Qualiopi indicator 1 (public information): expected evidence and mistakes to avoid

Indicator 1 is the front door of the Qualiopi framework: before even crossing your threshold, the auditor has often already reviewed your website, brochures and programmes. It is also one of the most sanctioned indicators, because a gap here is classed as a major non-conformity — enough to block an initial certification. The good news: the expectations are perfectly well known and the evidence easy to assemble, provided you go about it methodically. Here is what the indicator requires, the evidence that convinces and the mistakes that keep appearing in audit reports.

What indicator 1 requires

Attached to criterion 1 of the framework (conditions for informing the public), indicator 1 requires the provider to publish accessible, exhaustive and up-to-date information on each service. In concrete terms, anyone must be able to check, before entry into the service:

• the prerequisites (or the explicit statement “no prerequisites”);
• the objectives of the service;
• the duration;
• the access arrangements and lead times;
• the prices;
• the contact details;
• the methods used;
• the assessment arrangements;
• the accessibility for people with disabilities.

This is a so-called “core” indicator: it applies to all categories of providers — training organisations, apprenticeship centres (CFA), VAE, skills assessments — and it benefits from no adjustment for new entrants. In other words, even for a first initial audit, the requirement applies in full from day one. You will find it at the top of the table of the 32 indicators, and for good reason: it is often the first one the auditor checks.

The word “exhaustive” is not decorative: the nine items must be present for every service, not just your flagship courses. One complete sheet out of ten is not enough; it is the consistency of the whole catalogue that is assessed.

Why this information is not a formality

Indicator 1 could be seen as a mere administrative obligation. Research shows otherwise: the study by Justine S. Hastings and Jeffrey M. Weinstein published in 2008 in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, “Information, School Choice, and Academic Achievement: Evidence from Two Experiments”, demonstrates that giving families clear, simplified information about educational services — results, characteristics — significantly changes their choices and improves the outcomes obtained (study on Google Scholar). In other words, published information genuinely steers beneficiaries’ decisions: a precise programme, explicit prerequisites and realistic lead times do not just get you through the audit, they help your future trainees choose the right service — and succeed in it.

That is precisely the spirit of criterion 1: ensuring the public chooses with full knowledge, not on a vague promise.

The evidence that convinces the auditor

The auditor often examines this indicator before the audit itself: website, brochures, downloadable programmes. On the day, they cross-check what they saw online against your internal documents. The typical evidence:

Evidence	What the auditor looks for
Review or screenshots of the website	The mandatory items visible for each service, with an update date
Complete programme sheets or catalogue	Prerequisites, objectives, duration, prices, methods, assessment, accessibility — see training programme: mandatory items
Terms and conditions and a template quote	Consistency of prices and conditions with the published information — see training quote and training organisation terms and conditions
Disability accessibility page	Contact details of the disability officer, adaptation arrangements
Commercial proposals	For bespoke work: all the items carried by the proposal given to the client

Key point: no channel is imposed. A website is not mandatory; a distributed PDF catalogue, a brochure or a detailed commercial proposal will do — as long as the exhaustive information is genuinely accessible to anyone before entry into the service, not merely “available on request”.

Access lead times: the detail that trips providers up

This is the item most often forgotten or botched. The expectation is simple: state the average time observed between the beneficiary’s request and their actual entry into the service. Two reflexes:

• word a realistic, verifiable lead time, for example “2 to 4 weeks after acceptance of the quote” — not a cosmetic “immediate access” or a deadline never met;
• for the CPF, recall the regulatory period of 11 working days between registration on the platform and entry into training.

An access lead time missing from your programme sheets is enough to open a finding, when the fix takes ten minutes. Also remember to revise these lead times when your organisation changes: a displayed lead time that no longer matches your actual practice becomes obsolete information, and therefore a potential finding just like a missing item.

The case of in-company and bespoke work

Indicator 1 also applies to bespoke in-company services. The logic adapts: there is no point publishing a public catalogue for pathways that do not yet exist. The information can be carried by the commercial proposal given to the client, provided it is as complete as a catalogue sheet: prerequisites for the target audience, objectives, duration, access arrangements and lead times, prices, methods, assessment, disability accessibility.

The auditor will then ask for one or more recent commercial proposals: check that they contain all the items, and that their conditions match your terms and conditions and quotes.

The common mistakes on indicator 1

The findings raised at audit look alike from one report to the next:

• missing access lead times or prerequisites — including the statement “no prerequisites”, often forgotten even though it is expected;
• contradictory information between the website, the PDF catalogue and the quote (different prices, durations that do not match);
• the disability component reduced to a generic sentence (“accessible premises”) with no identified officer or contact details;
• undated or obsolete materials: impossible to prove the information is up to date;
• information available only on request even though the service is open to the public.

Remember the stakes: indicator 1 is one of the super-indicators carrying a major non-conformity. In an initial audit, a major non-conformity blocks certification until it is resolved, with 3 months to send the corrective actions. A gap on this indicator regularly ranks among the most frequent non-conformities — yet a Qualiopi self-assessment carried out a few weeks before the audit almost always prevents it: run every service through the nine items, channel by channel, and fix the inconsistencies.

Take action

The Complete Kit Certif (€297, 14-day guarantee) includes the programme-sheet template with the nine mandatory items, the terms-and-conditions and quote templates, the model accessibility page and the evidence table for indicator 1. The ebook “Create your training organisation in 30 days” (€67) guides you to publish compliant information from launch, and the full pack (€347) bundles both.