Practical Experience
and Development Record
The PEDR is your evidence that 24 months of qualifying practice has produced the competence Part 3 demands. This guide breaks down what each category covers, how to write entries that pass, and what examiners actually mark.
24
Month minimum
5
Criteria
8
Categories
10
Tips
The Practical Experience and Development Record is a structured log of the professional experience you complete between Part 2 and Part 3. It records what you did, where it sat in the RIBA Plan of Work, which of the five Professional Criteria it evidences, and what you learned from it. Your Professional Studies Advisor signs each quarter, and the completed record is submitted with your Part 3 application.
The PEDR is not a timesheet. Examiners read it as a portfolio of competence development. Diary entries that describe activity without reflection, or evidence without specifics, are the most common reason for a record being returned before the oral exam.
Who submits one
Every UK Part 3 candidate seeking ARB registration as an architect.
When it is submitted
With the Part 3 application, typically four to six weeks before the oral exam.
What examiners assess
Breadth across stages, depth of reflection, and clean mapping to PC1 to PC5.
What backs it up
Project lists, employer references, CPD log, and your case study draw on the same evidence base.
Eight categories cover the spread of practice that a PEDR must evidence. Click any card to see what examiners look for, common mistakes, and worked examples of strong and weak diary entries.
The case study sits alongside the PEDR. Four sections, sequential, each with its own purpose and pitfalls. Use the prompts to draft, then read backwards from the reflection to test whether the introduction has set up what the reflection evaluates.
Introduction
Sets up the project, the candidate's role, and the issue or decision the case study examines. Establishes context the examiner needs before reading the analysis.
Prompts
- 1.
What is the project: type, scale, value, procurement, contract form?
- 2.
What was your role and at which RIBA stages were you involved?
- 3.
What issue, decision, or moment of judgement does the case study examine?
- 4.
Why is this case study worth reading: what does it allow you to demonstrate?
- 5.
Which Professional Criteria does the case study primarily evidence?
Pitfalls
- ·
Treating the introduction as a project brochure. The examiner does not need marketing copy.
- ·
Failing to name the contract form, value, or procurement route in the opening paragraphs.
- ·
Burying the candidate's role at the end. Lead with what you did.
Analysis
Examines the issue or decision in depth, with reference to contracts, statutes, professional codes, and the practical constraints the candidate faced. The intellectual core of the case study.
Prompts
- 1.
What were the contractual, statutory, or professional rules in play?
- 2.
What were the options available, and what were the trade-offs?
- 3.
What advice did you give, and on what evidence?
- 4.
Who else was involved (client, contractor, consultants, statutory bodies) and how did their positions interact?
- 5.
What constraints (cost, programme, regulation, risk) shaped the outcome?
Pitfalls
- ·
Narrating events without analysing them. Story is not analysis.
- ·
Citing rules without applying them to the facts of this project.
- ·
Avoiding the difficult question. Examiners want to see how you reasoned under pressure, not how you avoided pressure.
Outcome
Sets out what actually happened: the decision taken, the action executed, the consequences for the project. A factual account that the reflection then evaluates.
Prompts
- 1.
What decision was taken and by whom?
- 2.
How was the decision communicated and documented?
- 3.
What were the immediate consequences for cost, time, quality, and risk?
- 4.
What were the second-order consequences for the client, contractor, or design team?
- 5.
Was there a downstream effect on other parts of the project or on the practice?
Pitfalls
- ·
Sanitising the outcome. If the project ran over, say so.
- ·
Conflating outcome with reflection. Outcome is what happened; reflection is what you make of it.
- ·
Missing the documentation trail. Examiners want to see how the outcome was recorded.
Reflection
Demonstrates professional self-awareness. Evaluates the candidate's own judgement, identifies what would be done differently, and connects the case study to wider competence and continuing development.
Prompts
- 1.
With hindsight, what would you do differently and why?
- 2.
What did this case study teach you about your own competence and its limits?
- 3.
What did you learn about the contract, the statute, or the professional code that you did not know before?
- 4.
How has this experience changed how you work on later projects?
- 5.
What further CPD or professional development did the case study prompt?
Pitfalls
- ·
Defensive reflection. Saying everything went well is not reflection.
- ·
Generic reflection. Reflection must be specific to this case study, not a general statement about professionalism.
- ·
Failing to link reflection forward. The point of reflection is changed future practice, not closure of the past.
Ten practical tips drawn from RIBA Part 3 Handbook guidance and the patterns examiners report seeing in passing and failing records. Grouped by what they fix.
Structure
(3 tips)Write in the first person, always
Use I, not we. The PEDR records your competence, not your office's. If you led a workshop, say so. If you observed, say so. If you drafted under supervision, say so. Examiners read hundreds of records and develop a strong instinct for evasive language. A diary that says we is a diary that hides what the candidate actually did.
Balance across RIBA stages
Candidates with all their experience at Stage 4 fail because they cannot evidence PC1 (briefing) or PC3 (contracts in execution). The 24-month requirement should show breadth across Stages 0 to 7. If your experience is uneven, plan a deliberate stretch into a weaker stage before submission, even if it means shadowing rather than leading.
Map every entry to a Professional Criterion
PC1 (professionalism), PC2 (clients, users, delivery), PC3 (legal framework, processes), PC4 (practice and management), PC5 (building procurement). Every diary entry should tag at least one PC. Examiners cross-check that all five criteria are evidenced across the recording period. A PEDR strong in PC2 but silent on PC4 will be challenged.
Content
(2 tips)Reflection beats description
A diary entry that describes what you did is the floor. A diary entry that reflects on what worked, what failed, and what you would do differently is what passes. Reflection does not mean apology: it means professional self-awareness. Even a successful task usually has a what I would do differently next time observation worth capturing.
Quantify whenever you can
Numbers anchor evidence. 40 units, GBP 2.1m budget, 47 defects, Interim Certificate 7 valuing GBP 184,200, three options tested, two weeks awarded, 22 hours CPD. Quantification turns vague claims into verifiable ones and gives examiners something concrete to probe at the oral.
Evidence
(2 tips)Cite contracts, statutes, and clauses by number
Generic references signal generic understanding. Saying you issued an instruction is weak. Saying you issued an instruction under JCT SBC 2024 cl 3.10 with the cost quotation under cl 5.3.1 demonstrates competence. The same principle applies to Approved Documents (AD B Vol 2), the ARB Code (Standard 4), the RIBA PSC (cl 7.3), and statutes (Companies Act 2006 s.172).
Anonymise projects, clients, and individuals
Use Project A, Client X, the structural engineer. Never name a private client, a confidential development, or a colleague in a way that could embarrass them. Public sector projects with a published name can usually be identified by type and location. If in doubt, redact. This is a Standard 5 ARB Code 2025 obligation on confidentiality.
Common errors
(1 tip)Common weak entries to avoid
Helped with. Did some. Attended. Worked on. These verbs sit in 80% of failed PEDRs. Replace with verbs that name the action: drafted, reviewed, coordinated, chaired, issued, recommended, certified, assessed, declined, escalated. If you cannot use a precise verb, you probably did not do enough on that task to log it.
Examiner view
(2 tips)Read your record as an examiner would
Before submission, print the PEDR and read it cold. Ask: would I let this candidate certify GBP 1m of work on my behalf? Would I trust them to advise my mother on a planning application? If the answer is no, the record is not ready. Examiners apply this test, and they apply it within the first ten pages.
Use your Professional Studies Advisor (PSA) deliberately
Your PSA must sign off the PEDR. Schedule quarterly reviews rather than one panic meeting at the end. Bring specific questions: is this entry strong enough, am I weak on PC3, should I shadow contract administration this quarter. The PSA's role is to coach, not just countersign. A good PSA relationship is the single best predictor of a clean Part 3 submission.
The PEDR sits alongside three other parts of your Part 3 preparation. Use these tools in parallel: the diary records experience, the case study tests reflection, and the mock exams and oral prep test how you talk about both.
Read your PEDR cold before submission
Print the record, leave it for a week, then read it as a stranger would. Ask whether each entry shows what you did, what you decided, and what you learned. If an entry would not survive a single examiner follow-up, rewrite it.