Indicator 1 is the only one in the repository that the auditor can check before meeting you. The day before the audit, they open your website, your catalog, your program sheets—and they note what is missing. You therefore start the audit with an opinion already formed. Might as well make it a good one.
What the indicator really requires
The text asks for information that is publicly accessible, detailed, and verifiable for each service. Specifically, eight elements must be published for each training course: prerequisites, objectives, duration, access procedures and deadlines, prices, contacts, methods used and evaluation procedures, and accessibility for people with disabilities.
Three words in the text do all the work in an audit. Accessible: the public must be able to find the information without asking you for it—a catalog sent upon request is not enough. Detailed: "management training, contact us" is not information. Verifiable: what is published must correspond to what actually happens in training—and that's where most discrepancies occur.
How the auditor proceeds
They choose a service from your catalog—often at random, sometimes the one with the least visibility on your site—and check the eight elements one by one. Then they cross-reference: does the PDF program sheet say the same thing as the web page? Do the advertised prices match the signed agreements? Is the published duration the same as the pedagogical breakdown they will see in the afternoon?
It is an indicator of consistency as much as publication. A flawless site with program sheets two years old will produce non-conformity as surely as missing information.
The four discrepancies found everywhere
Missing access deadlines. This is the most forgotten element of the eight. You must indicate the time between a candidate's request and their effective entry into training—even a range ("entry within 15 days to 2 months depending on the session schedule") is sufficient, provided it is realistic.
"Price on quote" without anything else. Customization is legitimate, but then a framework must be published: price from, hourly or daily rate, or indicative grid. An entire catalog without any price reference does not pass the word "detailed."
Decorative disability mention. "Accessible premises for people with reduced mobility" copied on all sheets informs no one. The expectation: an identified contact (your disability representative) and an indication that adaptation of the course is possible. Two lines are enough—but two true lines.
The double discourse site / catalog. You update the site, the downloadable PDF remains the old version. The auditor always downloads the PDF. Date your program sheets and delete obsolete online versions: this is the cheapest correction in the entire repository.
The specific case of CFAs
For apprenticeships, the published information must also be consistent with the obligations to disseminate results (completion rates, further studies, employment)—the auditor links this to indicator 2 at the same time. If your site displays the eight elements but no results, they will ask you the question as soon as the audit begins. Address both together.
The ten-minute self-diagnosis
Open your site as the auditor will: choose your least highlighted training, and look for the eight elements without using your internal knowledge. Time yourself. If you—who know where to look—take more than two minutes to find access deadlines or a price reference, a candidate will never find them, nor will the auditor. Then download the PDF for the same training and compare it line by line with the web page. Every discrepancy is a potential deviation.
To check the rest
Indicator 1 can be corrected in one day of updating—it's one of the few. Our free D-30 Qualiopi audit checklist reviews all 32 indicators with the expected proof for each. And the Qualiopi Audit Guide deciphers each indicator with the real questions asked in interviews.
Article written by the founder of Objectif Certif, pedagogical director and quality referent of a CFA in practice. Reference texts: decree n°2019-565 and the RNQ reading guide—check the current version before your audit.