Reach B1 in a New Language

Proof required

Submit a 15-minute recording (the story itself should be at least 3 uninterrupted minutes within it; the rest can be follow-up discussion). Write 200 words on: what made this story hard to tell (a specific grammar point, vocabulary gap, or structural challenge), and one moment where the native speaker had to ask you to clarify something — what was unclear and why.

What gets checked

• The narrative has real structure — a setup, something that happened or went wrong, and a resolution — not a flat list of disconnected past-tense facts strung together
• At least 3 continuous minutes of the learner speaking with minimal interruption — this tests sustained production, which is qualitatively different from the back-and-forth conversation tested at A2
• The clarification moment described is genuine and specific — names the actual word, tense, or structural confusion, not a vague 'I struggled sometimes'

Resources

Foundation: start here · Depth: go deeper · Mastery: for the dedicated

What a verifier looks for

• Listen for connective language — then, but, because, although — not just a string of simple past-tense statements. This is the specific marker distinguishing genuine narrative from an A2-level fact list.
• Check whether the 3+ minutes of narration sound freshly spoken or recited — listen for natural hesitation, self-correction, or restructuring mid-sentence, versus a suspiciously smooth, uniform delivery.
• Ask the learner to tell a SECOND, different short story live and unscripted, to confirm the narrative ability is general and not specific to one rehearsed story.

Proof required

Submit a 15-minute recording covering the opinion discussion. Before the conversation, state your chosen opinion topic in writing. In your written submission (200 words), quote (in the target language) one specific pushback the native speaker gave you, and describe how you responded — did you hold your position, qualify it, or change your mind?

What gets checked

• The native speaker genuinely pushes back at least once — not a polite conversation where they simply agree with everything the learner says; if there is no real friction, the milestone has not been tested
• The learner's response to pushback is substantive — using language like 'I understand your point, but...' or 'that's true in some cases, however...' rather than simply repeating the original statement more emphatically
• The quoted pushback and the learner's described response are both verifiable in the recording at the timestamp implied

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Listen for a genuine moment of disagreement in the recording — if the conversation is entirely agreeable throughout, the core requirement of this milestone hasn't been met regardless of how well the learner speaks.
• Check the learner's response to pushback for qualifying or concessive language ('that's true, but...', 'I hadn't considered that, however...') rather than flat repetition of the original opinion.
• Ask the learner: 'What's the strongest argument against your own opinion?' live and unscripted. A learner who can articulate the opposing view fairly, even while maintaining their own position, shows genuine B1-level argumentative engagement.

Proof required

Submit a 10-minute recording of the roleplay (or a written account plus any supporting artifact, if this was a genuine real-world complication that couldn't be recorded). Describe in 200 words: what went wrong, what you said to try to resolve it, whether it actually got resolved in the conversation, and one phrase or structure you wish you'd had but didn't.

What gets checked

• The complication is genuinely unexpected or improvised within the scenario — not a smoothly executed transaction with no friction; the native speaker playing the role (or the real situation) must introduce a real obstacle
• The learner's response shows actual problem-solving language — asking for alternatives, explaining the issue, negotiating a solution — not just repeating the original request more insistently
• The honest gap reflection (one phrase you wish you'd had) shows genuine self-awareness about a specific limitation, which is itself valuable data for what to study next

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm the complication in the recording is genuinely difficult to resolve, not a smooth transaction with a token obstacle inserted for form's sake.
• Listen for negotiation and problem-solving language — asking about alternatives, explaining the issue clearly, proposing solutions — rather than simply repeating the original request with more emphasis.
• Ask the learner: 'What would you do differently if this happened again?' A specific, practical answer suggests real engagement with the scenario rather than a performed exercise.

Proof required

Submit a 15-minute recording. Identify in your written submission (150 words) at least 2 distinct hypothetical or conditional constructions you used in the recording, with timestamps and the exact phrase (in the target language). Write 100 words on whether hypothetical language felt natural or forced, and why.

What gets checked

• At least 2 genuinely different hypothetical or conditional constructions appear in natural conversation — not isolated example sentences recited out of context, and not the same construction repeated twice
• The timestamps and quoted phrases are accurate and verifiable against the recording
• The reflection on whether it felt natural or forced is specific and honest — most learners find conditional/hypothetical language genuinely harder than narrative past tense, and an honest account of that difficulty is expected, not a failure

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Verify the timestamps and quoted phrases actually correspond to conditional or hypothetical usage in the recording.
• Confirm the two constructions are genuinely different from each other, not the same phrase repeated with minor variation.
• Ask the learner to construct one additional hypothetical sentence live, on a new topic, to confirm the ability generalizes beyond the specific examples prepared for the recording.

Proof required

Submit the recording (25 minutes minimum). Write 300 words identifying where in the conversation each of the three modes (narrative, opinion-defense, hypothetical) occurred, with timestamps. Write a final 200-word honest self-assessment of your B1 level: what's now comfortable, what still requires real effort, and what you expect to be the hardest part of progressing to B2.

What gets checked

• All three modes (narrative, opinion-defense, hypothetical) genuinely appear within the single 25-minute conversation, not three separate clips stitched together — this tests integration, not just isolated skill demonstration
• The conversation moves between modes with some natural flow — not three rigid, clearly delineated sections that feel like separate mini-exams
• The final self-assessment is honest and specific about remaining limitations — a B1 learner who claims no remaining difficulty has likely overestimated their level, and the assessment should reflect genuine awareness of the B1-to-B2 gap

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm all three modes (narrative, opinion-defense, hypothetical) genuinely appear in the recording at the timestamps claimed — listen to each moment described.
• Listen for natural transitions between modes rather than three abrupt, clearly separate segments — does the conversation feel like one continuous exchange or three stitched-together exercises?
• Read the final self-assessment for honest, specific acknowledgment of remaining gaps. Probe with a follow-up question if the assessment seems suspiciously complete or confident for this level.
• If you speak the target language, this is the strongest milestone to verify directly — listen for register flexibility (can the learner shift tone and formality between modes) which is a genuine marker of approaching B2.