The REF™ Methodology

The Roleplay Evaluation
Framework.

REF™ is the published, eight-factor, 1,000-point job evaluation methodology behind Vareqa. It produces 20 defensible grade outputs, R-01 through R-20, designed from first principles for Directive-native transparency. Every factor definition, level descriptor, and scoring threshold is documented and disclosable to employees, works councils, and regulators, without intermediary interpretation.

8 Factors 6 Levels Each 1,000 pts max 20 Grade Outputs Gender-Neutral by Design Article 4 & 6 Ready Market equivalency guide included
8
Compensable factors
20
Grade outputs
1,000
Maximum points
100%
Factors gender-neutral by design
Section 01
The REF™ Methodology
Eight compensable factors. Six levels each. One thousand maximum points. Twenty grade outputs.
⚖
REF™ Methodology · Proprietary & Confidential · Vareqa Ltd. The Roleplay Evaluation Framework (REF™) is an original eight-factor point-factor methodology developed and owned by Vareqa Ltd. The general concept of point-factor job evaluation is in the public domain. REF™ factor definitions, level descriptors, weightings, scoring tables, grade thresholds, and market equivalency calibrations are proprietary to Vareqa Ltd. and subject to copyright and trade secret protection. Any references to proprietary frameworks in the market equivalency guide below are for client migration and benchmarking convenience only, and do not constitute or imply any licence, endorsement, or partnership with the owners of those frameworks.
Grade Scale
REF™ Grade Structure · 20 Levels
Weighting rationale: Organisational Impact (18%) and Knowledge Depth (16%) carry the highest weights. Research consistently shows these two dimensions account for the most variance in job worth across industries. Decision Autonomy (14%) is scored as its own factor, not folded into accountability. Autonomy is what separates individual contributors from senior leaders, and it deserves its own weight. Innovation Requirement (10%) is scored independently to give proper recognition to technology, product, and R&D roles that legacy frameworks tend to fold into problem solving. Working Environment (2%) is retained at minimum weight to ensure the framework covers all role types and remains defensible under the EU Pay Transparency Directive and equivalent equal pay legislation.
Transparent by design
Factor definitions, level descriptors, point values, and weighting rationale are fully published. The methodology is architected for EU Pay Transparency Directive Articles 4 and 6 disclosure: employees, works councils, and regulators can access the full framework without intermediary interpretation. This is what the Directive actually requires, delivered natively rather than bolted on.
Genuine dual career tracks
A Principal Engineer with no direct reports is not penalised against an Engineering Manager at the same seniority. Technical depth (F-02, F-03, F-07) and people leadership (F-05) are scored independently, neither dominates the other. Both career paths are genuinely equal in the framework, not just in principle but in the actual score.
Gender-neutral by design
All eight factors have documented gender-neutrality rationale, defensible in a joint pay assessment under Article 10 or an employment tribunal. Weighting logic is testable and auditable from the platform itself. Third-party EDGE certification is under active consideration to provide an independently verifiable Article 4 compliance signal.
Section 02
Try the REF™ Evaluator
Select a level for each factor. Score updates in real time with indicative market equivalency.
REF™ Total Score
0
/ 1,000 pts
REF™ Grade
—
Select factors to score
Live Market Equivalency Guide
KF / Hay — —
WTW GGS — —
Aon — —
Mercer — —
Equivalency values are indicative migration estimates only. Exact alignment requires re-evaluation under REF™ against your organisation's specific role set.
From role list to regulator-ready
Three steps. Under two weeks.
A 500-employee organisation reaches full EU Pay Transparency Directive compliance in under two weeks using the Vareqa Workbench. The same outcome via a traditional consulting engagement takes 8 to 12 weeks and costs roughly 10x more.
DAY 1
Step 01 · Upload
Role inventory in,
evaluation queue out
HR uploads the role inventory (CSV, spreadsheet, or typed directly). Typically 80 to 250 unique roles for a 500-employee organisation. The Workbench ingests role data, auto-detects role families, and queues each role for AI-assisted evaluation against the REF™ 8-factor methodology.
Output: evaluation queue ready.
DAYS 2-6
Step 02 · Evaluate
AI proposes,
HR validates
For each role, the Claude-powered evaluator produces an 8-factor score with documented rationale at every level. HR reviews, overrides where domain knowledge dictates, and approves. AI scores and human overrides are both retained as audit trail for Article 6 transparency. Around 2 minutes per role; a 200-role organisation completes the pass in 3 to 4 working days.
Output: defensible grades R-01 to R-20.
DAYS 7-10
Step 03 · Publish
One click to
regulator-ready
The grade anchors every downstream output. The Pay Band Builder constructs salary ranges. The RTIR module generates Article 7 reports in the employee's language within minutes. OLS regression runs the adjusted pay gap with Article 9 trigger assessment. The Multi-Jurisdiction Compliance Report maps the organisation across 15 jurisdictions.
Output: compliance pack published.
Why this matters commercially. The traditional alternative for a 500-employee organisation is an 8 to 12 week consulting engagement costing €80,000 to €200,000, delivered by licensed consultants. Vareqa produces a defensible outcome in under two weeks at €15,000 annual SaaS (Professional tier), with methodology architected for Article 6 transparency and direct disclosure to employees, works councils, and regulators. That is a 5 to 10x cost compression combined with a Directive-native transparency posture that the consultant-mediated delivery model is not structurally configured for at the mid-market price point.
Section 03
Market Equivalency Guide
Indicative migration ranges for organisations transitioning to REF™ from an existing point-factor framework.
REF™ Roleplay Evaluation Framework
KF/Hay Korn Ferry Hay Guide Chart Method
WTW GGS Willis Towers Watson Global Grading System
Aon Aon JobLink™
Mercer IPE Mercer International Position Evaluation
REF™ GradePointsLevel TitleKF / HayWTW GGSAon JobLinkMercer IPECareer Stage
Basis and limitations. This table is an indicative migration guide only, intended to help organisations estimate where their existing role architecture might map onto REF™ grades. It is not a claim of formal equivalence to any proprietary framework. The equivalency references are Vareqa-originated alignments drawn exclusively from publicly available methodology documentation (vendor marketing materials, public academic and policy literature, and third-party cross-reference sources); no licensed manuals, subscriber-only materials, or confidential client deliverables were used in their construction. Ranges are approximate and confidence is highest for mid-career grades (R-07 through R-14). Actual role placement within any proprietary framework depends on organisation size, industry context, and role-specific factors that only that framework’s own evaluation process can determine. The named frameworks are trademarks of their respective owners; references are for identification and migration convenience only and do not imply endorsement or partnership. Any organisation relying on these ranges for pay band construction or compliance reporting should re-evaluate the role directly within REF™ using the full 8-factor scoring process to produce a defensible grade output.
Section 04
Factor Correspondence Map
How each REF™ factor relates to conceptually adjacent factors in commonly used proprietary frameworks.
KF / Hay
3 factors · ~1,000 pts · Guide Chart method
  • →Know-How
  • →Problem Solving
  • →Accountability
WTW GGS
7 factors · up to 25 global grades
  • →Job Functional Knowledge
  • →Business Expertise
  • →Leadership
  • →Problem Solving
  • →Nature of Impact
  • →Area of Impact
  • →Interpersonal Skills
Aon JobLink™
5 factors · 14 grade levels
  • →Knowledge
  • →Problem-Solving
  • →Accountability
  • →Interaction
  • →Working Conditions
Mercer IPE
4+1 factors · 10 dimensions · 48 classes
  • →Impact
  • →Communication
  • →Innovation
  • →Knowledge
  • →Risk (optional)
Section 05
Why REF™ is defensible
Five ways the methodology is architected to hold up under regulator scrutiny, tribunal challenge, and works council review.
01 · Directive-native architecture
Built against Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10
Every REF™ output is mapped to a specific obligation in the EU Pay Transparency Directive 2023/970. The factor framework satisfies Article 4 (gender-neutral criteria). The published methodology satisfies Article 6 (employee-accessible pay determination logic). The Workbench generates Article 5 pay range disclosures, Article 7 right-to-information responses within 60 days, Article 9 pay gap reporting, and Article 10 joint pay assessment support where the adjusted gap exceeds 5%.
02 · Gender-neutral by design
Documented rationale for every factor
All eight factors carry written gender-neutrality rationale, defensible in a joint pay assessment under Article 10 or an equal pay tribunal. The factor set deliberately balances dimensions that historically advantage different populations: technical depth (F-02, F-03, F-07) weights depth of mastery independently of people leadership (F-05), ensuring individual contributors are not structurally penalised against managers.
03 · External legal opinion
Commissioned validation planned
A commissioned opinion from recognised EU employment counsel on REF™'s Article 4 and 6 defensibility is planned for inclusion in the GC briefing pack provided to procurement teams. The opinion addresses whether the methodology satisfies the Directive's gender-neutral and employee-accessibility requirements, and whether it is defensible in a pay equity proceeding.
04 · Third-party certification
EDGE Certified Foundation, under active consideration
Independent gender-neutrality certification through the EDGE Certified Foundation is under active consideration. This would produce an independently verifiable Article 4 compliance signal, reinforcing REF™'s transparency positioning in enterprise procurement and providing an external credential that consultant-mediated proprietary frameworks typically cannot match.
05 · AI-assisted, not AI-determined
The methodology is the anchor. The AI is the accelerator.
Defensibility is anchored in REF™ itself, not in the AI that accelerates its application. The Workbench uses Anthropic Claude to propose an 8-factor evaluation; HR reviews, overrides where domain knowledge dictates, and approves. Both the AI-proposed score and any human override are retained as audit trail under Article 6 transparency requirements. If a tribunal, regulator, or works council asks why a role sits at its grade, the answer is the documented factor scores, not the opacity of a black-box model. This is the crucial distinction from AI-only pay analytics tools that cannot produce a regulator-facing methodology on demand.
Section 06
The Directive, Article by Article.
REF™ is the methodology layer. The Vareqa Workbench is the fulfilment layer. Together they deliver directly against the seven Articles of Directive 2023/970/EU that create concrete employer obligations. Each card below summarises one Article; the full matrix, with detailed fulfilment notes and explicit scoping of what the platform does not cover, sits on the dedicated compliance page.
Art. 4
Vareqa fulfils
Gender-neutral pay structures with criteria covering skills, effort, responsibility, and working conditions.
REF™'s eight factors map directly to Article 4(4) with documented gender-neutrality rationale at every level.
Art. 5
Vareqa fulfils
Salary range disclosure to applicants before interview. No pay history questions. Gender-neutral titles.
Pay Band Builder, Salary Range Publisher, and JD Writer with bias-detection. Versioned audit history.
Art. 6
Vareqa enables
Criteria for pay setting and pay progression made easily accessible to workers. Objective and gender-neutral.
WIF Documentation publishes the criteria. Progression policy authored by the employer; platform documents and tests it.
Art. 7
Vareqa fulfils
Worker right to information on individual pay and averages by sex for comparable roles, within 60 days.
Right-to-Information Report module in 14 languages with automatic 60-day deadline tracking and full factor-level rationale.
Art. 9
Vareqa fulfils
Seven mandatory pay gap indicators reported to Member State monitoring body. Annual for 250+, triennial for 100-249.
Pay Equity Audit with OLS regression. All seven Article 9(1) indicators produced from one data upload.
Art. 10
Vareqa fulfils
Joint pay assessment triggered by unjustified 5% gap in any worker category, unremedied within six months.
Joint Pay Assessment workflow with Within-Band Justification Report and remediation tracking.
Art. 18
Vareqa enables
The Article that makes every other Article matter. Where Articles 5 to 10 are not met, the burden of proof in a pay discrimination proceeding shifts to the employer. The "manifestly unintentional and minor" exception is narrow.
Vareqa's full audit trail, every grade, every override, every policy version, every Article 7 response, is the evidence base a General Counsel presents to discharge the shifted burden.
The full compliance matrix
Every Article. Full fulfilment detail. Explicit scoping of what sits outside the platform.
Tiered disclosure on each Article. Statutory wording, how Vareqa fulfils it, and the residual work the employer retains. Built for General Counsel review.
Open the full matrix
Section 07 · For HR practitioners
You've always known
this needed to be done.
The hardest conversation in HR is not about performance or redundancy. It's the one where an employee asks why they are paid what they are, and you cannot give them a real answer. Vareqa gives you that answer. Clear, documented, and defensible. Not just when a regulator asks, but when your people do.
Compliance timeline
June 2023
Directive entered into force
The Directive was published and came into force. Member states had three years to write it into their national legislation.
January 2025
Early transpositions active
Several member states moved ahead of the deadline. If you operate in those jurisdictions, obligations are already active.
June 2026
Deadline
Full transposition across all EU member states
Every employer with 100 or more employees needs a documented, gender-neutral job evaluation methodology. Salary ranges go in every job posting. Employees can ask for their grade, their pay range, and the average pay of comparable roles broken down by gender. You have 60 days to respond.
2026-2027
First pay gap reporting cycle
Employers with 100 to 249 staff report every three years. Those with 250 or more report every year. Reports go to national authorities and can be disclosed publicly.
Ongoing from 2026
Joint pay assessments triggered
If the gender pay gap sits above 5% and cannot be justified with objective data, a joint pay assessment is required with employee representatives. At that point, you must prove equal pay. The assumption is no longer in your favour.
What the law says, and why it reflects what good HR looks like anyway
A methodology you can explain
Good HR has always required this. Pay decisions based on objective, gender-neutral criteria are not just a legal requirement. They are what makes compensation credible. A written framework means you can explain any pay decision to any person in your organisation.
Article 4 also requires it. Without documentation, you have no defence in equal pay proceedings.
Employees deserve real answers
When someone asks why they are paid what they are, they should get a proper answer. Their grade, the criteria that placed them there, and what comparable roles earn. That is not just a legal obligation under Article 7. It is what trust in an organisation looks like.
The law requires a response within 60 days. Failure means fines and enforcement orders.
Honest job postings
Candidates spend time applying. Interviews take hours. Revealing the salary range only at the offer stage wastes everyone's time and damages trust. Publishing it upfront, as Article 5 requires, is simply more respectful. And it signals that you have nothing to hide.
Every posting without a range is a violation from day one. Rolling fines apply in several member states.
Understanding your own pay gap
Most organisations do not truly understand their gender pay gap. Not because they are hiding it, but because they have never had the tools to properly analyse it. Article 9 requires reporting, but the real value is in knowing. You cannot fix what you cannot see.
250+ employee organisations report annually. 100-249 report every three years. Reports can be made public.
Readiness checklist
Where does your organisation stand?
We can explain our pay decisions to anyone who asks
Not "we pay market rate." A documented framework with defined criteria, weightings and scoring. One you would be comfortable sharing with your employees.
F-01 to F-08
Every role has a grade and a pay range that goes with it
Not just bands on a spreadsheet. Documented grades with defined pay ranges that you can share when someone asks. Because someone will ask.
R-01 to R-20
We publish salary ranges in job adverts before the first interview
Internally and externally. It is respectful of candidates' time and it signals that your pay structure is something you are proud of.
Article 5
When an employee asks about their pay, we can give them a proper answer
Not a holding response. A documented grade rationale, their pay range, and the average pay of comparable roles broken down by gender. Within 60 days of the request.
Article 7
We understand our gender pay gap, not just the headline number
Grade-level analysis, bonus gap, and an honest look at whether unexplained differences exist. Knowing is the first step to fixing.
Article 9
Our evaluation criteria do not disadvantage any group
Each factor has been reviewed to confirm it measures contribution, not characteristics. That review is written down and available to anyone who asks: employee, regulator, or auditor.
Article 4
For employees
Questions your people will ask
When employees learn their organisation uses a formal evaluation framework, they have questions. Here are the ones that come up most often.
For HR leaders
Questions CHROs ask before adopting
These are the questions that come up in every senior procurement conversation, answered directly and honestly.
REF™ and the Vareqa Workbench were built for exactly this
Where does your organisation stand?
A 30-minute Compliance Risk Audit identifies specific exposure points under Articles 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10. No obligation. No platform demo unless you ask for one.
Book a Compliance Risk Audit