Who writes this, and how you can check it
Most training sites answer this question with a stock photo and a job title. That tells you nothing you can verify. What follows is the process instead — which is the part that actually determines whether the material is any good.
Who writes it
The 28 modules are written and edited in-house by the Academy’s editorial team, in the UK. We do not publish invented bylines: attaching a fictional author with a fictional biography to material is a common practice in this industry and we are not going to do it in order to look more credible. Where a claim needs authority, it gets a source you can open, which is worth more than a name you cannot check.
What counts as a source
For anything a platform controls — a limit, a dimension, an eligibility threshold — the only acceptable source is that platform’s own documentation, newsroom or help centre. For UK rules, it is the regulator’s own page or the legislation itself. Industry commentary is used to find out that something may have changed; it is never used as the evidence that it did.
27 sources are monitored weekly for exactly this purpose. Every tracked fact carries its source link on the page where it appears, so you can go and read the original in one click.
How AI is used, and where it stops
We use AI in two places, and it is worth being precise about both. It helps classify the weekly firehose of platform announcements, deciding which items might affect a fact we hold. And it drafts structure for supporting guides. That is the extent of it.
It does not approve a change to a fact, and it cannot. Every fact revision is read by a person against the primary source before it is applied, and the record of that revision is public. A drafted guide is constrained to real modules, real glossary entries and real verified facts — anything invented is stripped before a human ever sees it — and nothing reaches the public site without being approved.
When we get something wrong
Platforms ship changes without announcing them, roll features out to some accounts before others, and sometimes contradict their own documentation. So we will get things wrong. When that happens the correction goes through the same process as any other change: the previous value stays on the record, with the date it was believed and the date it was corrected. It appears in the changelog like everything else, rather than being quietly edited away.
If you spot something, tell us and we’ll fix it and log it.
What we won’t do
- Publish a fabricated author, review or testimonial.
- Claim a certificate is recognised by anyone who has not said so.
- Present commentary about a platform change as confirmation of it.
- Change a “last updated” date without a corresponding change.
- Teach a specification without recording where it came from.
