Your case study is the one part of the APC where you choose the ground. The panel picks the questions everywhere else; here, you decide the project, the story and the emphasis, then open the interview with ten minutes of presentation built on it. Candidates who treat it as a form to fill miss the point. It is your opening argument.
Here are the current rules, the structure RICS requires, what assessors are actually checking, and the drafting framework we use to turn a project into a decision narrative.
The rules that are enforced
From the RICS Candidate Guide (August 2026 edition):
- 3,000 words maximum. The count runs from introduction to conclusion and includes headings, sub-headings and any tables or charts in the main body. The project name, dates, confidentiality statement, contents table, competency table and appendices sit outside the count. You must state your word count at the end.
- The 24-month window. The case study must centre on a project you were personally involved in during the 24 months before your submission date, on a rolling basis. The project can have started earlier, but your featured involvement has to sit inside the window, and the project start date must be clearly referenced. RICS will not accept a case study without it.
- These are checked, with consequences. RICS reserves the right to cancel a final assessment interview where the case study is over the word limit or otherwise invalid. This is a compliance gate, before anyone judges quality.
- Your own work, unassisted. Generative AI must not be used to produce submission content, and RICS runs plagiarism and AI-detection checks on all submissions.
Confidentiality also needs handling early: you need employer or client consent to disclose sensitive details, or you disguise the facts. Sort this when you choose the project, because discovering a consent problem in submission week is grim.
The required structure
The guide sets out four aspects, plus appendices:
- Introduction (around 500 words is suggested): the project, your role and level of responsibility, stakeholders and timeline.
- My approach: the key issue or issues, the options you considered, and why some were not feasible.
- My achievements: what you achieved and how, with examples of the reasoned advice you gave for your Level 3 competencies.
- Conclusion: reflection, lessons learnt, and what you would do differently.
Appendix A lists the competencies your case study demonstrates, on the RICS template. Further appendices (plans, photographs, illustrations) are allowed but must be kept to a minimum: the guide is explicit that they must support the report rather than extend it.
What assessors check for
The assessor guidance reduces to six questions, and they make an excellent self-review checklist:
- Is your personal contribution evident, or does the project star instead of you?
- Are the key issues clearly identified?
- Were options genuinely considered, with reasons for rejecting the alternatives?
- Is the chosen course supported by reasoned judgement?
- Does the conclusion evaluate outcomes and lessons learnt?
- Does the report demonstrate at least one competency to Level 3?
Notice the centre of gravity: options, reasoning, advice. A case study that narrates events ("the project experienced delays, and the team responded by...") fails these checks even when beautifully written. The panel is buying evidence of judgement. Our guide to what Level 3 actually means applies here more than anywhere.
SCORE: a drafting framework that fits the official structure
The official four aspects tell you what must be present. They do not tell you how to build a decision narrative. For that we teach SCORE, a five-step drafting frame that maps cleanly onto the RICS structure, with suggested word allocations from our Playbook:
- Setup (400 to 500 words): the context. Project, your role and authority, stage, constraints. This becomes your introduction.
- Challenge (300 to 400 words): the decision that had to be made and why it mattered. Money, time, risk, relationships: name the stakes.
- Options (800 to 1,000 words): two or three credible routes, each with real costs, time, risks and contractual angles. This is the largest allocation on purpose, because it is where judgement becomes visible.
- Recommendation (400 to 600 words): the route you advised and why, in your voice. "I advised the client to..." with the reasoning that carried it.
- Effect (300 to 400 words): what happened, in numbers. Outturn against forecast, variances, savings, risks that did or did not land.
Then close with 150 to 200 words of reflection: what you would keep and why, and what you would change and why. That covers the required conclusion. Treat the upper ends of the ranges as a menu rather than a target: they exist so you can flex words between sections, and your total, reflection included, must stay inside the 3,000.
Setup and Challenge feed the introduction; Options feeds My approach; Recommendation and Effect feed My achievements; the reflection is your conclusion. One narrative, both structures satisfied.
Choosing the project
The best case study project is rarely the biggest. You need a real decision with defensible alternatives, a meaningful personal role, and dates inside the 24-month window at your submission date (check this against the current deadlines, especially if your timeline might slip a session). Mid-sized projects often work best: large enough to contain a genuine dilemma, small enough that your contribution is unmistakable.
Choose early. The candidates who write the strongest case studies pick their project months out, while there is still time to steer their remaining exposure towards the story. And remember the interview mechanics: your ten-minute presentation comes from this document, the first ten minutes of questioning stay on it, and the panel can push into anything it touches. Write nothing you cannot defend two questions deep.
Where to go from here
Draft early, get it challenged, and rehearse it aloud before it counts. The written structure above gets you a compliant, well-built case study; the interview guide covers defending it. If you want structured help, the Cohort Programme includes a Case Study Clinic with review before your documents lock, and the APC Playbook contains the full SCORE walkthrough for £25.