We had an outside reviewer read the public site cold, then audited every page and article against CompTIA's published objectives and other primary sources. They found real errors. This entry lists what was wrong and what it says now. Full detail is on the corrections page.
- Fixed
Our A+ troubleshooting article had its central premise wrong. It taught a seven-step methodology as a tested objective 5.1. CompTIA's 220-1201 objectives list six steps, give the methodology no objective number, and state plainly that it is not part of the exam. The seven-step version belongs to Network+. The article now teaches the six steps honestly, as a job skill CompTIA deliberately left off the A+ exam.
- Fixed
Several A+ articles cited objective numbers from the retired 220-1101 blueprint while labeling themselves 220-1201. RAM was pointed at objective 3.2, which is cables. Mobile articles cited a 1.4 that does not exist. One cited a 5.7 that does not exist. Every objective number in the A+ articles has been rechecked against the current published objectives.
- Fixed
Our risk-management article walked through an example and concluded that a $40,000 control paid for itself. Its own numbers showed the control removing $30,000 of annual exposure, which is a $10,000 per year loss. The worked example now shows the subtraction and teaches the case it was getting wrong, which is spotting a control that costs more than the risk it removes.
- Fixed
Our incident-response article presented seven phases as NIST's model and cited NIST SP 800-61 Revision 2 as current guidance. NIST withdrew Revision 2 in April 2025, Revision 3 organizes incident response around the six Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 functions, and NIST has never published a seven-phase model. The seven steps are CompTIA's own Security+ list, and the article now says so.
- Fixed
Our network troubleshooting article said a TTL of 64 means zero hops and proves you are talking to your local gateway. An observed TTL cannot establish hop count unless you know what the sender started with, and different systems start at different values. The explanation now teaches the reasoning correctly. The same article overstated what a successful ping proves; it shows ICMP reachability on the path you tested at that moment, not the health of every lower layer.
- Fixed
Articles predicted specific numbers of exam questions per objective and called them free points. CompTIA publishes a maximum question count and domain weightings, and nothing about how many items sit behind any one objective, so those predictions could not have been sourced. They are gone.
- Fixed
Two articles scripted exam questions verbatim and named the answer that would appear. We do not have access to live exam content and would not publish it if we did. Those sections now use clearly labeled practice scenarios instead.
- Fixed
Our mobile-device article told beginners they could replace a swollen lithium battery and included a heat step, without the safety controls the source guidance requires. A swollen cell is a fire risk. That section now covers recognizing it, isolating the device, and referring it, plus the symptom mapping the exam actually asks about.
- Fixed
The Network+ exam price on our cost article was $369, which was correct when we wrote it and stale after CompTIA's June 2026 increase to $399. All three cost articles now carry a dated note saying when we last checked prices against CompTIA's published pricing.
- Fixed
Article dates disagreed with the blog listing, because each article carried its own hardcoded date. Articles now read their date from one record, so the two cannot drift apart again.
- Improved
We were describing our practice interface as matching the CompTIA exam interface, and our performance-based questions as the formats CompTIA uses. Neither is something we can back. CompTIA does not publish a fixed count, position, or format taxonomy for performance-based questions. Our practice patterns are ours, they are useful, and they are now described that way everywhere on the site.
- Improved
Coverage language that claimed 100 percent of objectives is gone until we publish a per-objective coverage matrix a reader can inspect. The Simulator's ticket queue and desktop are now described as simulated, which is what they are.
- Fixed
Pages that still said Network+ and Security+ would ship later have been corrected. Both went live in June 2026. The standards alignment page in particular had been telling school evaluators that two of our three tracks did not exist yet.
- Fixed
Our AI policy claimed every learner-facing item passes a recorded human review. Our published errors show that claim was not true as written, and the review state is not recorded in our data. The policy now describes what actually happens. Source citations, which the policy also claims, are genuinely attached to every shipped question.
- Fixed
Our privacy, terms, cookie, and AI policies carried a banner saying they were working drafts awaiting review before we launched publicly, while we were already public and selling. They are now dated and presented as the policies actually in effect. We have not claimed a legal review we have not had.
- Fixed
The educator alignment-document form did nothing. It looked like a form, it said we would email the document, and it discarded every request. If you used it and never heard back, that is why, and we are sorry. It now works.
- New
There is now a public corrections page listing every content correction with its date. When we get something wrong, it goes there.
- Improved
Dark mode is back to the zinc surface palette. The navy pass we shipped in July did not hold up, and it had also pushed some text below accessible contrast. Nav links, hint pills, and text on brand-colored surfaces now meet WCAG AA contrast.
