For lawyers, brokers and clinicians
The problem we cannot solve on our own
This site describes what Australian law does and does not say about ordinary life with a prescription — flying interstate, answering an insurer, a landlord's notice, a parenting dispute, a firearms licence renewal.
Some of it is published. Those pages say, at the top and in their citation, that we checked them ourselves: we retrieved each instrument from the register that publishes it, at the version named, and read the sections in question. That is a real check and we are willing to say so in our own name. It is also the ceiling of what we can honestly claim, because we are publishers, not practitioners.
Most of it is not published. Those pages are drafts, marked as such, kept out of search results, and visible only because we build drafts alongside live pages.
Neither group has been read by anybody with a practising certificate. That is the gap.
What we are asking for
Take one topic — the one you actually practise in — and read every legal statement on its pages against the sources listed at the foot of each one. Tell us what is wrong. Then, if you are willing, let us name you as the person who checked it.
That is the whole arrangement. We are not asking you to write anything, to be available to readers, or to take on anyone's matter.
The work is smaller than it looks, and deliberately so. On a published page the instruments are already retrieved, cited by version, and quoted in place — so you are checking a reading rather than doing one. On a draft you would be starting from further back, and we will tell you which is which before you agree to anything.
What you get
Your name and credential on every page in that topic, in the form "Reviewed by [name], [credential]".
A profile page at `/authors/your-name/`, carrying your credential, your registration number, a short biography you write yourself, and links to your firm profile or professional listing.
Structured data that ties your name to a real identity. Each page you check carries you as its reviewer in machine-readable form, with those same professional links. This is the part that is hard to buy: it associates you, specifically, with careful public work in your practice area.
It is also something we will not fake in your absence. Pages we checked ourselves emit no reviewer markup at all — not our own organisation, not anything. "Reviewed by ourselves" is a claim any site can make about anything, and emitting it would make your credit worth less by sitting next to it.
Citations. Every page carries a formatted citation with its last-checked date, so it can be quoted in a submission, a letter of advice, or a client explainer. A page we checked ourselves says so inside the citation — publisher-checked, not reviewed by a practitioner — and that phrase disappears the moment a professional's name replaces it. Pages you have checked are pages worth citing, and each citation names you.
Referrals, if you want them. Separately from review, we place paid referrals on topic pages. Those are commercial and disclosed as such — see how we are funded. Reviewing does not buy a placement and a placement does not buy a review credit. We keep them apart deliberately, and we will tell you which one you are talking about.
What it costs you
Your registration, not just your name. A review credit is a professional representation that you have read the material and consider it accurate. Anyone who advertises or endorses professional work is answerable for it. Do not accept a credit on pages you have not read, and do not let us list you on a topic you do not practise in.
Being wrong in public. If a page you checked turns out to be wrong, we correct it and record the correction in the page's update note, with the date. We do not quietly edit pages people may have relied on. Your name stays attached to the history.
A review date that expires. Every page has a maximum age, after which our build refuses to run until someone re-checks it. Topics change at different speeds. We will tell you when yours is due, and if you would rather not continue, we un-publish the pages rather than let your name sit on something nobody has looked at for a year.
The credential has to match the subject
This is the mistake we most want to avoid, so it is worth stating plainly.
A solicitor is the right reviewer for the tenancy, family law and firearms pages. A solicitor is not the right reviewer for the TPD and life insurance pages, where the relevant authority is an AFS licence, not a practising certificate. The surgery pages need a clinician, not a lawyer at all.
Pages carry a per-topic reviewer for exactly this reason. If we ask you to check something outside your area, say no — and tell us, because our asking was the error.
What we will not do
We will not describe you as endorsing, recommending or being affiliated with this site beyond the review credit itself. We will not use your name in marketing. We will not put your name on a page you have not read, and we will not leave it on a page after you have asked us to remove it.
We publish nothing about medicines — no products, no brands, no strengths, no claims about what helps which condition, and nothing that tells a reader how to get a prescription.
A build-time screen blocks the obvious forms of all of that, and the build fails rather than publishing a page that matches. We are not going to tell you it is a guarantee: it is a backstop, and we have tested it against reworded breaches that got past it. So if you review a page here and something reads to you as a claim about the medicine rather than a statement about the law, say so and it comes out. That is part of what we are asking you to look for, and it is why a person doing this is worth more than the screen is.
If you are interested
Write to hello@knowyourscript.com.au and say which topic. We will send you the pages, the sources they rely on, and the specific questions each one still has open. You will know within an hour of reading whether it is work you want to put your name to.
If the answer is no, tell us what is wrong with the pages anyway. We would rather publish nothing than publish something wrong, and an unpaid correction from someone who knows the area is worth more to us than a credit we had to talk somebody into.
Last checked against primary sources by a named reviewer: