The declaration has your name on it.
You are accountable for compliance you do not personally perform, across a registration you cannot personally inspect. What you need is not a longer report — it is an honest number, early warning when it moves, and the ability to answer a board question without commissioning a project.
Board-ready exports come from the records, not from a separate assembly job.A contributor that cannot be calculated is dropped from the average rather than scored zero.
Every sub-score and weight in the breakdown
The reality
You find out late, and you find out from someone who is worried.
Most chief executives of an RTO learn about a compliance problem in one of two ways: a report that arrives quarterly and describes the position two months ago, or a conversation that begins with someone looking uncomfortable. Neither is early enough to be useful, and neither tells you whether the problem is one thing or a pattern.
The gap is not effort. Your compliance manager is working hard, and the work is being done. It is that the evidence of that work lives in documents rather than in a system that can tell you what it adds up to.
Where you actually stand
A number you can defend, and the arithmetic behind it.
The compliance health score is a weighted average of the four Quality Areas, and each of those is a weighted average of things the platform observes — coverage of your training products, validation run on time, trainer credentials current, complaints handled, policies reviewed.
Open the breakdown to see how the headline number is built: each Quality Area's sub-score and weight, and inside it every contributing signal with its own score and weight — or “No data” where a signal has not been fed yet. That matters more than the number: a score nobody can interrogate is a score the board learns to discount.
- Compare against the previous period, then export the board pack as a PDF
- Every figure traces to the records it was calculated from
- Six scope items have no current strategyDetected 2 hours ago · affects 6 of 19 scope itemsBuild TAS
- Two industry licences expire within 30 daysTrainers notified · managers copiedReview
- A recurring finding was raised against Standard 1.3Second occurrence this schedule · linked to RP-011-04Open plan
Risk appetite
Say how much risk is acceptable, then find out when it is not.
Appetite is set in two dimensions — likelihood and consequence — rather than as a single number, because “almost certain and minor” is a different decision from “unlikely and catastrophic”. An acceptance outside appetite has to be signed off, and it expires on a date, so a decision cannot quietly become permanent.
Early warnings then move the register on their own. When rectification items run past their threshold, the likelihood on the linked risk rises and you are told in plain English rather than through a change in a score.
What this replaces
From a quarterly report to a standing position.
- A compliance report describing where you stood two months agoA current position you can open at any time
- A board pack assembled by hand the week before the meetingAn export produced from the records the work is done in
- A number nobody on the board can interrogateA score whose breakdown shows every sub-score and its weight
- Hearing about a problem when it is already a problemAn early warning while it is still a trend
Where this connects
For compliance managers
Three time horizons at once, and the evidence is in someone else's inbox.
Read moreFor training managers
Strategies that have to survive scrutiny from the regulator and from industry.
Read moreFor trainers and assessors
You are the reason the system exists, and the one buried in its paperwork.
Read more
Find out what your last audit would have looked like with a system behind it.
14 days, no credit card, and the Standards are already loaded when you sign in.