Receipts
Sources. Every number on this site, and where it came from.
LAST REVIEWED ·Most business sites put the numbers on the page and the evidence in a drawer. Mine used to do the same thing: the maths section said the substantiation was "kept on file", "available on request", which is a polite way of saying you would have to ask me for it. So here it is instead, in public. Every figure that appears anywhere on this site is listed below with the exact wording I use, the full name and year of the source, what that source actually says, and where it stops being useful. I have no clients yet, so I have no results of my own to show you. Publishing my sources is the only honest proof I can offer, and it keeps me straight too: if a number cannot survive being read next to the thing it came from, it does not belong on the site.
Every number, and where it comes from
Two things worth knowing before you read these. Each entry is numbered and each number is a permanent link, so a figure on the site can point straight at the entry that backs it and you can send someone the entry rather than the page. And each entry says whether it rests on a published source you can go and check yourself, or on my own record, which is my word and is labelled as such. Ten of these sixteen are my own record. Entries for claims the site no longer makes are marked retired rather than deleted, with the date, so the evidence stays on the file and the claim cannot quietly come back without it.
Published source
Claim"The research is blunt: respond to an enquiry within the first hour and you are around seven times more likely to qualify it than if you wait even an hour more." Also shown as the stat card "~ 7 × more likely to qualify a lead when you make contact within the first hour, versus waiting even an hour longer."
What it saysFirms that made contact with an online sales lead inside the first hour were roughly seven times as likely to qualify that lead, meaning reach a meaningful conversation with a decision maker, as firms that waited even one hour longer.
Limitation It is 2011 data about online sales leads in general. It is not Australian real estate data, it is not my data, and it measures qualification, not sales, jobs, commissions or revenue. Response speed is one variable among many. Treat it as a reason to answer fast, not as a prediction of what will happen in your business.
Claim retired
The one-row salary comparison was removed with the maths section on 25 Aug 2026. The evidence stays on the record so the claim cannot quietly return without it.
Published source
Claim"An extra person to handle follow-up. $50,000+ /yr before super & leave" (the one-row comparison table).
What it saysThree independent salary sources put an Australian receptionist's annual salary between roughly $43,000 and $70,000, with averages clustering around $60,000.
Limitation I deliberately quote a number below every source, at $50,000 plus, so the comparison cannot be accused of inflation. Salary is also not the full cost of an employee, since superannuation, leave and on costs sit on top, which is why the site says "before super & leave". Most importantly, the row compares 24/7 call answering coverage only. An AI system is not a like for like replacement for a person, and the site says that in the footnote.
My own record
ClaimThe price ladder: $1,200 Live Build (credited in full against an install booked within 30 days), $4,900 to install The Desk ($3,700 after the credit), $1,450 a month for the Watch. No fee is contingent on a sale, a job or an appointment. And the line printed under the ladder, word for word: "Every price above is the whole number. Nothing is added at invoice."
What it saysExactly what it says. The Live Build is paid once and comes off the install price in full if you go ahead within 30 days, which is where the "$3,700 after the credit" figure on the ladder comes from: $4,900 less the $1,200 already paid. It is arithmetic between two prices on this page, not a discount or a separate offer. The install is a fixed price, not an hourly estimate. The Watch is month to month with 30 days notice on either side, and you can decline it entirely and still own the system.
Limitation A price is not a result. Nothing in this structure predicts what your database will produce, and I will not guess it for you. No fee is contingent on a job or a sale, ever. This is a price I set and can change for future clients; anyone already signed keeps the price they signed at unless we agree otherwise in writing.
My own record
Claim"Delivery Arm. I build, your name goes on it, you keep the client. $7,500+ fixed, per build" (the ladder table), and the range "$7,500 to $14,000" given to AI assistants in llms.txt.
What it saysA fixed per-build price for white-label delivery, quoted to the agency rather than to their client. It starts at $7,500 and the upper end of the range reflects build scope, not an hourly rate. Every price above is the whole number. Nothing is added at invoice.
Limitation This is a price I set and can change for future work, and the figure is a starting point rather than a quote. Nothing about it predicts what the build earns the agency or their client. It carried no entry on this page between 9 and 19 August 2026, which by the rule at the foot of this page means it should have been treated as wrong during that window. It is stated here now.
My own record
Claim"Zero third-party requests on this site", "No trackers. No pixels. No dark patterns.", and the session console line "Field names only, never what you type. Nothing leaves this page until you press send. Check the network tab."
What it saysAt the date of checking, the site made no requests to any third party domain, and the session log in the contact section records field names only, never the values you type, and never sends anything until you press send.
Limitation This is a claim about a specific build on a specific date, and it must be re-verified after any site change. Adding a single analytics tag, embedded map or hosted font would break it. Form submissions are delivered by the site's host, Netlify, which is disclosed in the privacy policy. Re-verified against the 30 July 2026 build: all fonts and assets self hosted, no analytics, no pixels, no content delivery networks, no embeds. The only external strings in the source are the schema.org and w3.org namespace identifiers, which are labels rather than requests. It gets re-checked on every deploy.
Claim retired
The live-proof section was removed on 25 Aug 2026. Its policy line now sits in the footer. The evidence stays on the record so the claim cannot quietly return without it.
My own record
Claim"This section doesn't run on testimonials I can't back. It runs on real system events and named client outcomes, which makes it honestly empty until the first install goes live." Plus "POLICY: No paid reviews. No invented numbers. Every figure carries its source."
What it saysThe proof section is empty on purpose. When the first result exists it publishes there with the client's name, their sign off and their own numbers, not my summary of them.
Limitation An empty proof section is honest, but it is still an empty proof section. It is a reason to be sceptical of me, and I would rather you were sceptical for the right reason than reassured by a fake one. That is also why the risk is bounded the other way: month to month, and you hear and approve your system before it ever speaks to a customer.
Published source
Claim"ABN 19 720 818 025" in the site footer.
What it saysThe number in the footer is the registered ABN for SSJC MEDIA GROUP, and you can check it yourself at abr.business.gov.au in about ten seconds. Registration is not an endorsement of anything. It confirms one thing: there is a real, identifiable, active Australian entity behind this site, and if I ever misled you, you know exactly who to name.
Limitation an ABN proves I exist and can be found. It proves nothing about the quality of the work. Status is re-checked at each review of this page.
Claim retired
The interactive database illustration was removed on 26 Aug 2026 and replaced by a self-check that computes nothing. Both assumptions inside it were mine and neither was ever measured, which is why the section could not honestly produce a conclusion, and why it went. The evidence stays on the record so the claim cannot quietly return without it.
My own record
ClaimThe two assumptions inside the interactive database illustration: "62% of an aged list still has a working mobile" and "35% of conversations that become a booking". Also the default answer rate of 4%, which the visitor can change.
What it saysThey are the planning numbers I use when I size a database before quoting, and I have deliberately made the answer rate a control the visitor sets rather than a number I assert. The tool multiplies the visitor's own inputs by these two rates and shows the result. It describes arithmetic, not an expected outcome.
Limitation these are estimates I chose, and reasonable people would choose differently. A real database can be far worse than 62% reachable if it is old or poorly kept, which is exactly what the free audit checks before anything is sent. Nothing produced by the tool is a forecast, a target, or a promise, and no fee I charge depends on any of these figures being met.
Claim retired
The time-audit section was removed on 25 Aug 2026. The evidence stays on the record so the claim cannot quietly return without it.
Published source
Claim"40+ hours a week the average Australian business spends on work that could be automated" (the time audit).
What it saysThe figure covers data entry, follow-up emails, invoice processing, report generation and appointment scheduling across Australia businesses generally, not real estate specifically.
Limitation it is a customer publication, not peer-reviewed research or an official statistic, and "the average Australian business" hides enormous variation. I use it to describe the shape of the problem, never to size a saving for a particular business. Nothing I sell is priced on it.
Claim retired
The time-audit section was removed on 25 Aug 2026. The evidence stays on the record so the claim cannot quietly return without it.
Published source
Claim"5 to 15 hours a week a working agent loses to repetitive admin" and "30 to 200 enquiries a week through a typical business" (the time audit).
What it saysThe admin figure covers writing property descriptions, sending contract documents, chasing tenant references, scheduling open homes and drafting agent introduction emails. The enquiry range covers jobs, appointments, rentals and general agent contact across a typical business week.
Limitation both are industry commentary from an AI customer rather than an audited survey, and the ranges are wide enough that your business could sit outside them. They describe the category, not your business, and I do not use them to project a result.
Claim retired
The time-audit section was removed on 25 Aug 2026. The evidence stays on the record so the claim cannot quietly return without it.
Second recurrence, . The 25 August pass removed this from every page and missed /llms.txt, which is a page: it is served at a public URL and quoted verbatim by assistants. Both figures, 44% and 5%, were still published there in the answer to "Is AI actually worth it for a small Australian business". Removed 27 August. This is the same miss as the GST sentence, also taken off every page on 25 August and also left standing in llms.txt. The source below is sound and unchanged. What was wrong was the register saying the site had stopped citing it while one page still did.
Published source
Claim"5% of Australian small and medium businesses already using AI are fully enabled to realise its benefits" (the time audit).
What it saysThe same body reports SME AI adoption at 44% as at February 2026. The gap between those two numbers is the entire reason this business exists: adoption is common, competent implementation is not.
Limitation "fully enabled" is the source's own definition and survey self-reporting is unreliable in both directions. It says nothing about what any particular business will achieve.
Claim retired
These service commitments were removed from the site. A same-day callback is a response-time claim and this business does not make them. The evidence stays on the record so the claim cannot quietly return without it.
Narrowed . This entry retired four claims at once and gave a reason that applies to one of them. Only the same-day callback was removed. The under-two-years contact window is still on the site and is still true, and the two appointment lengths were re-entered as S19 on 27 August. So the register was contradicting sentences that are live and correct, which is the same failure as a claim outliving its entry, arriving from the other direction. The contact window is now entered on its own at S21. What stays retired here is the same-day callback and the ten-minute export, which was cut from the page on 27 August rather than re-entered: an estimate of how long somebody else's software takes, never timed, is a representation about a future matter with nothing behind it, and this entry was right about it the first time. Describing these four claims rather than quoting them is also why nothing could test this entry in either direction, and why the export sat on the page for two days after it was retired here, under a green tick.
My own record
ClaimTwo service commitments, both retired, quoted as the site used to write them: "a same-day callback before the day closes", and "One export, usually ten minutes of your admin's time". Neither goes back. The other two claims this entry used to bundle are live and are entered separately at S21 and S19.
What it saysThese are promises I keep, not measurements of anything. The callback rule is written so that it can never require a call outside the permitted windows.
Limitation they bind me, not the market, and they say nothing about what any campaign will produce. If I ever miss one, tell me and I will own it.
My own record
ClaimThe four drafts in "This is the part your team actually does": Sample Plumbing Co, and the contacts Jo M., Dean R., Priya S. and Terry W. Also the banner "SIMULATED · FICTIONAL CONTACTS · NOTHING SENDS · THESE BUTTONS MOVE A CARD ON YOUR SCREEN".
What it saysIt exists to show the call's manners: the straight answer when asked how I got the number, the opt-out offered on the spot, the legal calling hours, the refusal to quote a price, and the booking read back out loud. The timings are illustrative pacing, not measurements.
Limitation a real call depends on a real person and will not follow this script. The simulation is labelled as such on the page.
Claim retired
The interactive database illustration was removed on 26 Aug 2026 and replaced by a self-check that computes nothing. Both assumptions inside it were mine and neither was ever measured, which is why the section could not honestly produce a conclusion, and why it went. The evidence stays on the record so the claim cannot quietly return without it.
My own record
ClaimThe day timeline inside the interactive illustration: the slider maps onto a working day of calls from 8:30am to 6:00pm, the morning block ramps first, the arvo block lands late, and bookings lag conversations. Plus the phase captions attached to each position.
What it saysThe shape is the day I actually run, not a measurement of anything. Dragging the control redistributes the same total across the day; it does not add to it. At knock-off the figures are identical to the untimed version, because the timeline describes WHEN the arithmetic lands, never how much of it there is.
Limitation real campaigns do not follow a clean curve. Replies cluster unpredictably, some people answer in week four, and plenty never answer at all. Nothing in the timeline is a forecast, a target or a commitment, and no fee depends on any figure it displays.
My own record
Claim"The founding rate is $2,400 to install instead of $4,900, and $950 a month instead of $1,450, for the first three clients."
What it saysThe founding rate is not a discount and I do not present it as one. It is what I charge while I earn the three written references I do not have yet. What I ask back is a written reference and permission to publish your own numbers. It rises to the standard price after client three, and anyone signed at the founding rate keeps it.
Limitation this is a price I set and can change for future clients. Nothing here is a claim about what you would earn, save or recover.
My own record
No claim. This number was never issued. The register ran S15 straight to S17, and git log -S 'id="S16"' returns no history, so nothing was ever deleted here. It is written down on because the discipline on this page is that a retired entry is marked, never removed, so that the evidence stays on file. A gap in a numbered sequence is indistinguishable, to anybody auditing this later, from an entry somebody quietly took out. Saying so costs four lines and closes that question permanently.
My own record
ClaimThe seven-question self-check that sits above the price, and the result screen it produces. The two questions in it that carry a figure, word for word: "When did you last ring somebody you quoted months ago, just to ask where it landed?", whose options are "This month", "In the last three months", "Longer ago than that" and "Never. Once it is quoted it is done"; and "Going back two years, roughly how many past customers and old enquiries are sitting in there?"
What it saysThe check performs no arithmetic on anything you tap. It multiplies nothing, forecasts nothing, and produces no dollar figure, no percentage, no score and no rating. It counts how many of five questions you answered with an option that names a gap, and hands your own answers back to you in the words you tapped. Two of the seven questions are about size only and cannot register a gap at all, because a check where every answer condemns you is a sales trick. It can and does return "on this evidence, you do not need me", and on that result the booking buttons are removed from the page rather than hidden. Nothing you tap is stored, sent anywhere, or written to your browser: no upload, no cookie, no local storage. Every word of the result is written in advance and ships in the page source. The only things that vary are which of the three results appears and which of your own answers is echoed back under it. It replaced an interactive illustration that multiplied a visitor's guess by two assumptions of mine, which is why S08 and S14 are retired above.
Limitation which answers count as a gap is my judgement, not a measurement, and I have put it in the page source rather than hiding it: the flagged options carry data-gap in the HTML and you can read them without asking me. The wording of the options is mine too, so the check can only reflect back a gap I thought to ask about. It is a prompt for a conversation, not a diagnosis of your business, and nothing it displays is a forecast, a target or a promise.
Claim retired
It was on the hero strip, in the same position and the same weight as two facts that are true and checkable ("your accounts", "a person sends"). That is what made it dangerous: it read as the third member of a set of verified facts. It is replaced by a term of the deal, "month to month, 30 days notice either side", which is in the agreement and is mine to keep.
My own record
Claim"10 days" / "signature to live", the third tile in the strip under the hero, AND "10 DAYS · FIXED PRICE", the length label on the build step of the how-it-works list. It was in two places in two different casings. The first removal found only the lower-case one, because the check that found it was a case-sensitive grep; the sweep found the second.
Claim, third recurrenceRemoved again on , this time spelled in WORDS rather than digits, from seven further places: "Live in ten business days" and "Ten business days." on the home page, "live in ten days" in the price ladder, the heading "How the ten days go" with its "Day 1 / Days 2 to 7 / Day 8 / Days 9 and 10" step labels underneath it, and three instances in /llms.txt including "What is fixed is the delivery: The Desk is live in ten business days", which had escalated it from a description to a commitment. Both truth gates reported the site clean throughout, because both matched digits: this entry quoted "10 days", the page said "ten business days", the similarity fell to 50% and the gate declared the live claim correctly absent. The 26 August lesson was to sweep in every casing. The real lesson is to sweep in every SPELLING, and the gates were changed the same day to normalise number words to digits before matching.
What it saysIt said an install went from a signed agreement to a working Desk in ten days. Nothing in the repository, and neither of the two builds done so far, records a signature-to-live time at all, so there was no basis to average and no basis to publish. It was found by a sweep that checks every figure on the site against this register, which is the opposite direction to the check that had been running.
Limitation a delivery time is a representation about a future matter under section 4 of the Australian Consumer Law, which reverses the burden of proof: the person who made it has to show reasonable grounds for it, not the other way round. No delivery time goes back on this site until real installs have been timed and the times appear here.
My own record
Claim"The Live Build. 90 minutes, your data, you keep the output." Also the "20 minute call" on the booking link.
What it saysThese are the lengths of two appointments I run and control: the Live Build session and the introductory call. They describe how long I will spend, not how long anything takes to work and not what the session produces.
Limitation a session can run over or finish early. Neither figure is a promise about a result, and no fee changes if a session runs long or short.
My own record
ClaimEvery figure inside the approval queue and the sample demo page: the job values $6,400, $11,800, $2,100 and $380, the ages "14 months", "3 weeks", "8 months" and "22 months", and "3,000 people in ServiceM8" on the sample demo page.
What it saysThey are plausible-looking numbers chosen so the drafts read like real work rather than filler. The queue is labelled SIMULATED · FICTIONAL CONTACTS · NOTHING SENDS immediately above the first card, and the sample demo page is a private link built for one named prospect. Nothing in either is drawn from a client, because there has been no client on this product.
Limitation they are illustrations of message content, not results. No figure here is an amount anyone recovered, an average job value, or a typical database size, and none of them should ever be quoted as one. They are recorded here so that a sweep of every figure on the site comes back clean, and a genuinely unsourced number cannot hide among nine that are known to be fictional.
My own record
ClaimThe contact window, word for word as the page writes it: "Past enquiries, past quotes and past customers under two years old, with anyone who has asked to be left alone already taken out." Also "past enquiries and past buyers under two years old" on the property door, and "how many are under two years old" on the sample demonstration page.
What it saysTwo years is a rule I apply, not a measurement. Contacts older than that are left out, and anyone who has asked to be left alone is stripped before the list is built rather than filtered afterwards. It is deliberately tighter than anything the Act names, because the Act names no number at all. You confirm the consent basis in writing before anything is installed, and you are the named sender on every message.
Limitation it binds me, not the market, and it says nothing about what any list will produce. Two years is my judgement, not a statutory threshold. Whether your own records actually establish a business relationship is a question about your records, not about my rule, and if it matters to you it goes to your own solicitor rather than to me. The fourth claim that was bundled into S12, "usually ten minutes of your admin's time", was NOT re-entered here: it was cut from the page on instead. It was a time estimate for a task nobody has ever timed, on software that is not mine, and the honest version says the same thing without a number: "One export from your system."
My own record
Claim"I have been in sales for nine years" in the About block, and "Eight years in sales" in /llms.txt.
What it saysCorrected 27 August 2026, on Craig's own instruction: the earlier entry said eight years selling property, and that was wrong. The true statement is nine years in sales, alongside a running interest in AI development and cyber security. Craig went full time on this business on 12 August 2026. Rests on Craig's own record, as the previous version did
Limitation it is my own record and nobody else is vouching for it. More to the point, years on a phone are not evidence that a piece of software works. It is context for why I think follow-up is where the money leaks, and that is the whole of what it is.
What I deliberately do not claim
- No income, earnings or revenue promise. You will not find "3x your conversions", "40 per cent more bookings", "60 per cent fewer no-shows" or "100 per cent of calls answered" anywhere on this site as my result, because I do not have that number and neither does anyone honest who has not yet run the system on your database. Capability statements like "drafts a message for every contact on the list" describe what the system does. They are not forecasts of what it earns.
- No results I have not earned. No case studies, no testimonials, no client logos, no averages, no star ratings, no "trusted by" strip. I have no clients yet and the site says so. When the first result exists it publishes with the client's name, their sign off and their own figures.
- No borrowed case studies. I will not run a customer's aggregate, an overseas business's screenshot or somebody else's win and let it read as mine. Third party research is always named on the page, with the source visible, so you can tell instantly whose evidence you are looking at.
- Not the 391 per cent figure. The widely quoted "391 per cent more conversions if you respond within one minute" line comes from customer research and is routinely misattributed to Harvard Business Review. I use only the published HBR finding, and I characterise it correctly as a qualification likelihood, not a conversion rate.
- No invented scarcity. Two things on this site are limited and both are facts rather than tactics. I install and support these systems myself, so the number I can carry at once is finite. And the founding rate is for the first three installs, because what I am buying with it is three written references I do not have yet; once I have them there is nothing left to buy. Nothing here says "offer ends Friday" and no countdown counts down to a fake deadline.
- No fake people, properties or events. No AI generated photograph of me, no AI generated apartment or view, no invented business presented as real, no fabricated activity in the ledger. The one demonstration on the site is labelled a simulation with a fictional business, because that is what it is.
- No promise of a job or a sale, and no fee tied to one. Every fee is a fixed price for work I do: the Live Build, the install, and the monthly Watch. Nothing I charge attaches to an appointment, a job or a sale, ever.
- No claim that a system replaces a person. The staffing comparison covers 24/7 call answering coverage only, and the site says so in the footnote under the table.
- No legal, tax, credit or financial advice. Privacy Act commentary is preparation and positioning, not a legal opinion. Anything about duty, tax, finance, credit or what a property is worth goes to your own solicitor, broker, accountant or the licensed agent. On broker work I never touch credit advice, and on business work I never negotiate price, terms or paperwork.
How this page is kept honest
Last reviewed , AEST. On that date the maths section, the live-proof section and the time-audit section came off the site, and the entries substantiating them were marked retired rather than deleted, so the evidence stays on the record. Checked against my substantiation file compiled 16 July 2026 and last amended 17 July 2026. The rule this page runs on: it is updated the same day any number on the site changes. If a figure moves, a source goes dead, a check date ages out or a claim is retired, the entry here is edited or removed before the change goes live, or alongside it, never afterwards. Market figures carry the date they were checked because provider pricing pages move without notice, and a stale check date is itself a limitation. If you find a number anywhere on this site that has no entry on this page, treat the number as wrong and tell me: admin@ssjcmediagroup.com. One item is on the fix list before the next review: re-verifying the zero third party requests claim after the next site change. On 30 July 2026 the site was cut back to a single offer and the retired pricing sections came off the page. On 9 August 2026 the offer changed again to The Desk. On 19 August 2026 two entries were removed because the claims they covered are no longer anywhere on the site: the after-hours call demonstration, and the call-day operating thresholds. On 26 August 2026 the interactive database illustration came off the site and S08 and S14, the two assumptions and the day timeline inside it, were marked retired. What replaced it is a self-check that does no arithmetic at all and hands you back your own answers, described at S17. On 27 August 2026 a delivery time was removed for a third time, in words rather than digits; two response-time commitments were confirmed retired and quoted here word for word instead of described, so the check that looks for a retired claim creeping back can actually run on them; the contact window and the National AI Centre figures were found to have been marked retired while still live and were restored to live entries; and two figures that had never had an entry at all, the contact window and my eight years in sales, were given one. S16 was never issued and now says so.