How a fact gets on this site, and how it gets changed
Every training provider says its material is up to date. It costs nothing to say and nothing to fake. So here is the actual process, the actual sources, and the actual numbers — including the one that is least flattering. It is the process behind every Hallmark on the site: the date a person last confirmed a fact against its source.
The position right now
The least recently checked fact is ChatGPT — Made by, last confirmed 27 September 2026. We publish that number because a freshness claim you cannot audit is just an adjective.
The process
Watch, by tier
47 sources, sorted by how much their word is worth. A tool maker’s own newsroom, pricing page or developer documentation is evidence, and so is a regulator’s own page or the legislation itself. A trade publication reporting that announcement is a pointer to evidence, and is treated as one.
Read the article, not the headline
The full page is fetched and read. Where a trade article links back to the company’s or regulator’s own announcement, that is followed too — because the announcement is the evidence and the article is a link to it. Nothing may change a fact on the strength of a feed summary.
Try to disprove it
A separate adversarial pass is given the claim and the source and told its job is to stop wrong information being published. It has to quote the source word for word. A change described as rolling out, in preview, in testing, or available in some countries or on some plans is not treated as a change that has happened.
Check the quote is real
The quote is then matched against the source page in code. If it cannot be found there, the verdict is thrown away regardless of how confident it sounded. This step exists because a check that relies on the checker being honest is not a check.
Score it, and say why
Source tier, verdict, whether the quote was verified, how many independent sources agree, and whether the size of the change is plausible for a fact of that kind. A proposal that fails the bar never reaches review at all — and the count of what was blocked is kept.
A person decides
Nothing automated writes to a fact. Ever. A proposal arrives with its source, its quote and its score, and a human accepts it, edits it or throws it out. Approving it records what changed and why.
Go looking, without waiting
Most drift is never announced — a plan limit in a help-centre article or a price on a pricing page quietly becomes a different number. So every fact carries a re-check schedule, weighted by how often it has actually moved, and the highest-risk ones are read again whether or not anything prompted it. A confirmation is recorded as carefully as a change, because it is the evidence behind the date you see.
Check ourselves
Every week the knowledge base is audited against itself for contradictions, broken references, prices and limits typed into prose instead of referenced, and gaps where we track something for one tool and not another. That audit needs no judgement and no model, so it keeps working whatever else does not.
What we won’t claim
We won’t claim the facts are never wrong. Tool makers ship changes without announcing them, roll features out to some accounts and countries before others, and occasionally contradict their own documentation. What we will claim is narrower and checkable: every fact carries the date a human last confirmed it against a source, and when one changes, the previous value stays on the record.
If you find a fact that is wrong, tell us and we will fix it and log it like any other change.
