COAD deals with fast-moving evidence — AI capability, labour market data, government reports. Here's the process we follow to keep our research and this website honest.
This page describes our process, not a running public list of corrections. We fix things as part of normal, ongoing maintenance — the same way any careful publisher does.
We ground our claims in named, authoritative sources rather than assertion. Where a figure or claim can't be verified against a source like this, we say so rather than presenting it as settled fact.
Every week we run a structured review of COAD's evidence base. We check what's changed, brief ourselves on new AI and policy developments, update our internal documents and this website where the evidence has moved, and specifically audit the live site against our source material to catch drift between what we've published and what the sources actually say.
Part of that weekly review is a deliberate search for the strongest evidence against COAD's case — not only evidence that supports it. If we find something that cuts against our position, we say so rather than leaving it out. Some weeks that turns up nothing; when it does, we'd rather know.
Where we cite a named person's quote, or a figure tied to a periodic release — a fund's quarterly update, a statistics agency release — we periodically re-check it against the original source. Quotes can be mis-attributed as they circulate, and periodic figures go stale between updates, so we treat both as needing a periodic recheck rather than a one-off verification.
Some of our key figures update on a predictable schedule — a fund's half-yearly report, a statistics release, a regulator's results. We keep a calendar of when the sources we rely on are next expected to update, so a figure doesn't quietly go stale just because nobody happened to check it that week.
We apply the PMBOK® Guide's principles-based framework to how we plan and govern this work, and the Australian Government Style Manual to how we write it. Neither guarantees we'll always get it right — but both give us a consistent bar to check our own work against, rather than relying on our own judgement alone.
If you spot something on this site that looks wrong or out of date, we want to know about it. Get in touch, or dig into the sources yourself.