supply chain for the fit-out. Walk me through the tender process.
**[MODEL ANSWER - Procurement and tendering L2]**
- I implemented a pre-qualification stage using selection criteria (capability, financial standing, relevant experience, capacity) to draw up a fair tender list.
- I devised the tender documentation: the scope of service, the pricing schedule, the contract form, and the evaluation criteria, weighted so price and quality were both scored, not price alone.
- I ran the pricing and vetted the tenders, balancing risk and reward, and I checked the prices against the cost plan so an abnormally low bid was queried rather than simply accepted.
- I recommended the award with reasons, kept the process auditable and fair to all bidders, and managed the appointment into the contract.

**Self-marking note:** L2 is application: pre-qualification, tender documentation, evaluation balancing risk and reward, and an auditable, fair award. The panel listens for fairness to all bidders and a price checked against a cost plan.

**Red flag:** awarding on lowest price with no quality weighting. No pre-qualification. A process that is not auditable or fair.

**Cites:** RICS Corporate Real Estate Pathway Guide, December 2025, Procurement and tendering L2 descriptor (implementing pre-qualification using selection criteria; devising tender documentation including scope and pricing schedule; participating in pricing and vetting of tenders; balancing risk and reward).

#### Q9. How did you choose the contract form, and what risk did you accept or pass on?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Procurement and tendering L2]**
- I matched the contract to the project's risk profile: a design-and-build form passes more design risk to the contractor for a single point of responsibility, while a traditional form keeps design control with the organisation but more risk too.
- I weighed certainty of cost and time against control of quality, and I set the pricing basis (lump sum versus measured) to suit how defined the scope was.
- I made sure the terms, conditions, and liability were clear, and I balanced risk and reward so neither side was set up to fail.
- I documented the reasoning so the choice was defensible to the board and auditable.

**Self-marking note:** L2 needs the contract form matched to the risk profile, the cost-versus-control trade-off, and clear liability terms. The panel listens for risk consciously allocated, not defaulted.

**Red flag:** choosing a contract form with no reasoning. Ignoring where the design risk sits. Accepting onerous liability without flagging it.

**Cites:** RICS Corporate Real Estate Pathway Guide, December 2025, Procurement and tendering L2 (contract law, terms and conditions and liability; balancing risk and reward; service delivery models).

### Optional: Supplier management (L2)

#### Q10. Once the fit-out contractor and the ongoing FM supplier were appointed, how did you manage them?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Supplier management L2]**
- I managed the suppliers through an existing process scaled to the value and the risk of each: tighter governance for the fit-out contractor on the critical path, lighter for low-risk suppliers.
- I ran performance review meetings against the service level agreements and the KPIs, audited performance, and handled budgeting, variations, and payment in a controlled way.
- I developed collaborative relationships so issues surfaced early and were resolved, rather than escalating, and I kept compliance (insurance, health and safety, statutory duties) under review.
- I fed performance data back into the relationship and into future procurement, so good suppliers were recognised and poor ones improved or were replaced.

**Self-marking note:** L2 is application: manage suppliers through a process matched to value and risk, review against SLAs and KPIs, control variations and payment, and build collaborative relationships. The panel listens for governance proportionate to risk and a closed loop on performance.

**Red flag:** the same heavy governance for every supplier regardless of risk. No SLAs or KPIs. No collaborative relationship, only firefighting.

**Cites:** RICS Corporate Real Estate Pathway Guide, December 2025, Supplier management L2 descriptor (manage suppliers using a process matched to scope, value and risk; performance review meetings; auditing of suppliers; SLAs, KPIs and performance monitoring; developing collaborative relationships).

### Mandatory: Communication and negotiation (L2)

#### Q11. The HQ move displaced staff from offices they liked. Tell me about a negotiation or a difficult communication that did not go to plan.
**[MODEL ANSWER - Communication and negotiation L2]**
- I would give a real example: resistance from a business unit to the consolidation, or a hard point in the lease negotiation with the landlord.
- I prepared with evidence, set the objective and the walk-away position, listened to the other side's real driver, and adjusted my approach without giving up the evidenced position.
- For the internal communication I tailored the message to the audience, explained the business reason for the move, and kept stakeholders informed in writing at each stage so trust held.
- I reflected afterwards on what I would do differently, which is what the panel wants to hear at L2.

**Self-marking note:** the panel listens for preparation, an evidenced position, genuine listening, clear and audience-appropriate communication, and reflection. Communication is mandatory, so the way you tell the story is itself marked.

**Red flag:** a story with no evidence base, no stakeholder communication, or no reflection. Steamrolling rather than listening.

**Cites:** RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 3.7 (communicate clearly and in a way clients can understand). RICS Corporate Real Estate Pathway Guide, December 2025, mandatory Communication and negotiation L2.

### Mandatory: Ethics and Rules of Conduct (L3, woven through)

#### Q12. (L3 scenario) The FM contractor you appointed offers you and your family a weekend away "to celebrate the successful fit-out", just as their first annual contract review is due. What do you do?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Ethics L3]**
- **Rules engaged:** Rule 1.1 (integrity), Rule 1.2 (not influenced improperly by gifts or hospitality), and the organisation's gifts and hospitality policy. The timing, just before a contract review, makes Rule 1.2 acute.
- **Action recommended:** I check the gifts and hospitality policy and threshold. A weekend away for the family, tied to a live contract, risks the appearance of improper influence and almost certainly exceeds any reasonable threshold, so I decline. I would record the offer on the gifts register even though I declined it, because the offer itself is the relevant fact.
- **Documentation to create:** an entry on the gifts and hospitality register and a file note of my decision, plus a flag to my line manager that the supplier offered it just before the review.
- **Escalation path:** my compliance lead, because a supplier offering significant hospitality before a contract review may signal a wider integrity risk in the relationship. If I were pressured to accept or to soften the contract review in return, that could become a significant breach reportable to RICS under Rule 5.9.

**Self-marking note:** L3 needs the Rule, the action, the documentation, and the escalation. The appearance test (could a reasonable person think it influenced you) plus the timing before a contract review is the discriminator. Supplier gifts are a live Corporate Real Estate risk because CRE surveyors hold the supplier relationship.

**Red flag:** "it is just hospitality, I would accept and stay objective." No register entry. Missing the timing and the appearance test. Missing Rule 5.9.

**Cites:** RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rules 1.1, 1.2, 5.9. RICS Conflicts of Interest professional statement, 1st edition, December 2017 (influences on objectivity).

#### Q13. (L3 scenario) Mid-fit-out you discover the contractor is using a sub-supplier that the organisation blacklisted for a serious health and safety failure, and the project is behind schedule. What do you do?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Ethics L3 / Health and safety / Supplier management]**
- **Rules engaged:** Rule 1.1 (integrity), Rule 3 (good-quality diligent service), Rule 5 (act in the public interest where health and safety is involved), and the contract's compliance and health and safety obligations.
- **Action recommended:** I do not let the schedule pressure override the safety and compliance issue. I instruct the contractor to remove the blacklisted sub-supplier or to demonstrate the failure has been remediated to the organisation's standard, in writing. Schedule cannot buy a known safety risk back onto site. I check what work the sub-supplier has already done and whether it needs inspection.
- **Documentation to create:** a written instruction to the contractor, a record of the breach of the compliance term, a note of the health and safety risk and the action taken, and a report to my line manager and the project governance.
- **Escalation path:** my responsible principal and the organisation's health and safety lead; if the contractor refuses and the safety risk is live, I escalate to stop the affected works and, if a significant breach has occurred and is not remediated, I consider the Rule 5.9 reporting duty.

**Self-marking note:** the panel listens for safety and integrity overriding schedule, a written instruction, the health and safety thread, and an escalation that can stop the works. This is reasoned advice with a public-interest spine.

**Red flag:** "we are behind, I would let it slide to keep the programme." Treating a known safety failure as a scheduling problem. No written instruction, no escalation.

**Cites:** RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rules 1.1, 3.1, 5.9. RICS Surveying Safely, 2nd edition, reissued July 2023 as a RICS professional standard.

#### Q14. What CPD have you done in the last year, and how did it change your practice?
**[MODEL ANSWER - CPD]**
- At least 20 hours a year, at least 10 formal, recorded and planned against my development needs.
- A real, recent CRE-relevant example with an outcome, for example procurement and contract training that changed how I structured the fit-out tender, or workplace analytics CPD that improved how I read utilisation data.
- Linked to Rule 2.5 (maintain competence, comply with CPD) and Rule 2.6 (stay up to date).

**Self-marking note:** correct obligation, real example, outcome, linked to Rule 2.

**Cites:** RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 2.5, Rule 2.6, Appendix A member obligation 1.

---

## Stage 4 - Chairperson's close (10 minutes)

### Q15. (Chair) Sustainability is increasingly material to corporate occupiers. How does it show up in your work?
**[MODEL ANSWER - professional awareness plus Sustainability L1]**
- I would name the genuine mechanisms for an occupier: energy performance and running cost affecting the cost of occupancy, the obsolescence risk of inefficient buildings, and growing board, investor, and disclosure expectations on the organisation's footprint.
- I reflect it in the building selection criteria (energy performance, plant, fabric), in the fit-out specification (efficient services, sustainable materials), and in the business case (running cost and any retrofit need).
- I tie it to Rule 3.10, encouraging solutions that minimise harm and deliver balanced economic, social, and environmental benefits.

**Self-marking note:** the chair listens for genuine, mechanism-level engagement from the occupier's perspective, not a slogan. Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, questioning on issues of current concern.

**Red flag:** "sustainability is important" with no mechanism. Drifting into investor or valuation framing that is not the occupier's question.

**Cites:** RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 3.10. RICS Sustainability and ESG, 3rd edition standard (May 2023). RICS Corporate Real Estate Pathway Guide, December 2025, Sustainability L1 mandatory.

### Q16. (Chair, final ethics close) Your line manager asks you to award the FM contract to a firm whose director is a personal friend of a board member, even though they did not score highest in your tender. What do you do?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Ethics L3 close]**
- **Rules engaged:** Rule 1.1 (integrity, do not mislead), Rule 1.2 (not influenced improperly), Rule 1.3 (identify conflicts), Rule 5.1 (raise concerns), Rule 5.9 (act on and report significant breaches).
- **Action recommended:** I do not override a fair tender to favour a connected firm. I set out, in writing, the evaluation result and why the recommended award follows the scored criteria, and I flag the conflict the board member's connection creates. If the connected firm is genuinely the best on the criteria, the award stands on merit; if it is not, awarding it to them would taint the procurement and mislead the other bidders.
- **Documentation to create:** the tender evaluation record, a file note of the instruction and my written response, and an entry on the conflicts register about the board member's connection.
- **Escalation path:** my responsible principal and the procurement governance owner; if I am pressured to falsify the evaluation or to award against the evidence, that is a significant breach reportable to RICS under Rule 5.9. I would rather the tender be reviewed independently than tainted.

**Self-marking note:** the chair listens for protection of the tender's integrity, a written response, the conflict flagged, and the willingness to escalate and report rather than bend. A connected award is the Corporate Real Estate version of a manipulated valuation.

**Red flag:** "my manager asked, so I would do it." Overriding the evaluation quietly. Not recording the conflict. Missing Rule 5.9.

**Cites:** RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 5.1, 5.9. RICS Conflicts of Interest professional statement, 1st edition, December 2017.

### Chair close (verbatim shape)
**Chair:** "Thank you. That concludes the interview. You will hear the result through RICS. We will not indicate the outcome today. Thank you for your time."

**Self-marking note:** no result is ever signalled. A warm close is not a pass. Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024.

---

## Standards cited in Script B

- RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024 (interview structure, questioning, marking).
- RICS Corporate Real Estate Pathway Guide, December 2025, Version 1.1 (core and optional descriptors and levels).
- RICS Rules of Conduct, Global, October 2021, effective 2 February 2022 (the five Rules and Appendix A).
- RICS Conflicts of Interest professional statement, 1st edition, December 2017.
- RICS Surveying Safely, 2nd edition, reissued July 2023 as a RICS professional standard.
- RICS Sustainability and ESG, 3rd edition standard (May 2023).
- RICS Valuation - Global Standards (Red Book Global), December 2024, effective 31 January 2025, PS 2, cited where occupier advice touches a formal valuation that a registered valuer must provide.

---

*This material is a study aid only and is not a substitute for the source RICS standards. Always verify the cited paragraph against the source standard before relying on this answer in a formal setting. Scenarios are generic and illustrative; no real firm, employer, client, or transaction is named. Final responsibility for compliance rests with the candidate and their firm.*

*Summit APC Academy - Mentorship without borders.*