Standards and regulation

Aligned with, not accredited by

The difference between those two phrases is the difference between a description and a claim we have no right to make.

The curriculum covers GS1 identification keys, EPCIS event modelling, Digital Link, ISO practice, and integration with the enterprise systems these estates actually run on. Teaching a standard well is the substance of the work.

None of that makes the credential accredited by the bodies that publish those standards. Accreditation is a specific relationship with a specific process behind it, and we do not hold it.

So the site says covers, aligns with, and teaches. It does not say accredited, endorsed, approved or recognised by. The distinction matters most to exactly the people who check - the assessor reviewing a tender, the registrar assessing a programme - and getting caught overstating it would cost more than the phrase was ever worth.

It is enforced rather than intended: the site's content checks fail the build if the stronger verbs appear.