Mock audit
One product: a complete internal review against the Outcome Standards, run the way ASQA runs a performance assessment. This page is the entire specification — what we review, what we do not, who does the work, what you receive, and what it costs. If a question is not answered here, ask us and we will add it to this page.
What we review
- Training and assessment (QA1): assessment tools for every training product on scope reviewed at documentation level against unit requirements; a risk-based sample tested at completed-evidence level; pre-use review records; the validation schedule, its risk rationale, validator independence where required, and closure of actions arising.
- Student support (QA2): pre-enrolment information against actual delivery; support-needs identification and the evidence those needs were met; complaints and appeals records end to end.
- Workforce (QA3): trainer and assessor files — credentials, vocational competency, industry currency, professional development — mapped to what each person actually delivers.
- Governance (QA4): the self-assurance cycle as practised, not as documented; leadership oversight records; published marketing claims tested against enrolment records and agreements.
- Interviews: structured sessions with your compliance lead, a trainer sample, and management — the same interview logic a performance assessment uses.
What we do not review
- Financial viability or solvency (your accountant's ground, and ASQA assesses it separately).
- CRICOS/ESOS obligations beyond the Outcome Standards overlay — CRICOS scope adds a defined overlay module, priced in the scoping tool, not an open-ended review.
- Third-party written agreements' legal drafting (we review their compliance operation, not their contract law).
- Rewriting your assessment tools — that is resource development, a different product from a different part of our family, and bundling it here would compromise the review's independence.
Timeline
Ten working days, fixed, from the day your records arrive complete (we give you the records list at booking; the clock pauses only if listed records are missing).
Days 1–4 documentation review · days 5–7 evidence sampling and interviews · days 8–9 drafting and internal quality review · day 10 delivery and a one-hour findings walkthrough.
Who does it
Credential titles and certifying bodies shown; certificate numbers are not published. Every engagement names its reviewers in the scope document before you pay.
What you receive
- Findings report — every finding graded critical / priority / maintenance, tied to the Quality Area and the specific Standard area, with the evidence we examined and the evidence that would satisfy the gap.
- Board-ready summary — two pages your directors can read in ten minutes.
- Remediation register — a working spreadsheet with owner, action, evidence and due-date columns pre-filled.
- Findings walkthrough — one hour, all your questions, recorded if you want it.
A redacted excerpt of the report format is below — judge the product before you buy it.
Fixed price by scope band
- All four Quality Areas
- Evidence sample: 2 training products
- All four Quality Areas
- Evidence sample: 4 training products
- All four Quality Areas
- Evidence sample: 6 training products
Indicative published pricing; confirmed in your scope document. CRICOS overlay and unusually complex delivery models price through the scoping tool.
Redacted sample: one page of a findings report
This is a real page format with the client identifiers and specifics blacked out. Every finding in a delivered report follows this structure: grade, Standard area, what we examined, what we found, what satisfies it.
Finding 03 — Quality Area 1 · Assessment (Standard area 1.3)
| Grade | Critical |
|---|---|
| What we examined | Assessment tools for CHC33021 Certificate III in Individual Support, completed assessments for six students, and the pre-use review records for tools introduced in January 2026. |
| What we found | Knowledge instruments do not address four performance-evidence requirements of unit CHCCCS031. No pre-use review record exists for the current tool version. Two completed assessments were marked competent with required workplace observation sections blank. |
| Why it matters | These are the precise gaps a performance assessment tests first: instrument coverage, review before use, and the integrity of the judgement behind each certificate issued. |
| What satisfies it | Mapped tool revision covering the listed requirements; documented pre-use review for the revised version; assessment decisions for the affected students revisited and the outcome documented; validation of the training product brought forward in the risk-based schedule. |
| Owner / due | Training Manager · 15 April 2026 |
Finding 04 — Quality Area 3 · Workforce (excerpt)
Priority Industry currency evidence for two trainers stops at 2024; delivery continued through 2025–26. File structure prevented the reviewer from linking credentials to units delivered without manual reconstruction…
Excerpt shown for format only. Names, codes, dates and counts are redacted from a composite of real engagements; no client is identifiable. A delivered report runs 20–40 pages plus the remediation register.
The honest paragraph
A clean internal review is a point-in-time picture, not a guarantee. No consultant can promise a performance assessment outcome — ASQA decides — and anyone who promises otherwise is selling you something else. What we promise is narrower and checkable: the listed scope, reviewed by the named people, delivered in ten working days, at the printed price. Full statement: Outcomes Disclaimer.
The regulator tells you to do due diligence on consultants. Do it on us: published scopes, named reviewers, constraints stated in our case evidence.