Certified Practitioners
Trained practitioners deliver AQ, Flywheel and CCi work under licence. I review the output. I do not deliver it.
Open cohort
Open cohort · two certifications a year
The licence fee is a revenue share, published in the practitioner agreement. Bands as at 26 August 2026.
For experienced consultants and internal transformation leads who want to deliver these instruments under licence, properly, with the scoring standards intact.
This is not a badge. Certification is revoked for delivering a score without the as-at date, and that has already happened once.
No curriculum. That is the definition of the tier.
This tier exists because of an arithmetic problem I would rather state than hide. Coaching is capped by my calendar. Six seats is a ceiling by design, and a practice where coaching is most of the revenue is not a business — it is a job with good margins.
So the Programs layer has to be deliverable by people who are not me. Certified Practitioners are trained on the instruments, licensed to deliver AQ, Flywheel and CCi engagements, and reviewed by me on output rather than supervised on process.
The standard that matters is the evidence standard. A practitioner may disagree with my reading of a score. A practitioner may not publish a figure without a grade and a date.
Four things, honestly stated.
There is no application fee and no discovery call script. These four answers tell me whether this is the right tier — and if it is not, I will say which one is, including when the answer is “none of them yet”.
Your delivery record — engagements, sectors, sizes.
Which instrument you intend to lead with.
A worked example of your own output, with your own figures tagged.
Whether you hold conflicting certifications or licences.
Questions about Certified Practitioners
Answered plainly, with the real figures. If something here is wrong, tell us and it goes in the log.
Certification is ₹3.5L and runs twelve weeks, with cohorts twice a year. The licence itself is annual and carries a revenue share, published in the practitioner agreement. Individual engagements are priced by the practitioner rather than by Elango. Figures as at 26 August 2026.
The AQ Benchmark, the AI Flywheel 90-Day Start and the CCi Sprint, under the published methodology. Practitioners are reviewed on output rather than supervised on process: Elango reviews the finished artefact and the evidence tags on it. Each practitioner is listed publicly, with the engagements delivered and the year of certification.
Experienced consultants and internal transformation leads who intend to deliver these instruments under licence with the scoring standards intact. It is not a badge. Assessment is on a live engagement rather than an exam, and applicants submit a worked example of their own output with their own figures already tagged.
Yes. Certification is revoked for delivering a score without the as-at date, and that has already happened once. A practitioner may disagree with Elango's reading of a score; a practitioner may not publish a figure without a grade and a date. The evidence standard is the part that is not negotiable.
Because coaching is capped by one calendar. Six seats is a ceiling by design, and a practice where coaching is most of the revenue is a job with good margins rather than a business. The Programs layer therefore has to be deliverable by people who are not Elango, which is what the practitioner licence exists to make possible.
A different shape of access.
The Founder's Table
One-to-one with Elango. Monthly session, quarterly on-site, a direct line in between. Their agenda, not mine.
The Board Seat
Quarterly advisory to a family group’s board or a founder’s leadership team. Portfolio governance, deliberately not operations.