Mock Interview Pack: Corporate Real Estate

Chair: "Good morning. I am the chairperson, and my colleague is the technical assessor. Before we start, please show us a full scan of the room. Thank you. You have ten minutes to present your case study. Please keep to time. Begin when you are ready."

[MODEL PRESENTATION SHAPE] Cover, in this order:

• The instruction: who commissioned the review (the property steering committee, reporting to the board), the business objective behind it (cost reduction, consolidation, or a workplace change), and the scope of the estate reviewed.
• The estate: the portfolio in summary (number of sites, tenure mix of leased versus owned, lease expiry profile, total cost of occupancy), the key drivers, and the principal risks.
• The key issues you had to resolve: for example a cluster of leases expiring together, surplus space following a move to hybrid working, and a lease-versus-own decision on a regional hub.
• The options you considered and why you rejected some: for example consolidate-and-sublet versus surrender-and-relocate versus sale-and-leaseback of an owned asset.
• Your recommendation, the business case logic that supported it, the alignment to the organisation's strategy, and the lessons you learned.

Self-marking note - what the panel listens for: clear structure, time discipline, your personal role made explicit, the business objective driving the property advice, the key issues identified early, and a recommendation that shows judgement and reflection. In Corporate Real Estate the panel especially wants to hear the property decision tied back to the organisation's strategy, not property advice in isolation. Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, "Weighting".

Red flag: reading verbatim from a script, running over ten minutes, describing the team's work without isolating your own contribution, or presenting a property analysis with no link to the business it serves.

[MODEL ANSWER - Business alignment L3 / case study]

• I started from the organisation's stated objectives, the operating model, and the headcount plan, not from the buildings. The property follows the business, so the consolidation case had to serve a business driver: lower cost of occupancy, a single collaborative hub to support a hybrid operating model, and release of capital tied up in surplus space.
• I mapped current utilisation against the future operating model. The three offices were running well below capacity after the shift to hybrid working, so the real estate was misaligned with how the business now works.
• I tested the consolidation against the strategy: did it support recruitment and retention, did it fit the planned headcount, and did it carry an acceptable operational risk if growth returned. I built a contingency for that growth scenario.
• I presented the recommendation as a contribution to the business planning process, with the operational performance implications set out, so the steering committee could see the property decision as a business decision.

Self-marking note: L3 Business alignment is reasoned advice on developing and aligning real estate and workplace strategy with the business. The panel listens for the business driver first, the alignment logic, a contingency plan for operational performance, and a recommendation framed as a business contribution. Naming "I consolidated three offices" is description; tying it to the operating model and the strategy is L3.

Red flag: "the offices were too big so I merged them" with no business driver. Treating the property as the starting point rather than the business 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 those of the business; CRE contribution within business planning; contingency plans to maintain operational performance).

[MODEL ANSWER - Business case L2 plus Client care L2]

• I set out the rationale, the benefits, the costs, and the financial evaluation of each option, so the board could weigh the property decision against the organisation's other calls on capital.
• The financial evaluation compared total cost of occupancy under each option over the appraisal period: rent, service charge, rates, fit-out and dilapidations, moving cost, and the capital released by surrendering surplus space or by sale-and-leaseback. I discounted future cash flows to a comparable basis where the organisation's appraisal convention required it.
• I engaged the stakeholders who owned the numbers: finance for the cost of capital and accounting treatment, HR for headcount, and facilities for running cost, so the case was built with the business, not handed to it.
• I tested the case against the organisation's applicable financial standards and reporting treatment, for example whether a lease sits on or off balance sheet, because that affects how the board reads the decision.

Self-marking note: L2 Business case is practical application: the rationale, benefits, costs, and a financial evaluation, built with stakeholders, with an understanding of the financial standards that apply. The panel listens for the case being framed to the board's decision, not as a property narrative. Client care overlaps: you managed internal stakeholders as clients.

Red flag: presenting a property report with a single cost figure and calling it a business case. Ignoring the accounting treatment of leases. Building the numbers alone without finance.

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

[MODEL ANSWER - Business alignment L3 / Business case L2 / Valuation L1]

• I framed it as a capital-allocation question for the business, not a property preference. Owning ties up capital in an asset that is not the organisation's core business; leasing frees that capital but adds a fixed liability and less control.
• I set out the options: retain and occupy, sale-and-leaseback to release capital while continuing to occupy, or sell and relocate into the consolidated hub. For each I showed the capital released, the ongoing cost, the balance-sheet effect, and the operational control retained or lost.
• On value, I worked at the L1 level: I understood the main drivers of the asset's value and the purposes a valuation serves, and I commissioned or relied on a Red Book valuation from a registered valuer rather than forming the opinion myself, because Valuation is Core at L1 in this pathway and the formal figure must come from a qualified valuer.
• I recommended the option that best served the strategy: here, sale-and-leaseback released capital for the core business while keeping operational continuity, subject to the lease terms being acceptable.

Self-marking note: the panel listens for the capital-allocation framing, a clear set of options with their business consequences, and the discipline to treat Valuation at L1: understand the drivers and purposes, but rely on a qualified valuer for the figure. Overstating your valuation role is a classic Corporate Real Estate error, since Valuation here is only L1.

Red flag: producing your own Market Value figure and presenting it as a formal valuation. Treating own-versus-lease as a matter of property taste rather than capital allocation.

Cites: RICS Corporate Real Estate Pathway Guide, December 2025, Valuation L1 descriptor (purposes of valuation, main drivers of value, relevant standards) and Business alignment L3. RICS Valuation - Global Standards (Red Book Global), December 2024, effective 31 January 2025, PS 2 (only a suitably qualified valuer provides the formal opinion).

[MODEL ANSWER - Business alignment L3: reasoned advice]

• Start with the business: I begin from the core business drivers, the organisational objectives, and the operating model. I establish whether the business is centralising or decentralising, growing or contracting, and how it wants its people to work, because the estate must follow that.
• Read the estate against the strategy: I map the current portfolio (cost, location, utilisation, lease flexibility) against the future operating model to find the gaps, the surplus, and the constraints.
• Develop the strategy: I set out a real estate and workplace strategy that closes those gaps, sequenced against lease events so the business is never forced into a poor decision by a deadline. I demonstrate the CRE contribution within the business planning process.
• Build contingency: I include contingency plans to maintain operational performance: flex space for unplanned growth, break options for downside, and a fallback if a relocation slips. The strategy must survive a change in the business, not just today's plan.
• Advise and recommend: I present reasoned advice and recommendations to the steering committee and the board, with the data behind them, and I show the implications of the CRE strategy on operational performance.

Self-marking note: L3 needs reasoned advice that develops and aligns the strategy, not a description of the estate. The panel listens for the business-first sequence, alignment to the operating model, contingency planning for operational performance, and a recommendation presented to decision makers with data. This is the load-bearing Core competency of the pathway.

Red flag: a property-led answer with no business driver. No contingency for a change in the business. Confusing facilities management activity with strategic alignment.

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

[MODEL ANSWER - Business alignment L3 plus Change management awareness]

• I re-read the new business drivers first. A switch from growth to cost control changes the brief: the estate now has to shrink cost and surface surplus, not enable expansion.
• I revisited the strategy against the new operating model and re-prioritised the actions: bring forward lease surrenders and sublettings of surplus space, defer any expansionary commitment, and protect flexibility so the business is not locked in if the direction changes again.
• I quantified the implications for operational performance: which consolidation steps could be accelerated without harming service to the business, and where cutting too fast would create operational risk.
• I took the revised recommendation back to the steering committee with the changed numbers and a clear statement of what had changed and why, so the board could re-approve on current facts.

Self-marking note: the panel listens for responsiveness to a change in the business, re-prioritisation against the new drivers, protection of flexibility, and re-approval on current facts. L3 is about advising through change, not holding to a stale plan.

Red flag: continuing with the original growth-led strategy after the business changed. No re-approval. Cutting cost with no regard for operational risk.

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; offering alternative strategic options).

[MODEL ANSWER - Business case L2: application]

• I structured it around the standard elements: the rationale for the proposal, the options considered, the benefits and costs of each, the financial evaluation, the risks, and a clear recommendation.
• I evaluated the options on a like-for-like financial basis: total cost of occupancy over the appraisal period for each option, capital released or required, and the net effect, discounted to a comparable basis where the organisation's convention required it.
• I collected the business case data from the right owners (finance, HR, facilities, operations) and I applied the relevant financial standards, including the lease accounting treatment, so the numbers were credible to the board.
• I presented it to stakeholders with a clear recommendation, took feedback, revised, and supported the case through approval.

Self-marking note: L2 is application. The panel listens for the correct business case structure, a genuine financial evaluation of options, stakeholder-sourced data, the financial standards applied, and the case carried through to a recommendation. A property cost table is not a business case.

Red flag: one option presented with no alternatives. No financial evaluation. No stakeholders. Not knowing how a 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, application of business case data collection, financial impact of a real estate business case including applicable financial standards).

[MODEL ANSWER - Business case L2 plus Accounting L1]

• I understood how a lease is recognised in the accounts: under IFRS 16 most leases come onto the balance sheet as a right-of-use asset and a lease liability, which changes gearing and the metrics the board watches.
• I worked with the metrics finance uses to weigh capital decisions: net present value of the cash flows, payback period, and the effect on cost of occupancy per person or per square metre.
• I made the case comparable to the organisation's other calls on capital, because a property proposal competes for the same money as operational investment, and the board decides on relative return and risk.
• I was careful to stay within my competence: I understand and apply the standards at the level my role requires, and I rely on finance for the formal accounting judgement.

Self-marking note: the panel listens for a working grasp of lease accounting and the board's decision metrics, framed so a property case competes fairly for capital. Accounting is a mandatory L1 here, so a working understanding, not an accountant's depth, is what is expected.

Red flag: not knowing that leases sit on the balance sheet under IFRS 16. Presenting cost with no comparison to return or risk. Claiming accounting expertise beyond your competence.

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 your competence).

[MODEL ANSWER - Landlord and tenant L2, occupier side]

• I started with the lease: the break clause and its conditions, the expiry date, the repairing and dilapidations obligations, any alienation provisions for subletting or assignment, and the rent review mechanism, because the occupier's options live in the lease.
• I read and interpreted those clauses against the business need: did the organisation want out, want to stay, or want to shed surplus, and which route the lease actually allowed.
• I prepared, served, or responded to the relevant notices to time, because a missed break condition or a late notice can lock the organisation into space it does not want. I instructed legal advisers on the drafting and kept within my role.
• I gathered and analysed comparable evidence on a common basis to support a rent review or a surrender premium negotiation, ran the negotiation to a settlement, and reported the outcome and its cost-of-occupancy effect to the business.

Self-marking note: L2 is application from the occupier's seat: lease clause first, business need second, notices served correctly, evidence analysed, negotiation concluded. The panel listens for the conditionality of break clauses and the dilapidations exposure, which are where occupiers get caught.

Red flag: missing a break condition or a notice deadline. Treating dilapidations as an afterthought. 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).

[MODEL ANSWER - Workspace strategy L2]

• I evaluated the work environment on three fronts: cost (cost per workstation and per person), utilisation (occupancy sensor and badge data showing how much of the space was actually used), and feedback (an occupant survey on how well the space supported the work).
• The utilisation studies showed sustained low occupancy after the shift to hybrid working, which is what justified consolidating and re-planning the space rather than renewing all of it.
• I identified the impacts of implementing a new workspace strategy: a smaller but better-fitted hub, more collaboration space, fewer fixed desks, and the change management needed to take people with it.
• I set KPIs to judge whether the new strategy worked: target utilisation, cost per head, and occupant satisfaction, measured after the change so the business could see the return.

Self-marking note: L2 is practical application: evaluate the workplace on cost, utilisation, and feedback, identify the impacts of a new strategy, and set KPIs to judge success. The panel listens for evidence-led conclusions, not an assertion that hybrid working means less space.

Red flag: recommending desk reductions with no utilisation evidence. No KPIs to measure whether the new workplace works. Ignoring the change management needed.

Cites: RICS Corporate Real Estate Pathway Guide, December 2025, Workspace strategy L2 descriptor (evaluate work environment on cost, utilisation studies and occupant feedback; identifying impacts of implementing a workspace strategy; KPIs to determine successful implementation).

[MODEL ANSWER - Performance management L2]

• I collect CRE benchmarking data and occupier satisfaction data, and I develop and use KPIs that align to what the organisation values: cost of occupancy per person, space per person, utilisation, and service responsiveness.
• I prepare the data so it tells a story the business can act on, for example using a balanced scorecard so cost, utilisation, service, and sustainability are weighed together rather than chasing cost alone.
• I benchmark the estate against external comparators and against the organisation's own trend, so a number means something.
• I turn the measurement into improvement: I identify where the estate or the service is underperforming and I recommend the methods to fix it, then re-measure.

Self-marking note: L2 is application: collect the data, build and use KPIs against stakeholder objectives, benchmark, and drive improvement. The panel listens for KPIs that align to the business, not vanity metrics, and for a closed loop from measurement to action.

Red flag: measuring cost only and ignoring utilisation and satisfaction. Collecting data with no action attached. KPIs that do not align to what the business cares about.

Cites: RICS Corporate Real Estate Pathway Guide, December 2025, Performance management L2 descriptor (collection of CRE benchmarking and occupier satisfaction data; development and use of KPIs; balanced scorecards; methods to improve performance).

[MODEL ANSWER - Client care L2]

• Working in-house does not remove client care: my internal stakeholders (the board, finance, business units, and end occupiers) are my clients, and I agree scope, timescales, and what success looks like at the outset, in writing, just as a consultant would.
• If a stakeholder raises a complaint, for example that a consolidation move disrupted a business unit, I acknowledge it promptly, I follow the organisation's complaints or escalation procedure, and I record it.
• I treat the complaint as a service signal: I check whether the scope, the communication, and the expectations were clear at the start, because most complaints trace back to expectations not agreed.
• If my firm provides CRE on a consultancy basis to external clients, then the RICS complaints obligations apply in full: a published complaints-handling procedure, an approved redress provider, and a complaints log.

Self-marking note: the panel listens for client care applied to internal stakeholders, scope agreed in writing, a complaint handled through a procedure and logged, and the link back to clear expectations. If the candidate is consultancy-side, the full RICS complaints regime applies.

Red flag: "client care does not apply because I am in-house". No documented scope. Smoothing over a complaint with no procedure or record.

Cites: RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 5.4 (respond to complaints), Rule 5.5 (do not dissuade from ADR or RICS), Appendix A firm obligation (publish a complaints-handling procedure and maintain a complaints log, where the firm provides services to clients). RICS Corporate Real Estate Pathway Guide, December 2025, mandatory Client care L2.

[MODEL ANSWER - Health and safety L2]

• As an occupier the organisation carries duties for the people in its buildings: fire safety, asbestos management in older stock, safe systems for any works, and the interface with the facilities management provider who delivers much of that day to day.
• A dynamic risk assessment is the continuous, on-the-spot reassessment of hazards as conditions change. In practice, when I inspect a vacant or partly stripped surplus floor before a surrender or a sublet, I do not proceed into an unsafe area: no lighting, an unstable structure, or a live hazard means I stop, step back, and arrange the right control.
• I follow the lone-working protocol when I visit sites alone (someone knows where I am and when I am due back) and I carry the right personal protective equipment.
• I record the decision so the file shows why I did or did not enter, and I make sure the occupier's statutory duties, for example the duty to manage asbestos, are being met by the responsible party.

Self-marking note: the panel listens for the occupier's statutory duties, the facilities management interface, a real dynamic risk assessment example, and the lone-working protocol. A textbook definition with no lived example is weak at L2.

Red flag: thinking health and safety belongs only to the landlord. Reciting the definition with no on-site story. Pressing on into an unsafe space to save time.

Cites: RICS Surveying Safely, 2nd edition, reissued July 2023 as a RICS professional standard (dynamic risk assessment, lone working, hierarchy of control). RICS Corporate Real Estate Pathway Guide, December 2025, mandatory Health and safety L2.

[MODEL ANSWER - Ethics L1 to L3 bridge]

• Rule 1 Honesty and integrity. Rule 2 Competence. Rule 3 Service. Rule 4 Respect and inclusion. Rule 5 Public interest and responsibility.
• In an in-house CRE role I engage Rule 1 and Rule 3 most: Rule 1.5, that advice is honest and objective and based on reliable evidence, because the board relies on my business case to commit capital, and Rule 3, good-quality diligent service with clear scope and proper records.
• Rule 1.3 on conflicts is also live, because I hold confidential board and strategy information that a landlord or a supplier would value.
• I would give a live example from my own work where I had to apply a specific sub-rule, not just name the Rule.

Self-marking note: the panel uses this as a warm-up. Naming the five Rules is L1. Tying a sub-rule to your own CRE work is L2 to L3. Always cite the sub-rule number, never "Rule 1" alone for an application.

Red flag: getting a Rule wrong or missing one. Citing the superseded 2020 split Rules for members and firms.

Cites: RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Global, effective 2 February 2022, Rules 1 to 5 and Appendix A.

[MODEL ANSWER - Ethics L3: reasoned advice]

• Rules engaged: Rule 1.1 (act with integrity, do not mislead), Rule 1.2 (not influenced improperly by relationships or self-interest), Rule 1.5 (honest, objective advice on reliable evidence), and the duty of confidentiality owed to my employer. The friendship makes Rule 1.2 acute, and the confidential board information makes confidentiality the core issue.
• Action recommended: I do not disclose the confidential exit plan, that day, however casual the setting. I am courteous but I make clear I cannot discuss the organisation's intentions for the building. Leaking a surrender plan would weaken the organisation's negotiating position and breach the confidence I hold, and it could also breach insider or market-sensitive information rules if the landlord's group is listed.
• Documentation to create: a brief file note that the question was asked and that I declined to answer, and a flag to my line manager and compliance lead that the landlord's agent is probing, so the organisation can manage the relationship and protect its position.
• Escalation path: if the agent presses or if the friendship is being used to extract information, I escalate to my responsible principal or compliance lead. If I were ever pressured internally to use confidential information improperly to gain an advantage that misleads a counterparty, that could become a significant breach reportable to RICS under Rule 5.9.

Self-marking note: L3 needs the Rule cited, the action recommended, the documentation created, and the escalation path. The confidential-board-information angle is the distinctive Corporate Real Estate ethics test: the panel wants to hear that you protect the employer's confidence and your integrity, even with a friend, and that you flag the probing. Saying "I would just be vague" without the file note and the escalation is only half an L3 answer.

Red flag: "I would hint at it, we are friends." Treating a social setting as outside the Rules. Disclosing market-sensitive board information. Missing the duty of confidentiality.

Cites: RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 5.9. RICS Conflicts of Interest professional statement, 1st edition, December 2017 (confidential information conflicts). Red Book Global December 2024, PS 2 section 3 (confidentiality), where any valuation advice is in scope.

[MODEL ANSWER - Ethics L3 / Conflicts of Interest / Procurement]

• Rules engaged: Rule 1.2 (not influenced improperly, including by family interest), Rule 1.3 (identify conflicts throughout the assignment), Rule 1.4 (firm processes and records), Rule 3.6 (communicate material information to the client/employer), and potentially Rule 5.9.
• Action recommended: I disclose the family interest immediately and in writing to my employer and to the procurement governance owner. This is a personal conflict of interest under the RICS Conflicts of Interest professional statement. I step back from any role that scores, shortlists, or influences the award involving my sister's firm, and an independent colleague takes over that part. Disclosure is not a cure on its own: the conflict must be managed by removing me from the decision, or the affected bid handled under a controlled process, and the tender must remain demonstrably fair to all bidders.
• Documentation to create: a conflicts memo and entry on the conflicts register, the written disclosure, a record of the reallocation of my procurement role, and a note on how the tender's fairness was protected.
• Escalation path: the procurement governance lead and my responsible principal; if the conflict cannot be managed and the procurement's integrity is compromised, or if I am pressured to stay involved, that becomes a significant breach reportable to RICS under Rule 5.9. I would rather the tender be paused or re-run than tainted.

Self-marking note: the panel listens for prompt disclosure, recognition that this is a personal conflict, removal from the decision rather than mere disclosure, protection of the tender's fairness to all bidders, and a register entry. Procurement integrity plus a personal conflict is a classic Corporate Real Estate scenario, because CRE surveyors run supplier and FM tenders.

Red flag: "I would just stay quiet, I can be objective." Treating disclosure as enough while staying in the decision. Not protecting the other bidders' fair treatment.

Cites: RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 3.6, 5.9. RICS Conflicts of Interest professional statement, 1st edition, December 2017 (personal conflicts; disclosure and management). RICS Corporate Real Estate Pathway Guide, December 2025, Procurement and tendering (fairness of the tender process).

[MODEL ANSWER - CPD, mandatory]

• I complete at least 20 hours of CPD a year, of which at least 10 hours are formal, and I record it. I plan it against my development needs, not just to hit the number.
• I would give a specific, recent example relevant to CRE, for example CPD on IFRS 16 lease accounting and how it changed the way I framed a lease-versus-own business case, or CPD on workplace utilisation analytics that improved how I read occupancy data.
• I maintain my competence as required by Rule 2.5 and I stay up to date with legislation and technical standards under Rule 2.6.

Self-marking note: the panel listens for the correct CPD obligation, a real CRE-relevant example with an outcome, and a link to Rule 2. A generic "I do my CPD" with no example is weak.

Red flag: not knowing the hours requirement. No concrete example of CPD changing your practice.

Cites: RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 2.5 (maintain and develop knowledge, comply with CPD requirements set by RICS), Rule 2.6 (stay up to date), Appendix A member obligation 1.

[MODEL ANSWER - professional awareness]

• Pick one genuine issue you can speak to with depth: for example the impact of hybrid working on space demand and the cost of carrying surplus space, the cost and obsolescence risk of energy-inefficient buildings on occupiers, or the effect of power supply reliability on where an organisation can operate.
• Explain the mechanism: how the issue feeds into the cost of occupancy, the utilisation of space, the lease strategy, or the business case, and therefore into the advice you give the organisation.
• Explain your response: the CPD you have done, how you reflect it in your strategy and your business cases, and how you advise the board on it. Tie sustainability to Rule 3.10, encouraging solutions that minimise harm.

Self-marking note: the chair listens for genuine engagement with the occupier's world, not a headline. One issue covered with depth beats three name-dropped. Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, "Questioning techniques" (issues of current concern to the profession).

Red flag: a vague "the market is uncertain" with no mechanism and no personal response. Drifting into agency or investment commentary that is not the occupier's question.

Cites: RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 3.10 (encourage sustainable solutions). RICS Sustainability and ESG, 3rd edition standard (May 2023), for the sustainability angle, where relevant.

[MODEL ANSWER - Ethics L3 close]

• Rules engaged: Rule 1.1 (integrity, do not mislead), Rule 1.5 (advice based on reliable evidence), Rule 5.1 (raise concerns in good faith), Rule 5.2 (support those who raise concerns), Rule 5.9 (act on breaches; report significant breaches).
• Action recommended: I support the colleague but I do not promise blanket confidentiality, because a business case put to the board on figures known to be wrong misleads the decision and engages the public interest if the organisation is regulated or listed. I encourage the colleague to correct the business case and tell the steering committee, and I would raise it myself if they will not. The decision may need to be revisited on accurate figures.
• Documentation to create: a file note of the disclosure and my advice, and a record of the internal escalation and the correction.
• Escalation path: the organisation's compliance lead or my responsible principal first; report to RICS under Rule 5.9 if it is a significant breach and is not remediated. If pressure from above caused the colleague to falsify the figures, that pressure is itself reportable.

Self-marking note: the chair listens for whether you protect the colleague and the integrity of the board's decision without giving a confidentiality promise you cannot keep. The misleading business case (Rule 1.1 and 1.5) plus the reporting duty (Rule 5.9) are the threads. A wrong figure to the board is the Corporate Real Estate version of a misleading valuation.

Red flag: promising to keep it quiet. Treating it as a private favour. Letting a board decision stand on figures known to be wrong. Missing Rule 5.9.

Cites: RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rules 1.1, 1.5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.9.

Chair: "Thank you. That brings us to the end of the interview. You will receive the result through RICS in due course. We will not give you any indication of the outcome today. Thank you for your time."

Self-marking note: the panel never signals the result. A warm close is not a pass. Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, the panel must not indicate how well or badly the interview is going.