Training modules built from your own documentation
You give us a topic and the documentation for it. You get back a finished module in your brand, as a SCORM 1.2 package your LMS imports like any other supplier's — and an evidence report naming the document and page behind every technical statement in it.
What is delivered
Everything below ships together, for every module. The evidence report is the part no traditional supplier hands over, because producing it means having tracked the source of each statement while writing it.
- SCORM 1.2A package your LMS imports directly One shareable content object per lesson, or a whole course as one package with its module tree. Reports completion and bookmarks where the technician stopped.
- Trainer handoutA printable per-slide document Slides, the figure from the source page, the citation, and the spoken script — for the classroom, and for anyone reviewing the module before it is published.
- Evidence reportThe source behind every statement Source documents with their revision, coverage per lesson, and — stated plainly — anything the documentation did not support, which was withheld rather than estimated.
- Module sheetDuration, objectives, prerequisites, target level, language The two-page document a training manager circulates internally.
- Your brandYour name on the material, not ours The organisation's own name on every slide and in the document-control block. No supplier mark on material your network sees.
How a module is produced
Four weeks, start to delivery, for one module.
You send the topic and the documentation
Under NDA. Preferably a topic that generates warranty cost in your network — the modules that pay for themselves are the ones attached to a repair that keeps coming back.
We produce the module from those documents only
Every technical statement carries the document and page it came from. A statement the documentation does not support is withheld, and the system refuses to publish a lesson whose teaching steps have no source. That refusal is the product.
Your specialist reviews it
Two hours of one of your technical people, against the evidence report. Every claim is already pointing at the page it came from, so review is checking, not hunting.
You receive the package
SCORM into your LMS, the handout for the classroom, the evidence report for your quality file.
Why this is different from an agency
It cannot invent
A lesson whose teaching steps do not trace to a cited page is refused rather than published. An agency in the same position writes the paragraph anyway.
It keeps up with bulletins
Technical training ages every time the software does. Producing a module in weeks rather than months is what makes revision affordable instead of theoretical.
You can audit it
Each slide carries a document-control block — module, revision, date, language — and the source reference for what it teaches. It enters a quality system as documentation, not as a slide deck.
Start with one module
Four weeks · fixed price, quoted per module · no platform licence required
You provide
- One topic
- The official documentation for it, under NDA
- Two hours of a technical specialist, for review
You receive
- A finished module in your brand, 20–30 minutes
- SCORM 1.2 for your LMS, plus the trainer handout
- The evidence report: every statement, its document, its page
- The module sheet
If your specialist finds a technical statement in the module that does not trace back to a page of the documentation you supplied, you do not pay for it. That is not a gesture — refusing to publish an unsourced claim is what the system does, so it costs nothing to promise.
Where we actually are
You are going to ask these in a supplier review, so they are here rather than in a meeting three weeks from now.
- No client logos and no references yet. We have not earned them. The module you commission would be among the first.
- No ISO 27001, no SOC 2, no TISAX, no independent penetration test. The security page lists what is and is not in place, and is kept honest rather than flattering.
- A module is training material, not a certification. It does not replace your official procedure. In the words our terms already use, output "is not certification, homologation advice, or a substitute for a manufacturer's official procedure" — a module supports a qualified technician's judgement rather than standing in for it.
- Five interface languages, eight lesson languages, and we will not round that up. The workspace itself is in English, Dutch, French, German and Italian. Lessons, narration and answers are produced in those plus Spanish, Polish and Portuguese. So a Polish technician today reads the lesson in Polish inside an English interface. That gap is real, and a network covering the Nordics, Czechia, Hungary, Romania, Greece or Türkiye is not covered yet.
- Translation is machine-generated; the market review is yours. We do not employ native reviewers per market and will not claim to. What we do provide is the mechanism that makes your review stick: an approved-terminology glossary per market that you own — your word for each component and each procedure step, the words that must never be used for it — which binds the wording when a module is written and is then checked against the finished module, deviations named rather than counted. A synonym is wrong here even when it is a correct translation, because your technician reads your documentation.
- Content produced for you is yours. Your documentation is used for your modules and for nothing else.