Skip to main content

Traceable guidance

Where do our facts come from, and how are corrections handled?

Important claims should lead back to the organisation that owns the rule, decision or data. If guidance changes or a claim is wrong, send the exact page and source so the publisher can check and correct it.

RecruitmentNSHCS, Oriel, nation-specific training bodies and recruiting employers.
Registration and rolesHCPC, GOV.UK and the body responsible for a scheme or recognition.
Pay and vacanciesOfficial national pay publications and the live employer vacancy.

What makes a source authoritative?

It is published by the organisation that owns the rule, decision, programme or dataset. A recruiter is authoritative for its process; a regulator for registration; an employer for a particular vacancy; and a national body for its pay settlement.

How do we use secondary sources?

They can help explain context or identify questions, but they do not override the responsible official body. Where sources conflict, we prefer the primary decision-maker and say when an interpretation is ours.

How should you report a correction?

  • Give the exact page URL or title
  • Quote or summarise the claim that appears wrong
  • Explain why it may be wrong or outdated
  • Link to the strongest official source available
  • Do not send personal, patient or confidential information

What happens after a report?

The publisher checks the claim against the strongest available source. The outcome may be a correction, clearer scope, a replacement link, removal of an unsupported statement or an explanation that the published wording is being retained. A material time-sensitive change should also refresh the checked date.

Can a checked date guarantee a page is current?

No. It tells you when the editorial check was made. Always follow the named official link before acting on a deadline, vacancy, pay figure, application rule or registration requirement.

Which limitations should readers remember?

  • This is independent general guidance, not an official recruitment service
  • The site cannot confirm individual eligibility
  • Cached vacancy data may lag the live employer page
  • Historical competition data do not predict a future result
  • Practice interview prompts are independently written, not official or recalled

Make a report useful

Can you point us to the exact claim and source?

That gives the publisher the fastest route to a fair check and clear correction.

Sources and review date