COAD deals with fast-moving evidence: AI capability, labour market data and government reports. Here's the process we follow to keep our research and this website honest.
This page describes our process rather than listing every correction. We fix errors as part of normal, ongoing maintenance, as any careful publisher does.
We base our claims on named, authoritative sources. Where a figure or claim can't be verified against a source like these, we say so instead of 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 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. If we find something that cuts against our position, we say so instead of leaving it out. Some weeks the search turns up nothing; when it does find something, we want to know.
Where we cite a named person's quote, or a figure tied to a periodic release (such as a fund's quarterly update or a statistics agency release), we re-check it against the original source from time to time. Quotes can be misattributed as they circulate, and periodic figures go stale between updates, so we recheck both regularly instead of verifying them once.
Some of our main figures update on a predictable schedule, such as a fund's half-yearly report, a statistics release or 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 standard to check our work against instead of 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If you spot something on this site that looks wrong or out of date, we want to know about it.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.