Clear facts.
Fair comparisons.

How do we write for students?

We aim for Grade 7 reading level. We use short sentences and explain technical terms. We answer first, then add the facts that change a choice.

We replace praise with evidence. We show sourced strengths alongside fees, attendance rules, limits and gaps. A detail marked “not confirmed” is not evidence of poor service.

We do not promise a licence, job, income, completion time or search result without evidence. The site does not choose a provider for you.

Where did the information come from?

Provider-supplied information

A provider’s statement. It needs a source and must not be called an independent check.

Student experience

One person’s account. It is not proof of every student’s experience.

Independently checked fact

A claim checked against a named source, with the method and date recorded.

Existing sourced draft

Earlier guidance with a source record. This editorial update has not rechecked its factual accuracy.

A link to a source does not, by itself, prove a claim is current.

How are providers compared?

A registered training organisation (RTO) must pass the same checks as every other provider. Registration, approved course scope and an actual course offer are separate checks. “Scope” means the courses an RTO is approved to deliver.

An official published cancellation decision means immediate exclusion, even if its effective date is later or an appeal is pending. This is our directory rule, not a legal trading-status claim. Suspended, expired and withdrawn registrations are also excluded. Registration is not a rating of teaching quality.

Real comparisons need at least two eligible providers for the same course. Locations and delivery modes need current source evidence. A head office is not a teaching location.

The default order is name A–Z, then stable ID. Alternatives use compatible study locations and delivery modes. We show up to three. Claimed or paid status does not change the result.

Each provider gets the same fields, space and evidence standard. Fee comparisons need the same course, student group, state, currency, fee basis and subsidy conditions. Missing or non-comparable totals come last; they are never treated as free.

Can providers pay to rank higher?

No paid ranking operates here. The current rule is that payment must not change listing checks, facts, review treatment or organic comparison order. Advertising spaces are labelled static preview placeholders. No paid campaign operates here.

The peer-reviewed proposal separates free factual corrections and representative checks from optional paid presentation help. These are planned services, not active features. Commercial terms still need agreement.

The listing price, service terms and billing period are not set. There is no checkout.

Can students ask questions or post reviews?

Not through this preview. There is no question inbox, review form or personal-data store.

Before a feature opens, we need actual rules for privacy, public names, review checks, moderation and provider replies. Those policies are not yet set.

The editorial standard is to preserve the student’s voice. Moderation should address relevance, privacy and unsupported allegations, not whether an experience is favourable. No review-verification claim is made here.

How can a fact be corrected?

Factual corrections must not depend on payment. The current correction page explains what public evidence would help. No contact address is published yet.

The operator, responsible editor and working correction process must be set before launch. A build-time check is not live monitoring.