The recent overhaul of the United Kingdom’s flagship disability benefit scheme introduced new eligibility criteria and certification requirements aimed at increasing support for disabled workers. Campaigners argue the revisions fall short of their aims because the framework permits employers to qualify for benefits without employing a disabled employee, leaving many clients underserved. The policy change was framed as a measure to streamline administrative burden, yet critics contend it can undermine the protective intent of the national welfare safety net. _2_ Charitable organisations that advocate for disability rights highlighted that the certification process allows an employer to self‑declare compliance with the scheme’s standards in the absence of a single disabled individual on their payroll. The certification criteria focus on infrastructure readiness, staff training, and public reporting obligations, all of which can be satisfied without direct employment of disabled persons. Scientific audits of the application data reveal a discrepancy between the intended support for disabled workers and the actual demographic profile of certified employers; preliminary statistics indicate that less than one percent of certified firms employ disabled staff. This gap raises questions about the efficacy of the scheme in meeting its stated objectives, prompting calls for amendment to the certification model. _3_ The policy’s current structure, while technically compliant with national disability law, appears to enable a form of ‘professionalism in absence’ that may commodify certification benefits. The federal institution overseeing the scheme has issued a statement acknowledging the need for ongoing evaluation and has opened a public consultation period to solicit stakeholder feedback. If reforms were to be enacted, they would likely require tightening of the eligibility conditions for certification, imposing direct employment thresholds, or creating incentive mechanisms for firms that increase their disabled workforce. The ongoing debate reflects broader tensions between administrative efficiency and the substantive protection of a vulnerable population, underscored by the need for continued data transparency and responsive governance.