How to verify Microsoft certifications and assess real project experience

Begin with the person who will do the work

A resource provider may describe a broad pool of certified professionals, but your engagement depends on the people actually assigned. Ask for the named specialist's relevant credentials and project responsibilities. Avoid treating a company-level badge, partner designation or colleague's certification as proof that the proposed person holds the same achievement.

Define why a credential matters to your assignment. A functional role, development role and architecture role require different evidence. A Business Central functional consultant should be able to relate product knowledge to business processes, while an AL developer needs to demonstrate implementation judgement. The aim is role fit, not the largest collection of logos on a profile.

Request verifiable evidence rather than a screenshot

Microsoft provides sharing options through the Learn profile for credentials and transcripts. Ask the candidate to supply the appropriate shared link and check it in the context of the named person. Microsoft notes that privacy settings affect verification. If a link cannot be viewed, ask the candidate to resolve sharing settings or provide an appropriate alternative review arrangement.

Record what was checked and when, without collecting unnecessary personal information. A screenshot can help explain a problem, but it does not provide the same ability to inspect the live shared record. Microsoft's guidance also distinguishes an exam from a credential. If a profile lists only an exam code, clarify the actual achievement rather than converting it into a certification claim yourself.

Separate active status, retirement and historical achievement

A retired certification offering is not the same as a person never having earned it. Microsoft's retirement guidance says a credential earned or renewed before retirement can remain active on the transcript until its expiry, after which it moves to historical certifications. Therefore, read the person's record and the offering's status as two related but distinct facts.

This distinction matters in recruitment. Rejecting every retired credential can discard relevant experienced candidates; presenting every old badge as a current offering can mislead buyers. Ask what the specialist has done recently with the product and how they maintain relevant skills. Treat the credential as evidence with a date and scope, not as an unlimited assurance of current practical capability.

Read the October 2026 retirement notices carefully

As checked on 14 October 2026, Microsoft's retirement list includes Dynamics 365 Field Service Functional Consultant Associate, Power Platform Solution Architect Expert and Power Automate RPA Developer Associate among offerings retired on 30 June 2026. Customer Experience Analyst Associate retired on 31 July 2026, and Power Platform Functional Consultant Associate on 31 August 2026. Check the live official pages when making a hiring decision because notices can change.

A separate transition concerns PL-400. Microsoft's developer certification page states that registration closes on 16 October 2026, with eligible registrants able to take PL-400 through 30 October, and AB-400 becoming available from 16 October. This is an exam transition within the developer credential context. Do not interpret a course retirement, exam transition and certification retirement as interchangeable events.

Match credential scope to the actual assignment

Read the credential title and relevant skills scope, then compare it with the work. A credential relevant to the platform may still leave gaps in your particular module, integration or industry process. Certification should help shape interview questions, not remove the need to ask them. An experienced specialist should be comfortable explaining both strengths and limits.

For a Power Apps developer, ask about the kinds of applications, extensions and delivery responsibilities actually handled. For a Dynamics 365 Field Service functional consultant, examine work-order processes, scheduling decisions and user adoption experience relevant to your scope. A profile can be appropriate even when its credential history needs careful description, provided practical evidence supports the assignment.

Ask candidates to explain their own project contribution

Choose one relevant project example and ask what the specialist personally owned. Follow the work from requirement through design, validation and handover. Which decisions were theirs? Which required another specialist? What failed or changed? These questions distinguish direct delivery experience from participation in a large team where someone else performed the critical work.

Respect confidentiality. Candidates should be able to discuss an anonymized scenario, a sanitized artifact or a general design tradeoff without sharing customer secrets. Do not reward people for exposing proprietary data. Clear explanations of constraints, alternatives and lessons are often more informative than a recognizable client name, especially for specialist roles with narrow responsibilities.

Use a scenario that resembles the real problem

A practical assessment should test reasoning relevant to the engagement. Present a short business scenario, state the known constraints and ask what information is missing. For functional work, explore process exceptions and acceptance. For development, discuss maintainability, errors and deployment. For analytics, ask how metrics would be reconciled and data access validated.

Avoid unpaid production assignments disguised as interviews. A bounded discussion or sanitized exercise can reveal judgement without asking candidates to solve the client's entire backlog. Use the same evaluation criteria for comparable profiles and record evidence rather than impressions. Someone who asks a careful clarifying question may be a stronger fit than someone who offers an immediate answer to an underspecified problem.

Evaluate communication and operational responsibility

Ask the specialist to explain a difficult issue to a business owner and then to a technical reviewer. Different audiences need different detail. Assess whether the person identifies uncertainty, states assumptions and proposes a clear next step. These habits affect delivery across countries and time zones as much as knowledge of product features.

Discuss what happens after implementation: documentation, support ownership, review of failures and orderly handover. A certified resource who cannot explain how their work is maintained may need additional delivery support. That is not necessarily a reason to reject the person, but it should influence role boundaries and the team around them. Record those boundaries before agreeing the engagement.

Make a balanced selection decision

Combine credential verification, relevant project evidence, practical assessment and operating fit. Keep the result specific: suitable for the proposed work with identified support needs, rather than a vague label of “expert in everything.” If evidence is missing, request clarification instead of silently filling the gap with assumptions about seniority, employer reputation or certification count.

Recheck important facts if the assignment changes substantially or there is a long delay before onboarding. The person proposed should be the person assessed, unless a replacement is reviewed through an agreed process. Maintain an internal record of the selection rationale so future managers understand why the resource was chosen and which responsibilities remain with the client or lead partner.

• Request the credential evidence for the actual proposed specialist, not a general team profile.
• Record the date of verification and any unresolved difference between the résumé and shared record.
• Use a realistic scenario that evaluates the responsibilities the person will actually own.
• Keep confidential customer information out of interview exercises and reject unnecessary disclosure.