Validation that changes something

Most produces a form and no change to the tool.

Validation is a requirement in most frameworks and is widely performed as a documented review of assessment tools against criteria, producing a completed form and a conclusion that the tool is compliant. That is a check on the paperwork's relationship to itself.

Validation that does work examines actual completed assessments, including borderline ones, and asks whether the judgements made were defensible on the evidence. That surfaces both tool problems and assessor problems, and it is uncomfortable in a way the document review is not.

It also needs somebody in the room who did not write the tool and does not deliver it. A team validating its own work will find formatting issues and will not find the assumption everybody shares, which is usually where the problem is.

The output should be a change. A validation that concludes everything is satisfactory, repeatedly, across years, is either examining a genuinely excellent set of tools or is not examining anything, and the second is far more common.

Recording the changes made, with dates, is what demonstrates the process functions. A file of completed validation forms with no corresponding revisions to tools tells a clear story to anybody reading both.