APS Selection Criteria Word Limits: A Practical Guide
Exceeding an APS selection criteria word limit is a compliance failure. Working significantly under it may signal insufficient evidence. Neither outcome serves your application.
The word limit is not an obstacle — it is a constraint that defines how precisely you must write. Understanding how to allocate words across the structural elements of a response, and how to adapt that allocation to different limit ranges, produces better results than simply writing until the space is used.
This guide explains typical APS word limits by role level, provides allocation strategies, and includes a worked breakdown of a 500-word response.
Generate Your APS Selection Criteria Responses
Paste the job ad and describe your experience.
APS Selection Helper will generate structured STAR responses aligned to APS selection criteria.
You can preview the draft before unlocking the full version.
Generate Selection Criteria Draft →
Typical APS Selection Criteria Word Limits
Word limits vary by agency, role level, and application format. The most common structures are:
Per-criterion word limits:
| APS Level |
Typical Per-Criterion Limit |
| APS 3–4 |
200–300 words |
| APS 5–6 |
300–500 words |
| EL1 |
400–600 words |
| EL2 |
400–600 words (sometimes no stated limit) |
Combined statement of claims:
Some agencies ask applicants to address all criteria in a single document with one total word limit. Common ranges:
- APS 5–6: 800–1,200 words
- EL1: 1,000–1,500 words
- EL2: 1,200–2,000 words
Always read the position description carefully. If the limit is not specified, treat 400 words as a working ceiling per criterion for APS 5–6 roles.
For guidance on what to include within that limit, see APS selection criteria examples and how to write APS selection criteria.
Word Allocation Strategy
Distributing words across the STAR elements determines whether your response is evidence-dense or background-heavy. Most applicants under-allocate to action and result — the two sections that panels mark — and over-allocate to situation.
Recommended allocation by section:
| Section |
Allocation |
| Situation (named context) |
15–20% |
| Task (your specific responsibility) |
10–15% |
| Action (what you did, decisions made) |
45–50% |
| Result (outcome, measurable) |
15–20% |
In a 400-word response, this means:
- Situation: 60–80 words
- Task: 40–60 words
- Action: 180–200 words
- Result: 60–80 words
If you exceed the limit, cut from the situation section first. Panels do not need extensive background on an agency's policy environment. They need to understand what you specifically did and what resulted.
Sample 500-Word APS Selection Criteria Breakdown
Below is a breakdown of how a 500-word per-criterion response at EL1 level should distribute content.
Criterion: Achieves results
Situation (75 words):
As EL1 Program Manager in the Department of Infrastructure, I was responsible for a grants administration program in which four of seven funded projects had fallen behind delivery milestones by the mid-year review point. The branch director indicated that if milestone reporting was not resolved within eight weeks, the program's funding approval for the following year was at risk.
Task (50 words):
My task was to design and implement a milestone recovery plan for the four affected projects, maintain relationships with each project proponent, and report against progress to the SES decision-maker.
Action (245 words):
I began by meeting individually with each project proponent to establish the root causes of the delays. In two cases, the delays were attributable to procurement constraints that the proponents had not escalated. In one case, the project scope had expanded without a formal variation request. In the fourth case, the delay was caused by a change in the proponent's leadership team.
I developed a tailored recovery approach for each project rather than applying a single process. For the procurement-delayed projects, I coordinated with the department's procurement team to prioritise processing and negotiated a six-week extension to the relevant milestone. For the scope-expanded project, I worked with the proponent to submit a formal variation, which I assessed and recommended for approval within five business days. For the leadership-disrupted project, I facilitated an introductory meeting between the new project lead and the program team, and prepared a structured handover document to reduce transition time.
I reported weekly to the branch director against a recovery dashboard I designed and maintained throughout the period.
Result (75 words):
All four projects returned to compliance within seven weeks. The program achieved full milestone reporting at the six-month reporting point. The branch director presented the recovery process to the SES as a model for milestone management in comparable programs. The program's funding was approved for the following financial year without qualification.
Total: approximately 445 words. The remaining words can be used to add a brief second example or to expand the action section with a further decision point.
Practical APS Selection Criteria Word Limit Formulas
For quick calculation:
At 300 words: Situation 50 / Task 40 / Action 140 / Result 70
At 400 words: Situation 70 / Task 50 / Action 200 / Result 80
At 500 words: Situation 80 / Task 60 / Action 245 / Result 75 (plus optional second example: 40 words)
At 1,000 words (combined statement, three criteria): Allocate approximately 320 words per criterion using the 400-word formula, compressing context to a single sentence per criterion.
Weak vs Strong: How Word Allocation Affects Scoring
Two responses can use the same word count and produce very different scores, depending on how those words are distributed. The contrast below uses the same criterion at APS5 level within a 350-word limit.
Weak Response (~350 words, poor allocation)
I have been working in policy for over eight years and have developed strong skills in stakeholder engagement, analysis, and communication. Throughout my career I have worked across several APS agencies including the Department of Finance, the Department of Home Affairs, and the Department of Infrastructure. I have experience working with both internal and external stakeholders, managing complex projects, and contributing to ministerial briefs and Cabinet submissions. My most recent role involved coordination of a working group on regulatory compliance. The working group met monthly and I was responsible for preparing agendas, distributing papers, and following up on action items. The working group completed its review of the regulatory framework and produced a report. I also contributed to other projects during this period and assisted my team with a range of tasks including research, analysis, and stakeholder communication. I am committed to delivering high-quality work and take pride in meeting deadlines.
Why this does not score: Approximately 60% of the word count is background and character description. The specific action is compressed into two sentences with no named stakeholders, no complexity, and no measurable result. A panel member cannot allocate marks from this response.
Strong Response (~350 words, correct allocation)
As APS5 Policy Officer at the Department of Infrastructure, I coordinated a regulatory compliance working group involving eight representatives from four agencies. Three months into the process, two agencies submitted conflicting positions on a proposed reporting threshold, threatening the group's ability to reach consensus before the statutory deadline.
I drafted a structured options paper setting out the points of difference, the legislative basis for each position, and three possible resolution pathways. I circulated the paper before the next session, facilitated a two-hour working session, and documented the agreed modifications in real time. The group reached consensus on a modified threshold that all agencies endorsed.
The final compliance report was submitted four days before the statutory deadline. The working group chair noted in the post-process review that the options paper had been the turning point in resolving the deadlock. The agreed threshold was incorporated into the regulatory instrument without amendment.
What changed: Background compressed to one sentence. Complexity identified immediately. The action section — drafting, facilitating, documenting — accounts for approximately 45% of the word count. The result is specific and attributable.
When to Merge Criteria
Some position descriptions list multiple criteria but specify a single word limit for all criteria combined. When this occurs, applicants must decide whether to address each criterion sequentially or to write an integrated response.
Recommended approach for combined criteria:
Identify the two or three strongest examples from your experience. Assign each example to one criterion. Where an example addresses more than one criterion, place it under the criterion it most clearly demonstrates and briefly cross-reference the second criterion in your result sentence.
Avoid allocating equal word counts mechanically. Some criteria require more evidence than others, and the position description will usually indicate which are considered primary through language such as "essential" or "highly desirable."
What to Cut If You Are Over the Limit
In order of what to cut first:
- Context and background — the situation section
- Transitional phrases: "as a result of this," "in order to ensure that"
- Descriptions of what the team or organisation did — retain only your individual action
- Adjective-heavy sentences that describe character rather than action
Do not cut the result. A response without a result is structurally incomplete and will score below one that includes one — even if the result is brief.
If You're Struggling to Structure Your Response
Structuring APS responses clearly and concisely is often harder than it looks.
APS Selection Helper generates structured drafts aligned to your job ad and experience. You remain in control of editing before submission.
Generate Selection Criteria Draft →
Frequently Asked Questions
What happens if I exceed the APS selection criteria word limit?
It depends on the agency. Some apply an automatic compliance screen and will not assess responses that exceed the stated limit. Others will read up to the word limit and stop, meaning the final section of your response may not be assessed. In either case, exceeding the limit is a risk you should not take.
Is a character limit the same as a word limit?
No. Character limits are stricter. A typical English word averages five to six characters plus a space. A 3,000-character limit is approximately 450–500 words. When applying with a character limit, calibrate your drafts to characters, not words.
Should I use my full word count?
Use as many words as you need to clearly present your situation, action, and result. Do not pad to reach the limit. Do not compress well below it without good reason. A response that uses 80–100% of the stated limit generally signals a candidate who has engaged seriously with the criterion.
Do agencies share the same word limit standards?
No. Word limit requirements vary significantly by agency, role type, and process. Some agencies use very short supplementary questions of 100–200 words. Others require extended capability statements. Always read the position description and any associated candidate information pack for the specific requirements of the role you are applying for.