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'

Common mistakes

• Telling a story that's really just a sequence of simple statements ('I went there. I saw this. I ate that.') without genuine narrative connective tissue — words like 'then,' 'but,' 'because,' 'even though' are what make this B1-level, not A2-level
• Memorizing and reciting the story word-for-word in advance rather than narrating it freshly — a verifier can usually hear the difference between genuine real-time narration and recitation

Resources

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.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

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

Common mistakes

• Choosing a tutor who is naturally agreeable and won't genuinely push back — tell your conversation partner explicitly in advance that you need them to disagree with you for this milestone, even if it feels artificial to ask for
• Responding to pushback by simply repeating your original statement word-for-word, louder or more slowly — this is not engagement, it's a stalemate, and does not demonstrate B1-level argumentative flexibility
• Capitulating immediately to any pushback just to avoid the discomfort of disagreement — qualifying or defending a position, even partially, is what this milestone tests; instant total agreement avoids the skill rather than demonstrating it

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.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

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

Common mistakes

• Having the native speaker play along too smoothly, resolving the complication too easily without requiring genuine negotiation language from the learner — ask your conversation partner in advance to make the scenario genuinely difficult to resolve
• Switching to English mid-roleplay the moment the improvisation gets hard — if this happens, it should be honestly reported rather than edited out or glossed over in the written account

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.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

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

Common mistakes

• Avoiding hypothetical topics entirely because they're harder, sticking to safe past/present tense topics throughout the conversation — if this happens, the milestone simply hasn't been attempted yet, regardless of how well the conversation otherwise went
• Using one memorized hypothetical phrase ('what would you do if...') repeatedly without genuine variation — a verifier should hear the construction used in at least two meaningfully different ways

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.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

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

Common mistakes

• Pre-planning the conversation so rigidly with the native speaker that it feels like three separate scripted segments rather than one flowing conversation — some advance framing is fine ('let's make sure we cover an opinion topic and a hypothetical at some point'), but the execution should feel natural
• Overstating B1 completion in the final reflection to feel further along than is genuinely true — this is the same integrity standard as every Powstik proof; an honest 'I can do X but Y is still hard' is more valuable than an inflated claim

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.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.