Payjoey.

3 corrections

What we have got wrong

A wrong figure matters to whoever relied on it, so nothing here is quietly edited. Each entry says what the site said before, what it says now, and how the error surfaced — that last part being the one worth reading.

This log was not empty on the day it was published, which is deliberate. Every entry below is a real defect found by the checks described on the methodology page, and several of them were found by a check that now runs on every build so the same mistake cannot ship twice.

The study loan comparison printed a shortfall as a refund

· / (the pay calculator)

It said
Ticking the study loan box compared two figures that were measuring different things — one side included the compulsory repayment and the other did not. At $100,000 the page said 'the difference of $4,523 is money you get back at assessment'. It was a $4,523 shortfall the reader would owe. At $180,000 it claimed $17,522 back.
It says now
The comparison runs on income tax plus Medicare on both sides, so the two figures are comparable. Schedule 1 of the withholding tables does not withhold for study loans at all — that is Schedule 8, a separate instrument.
How it was caught
A review of the previous day's work, reading the two sides of the comparison against each other. All 293 tests passed throughout, because nothing compared the two states.

A correct figure cited to a page that did not contain it

· Low income tax offset, used across the site

It said
The low income tax offset parameters were sourced to the ATO's tax rates page, which carries no LITO at all. The numbers were right; the citation did not support them.
It says now
Every LITO parameter is cited to the ATO's own LITO page and was re-read there in full. Sources now carry a field recording which claims each one actually covers, so a citation cannot drift onto a page that does not make the claim.
How it was caught
Working through the verify list and reading the cited page rather than trusting the reference.

The ETP cap was applied in full to someone who had already used part of it

· /redundancy-calculator/

It said
The calculator gave the excluded and non-excluded components the full ETP cap each. That is correct for one termination paid once, and too generous for anyone who has already received an employment termination payment in the same income year.
It says now
The page discloses the limit beside the result. Modelling it properly needs earlier payments the page does not ask for, so it is stated rather than estimated.
How it was caught
An engine review reading the calculator against its own data file, which recorded the reduction the engine was not applying.

Found something wrong?

Tell us and it gets fixed and logged. Every calculator names the source it was checked against and the date it was checked, which should make an error easy to point at — start from contact. What we already know we do not model is listed on the methodology page rather than left for you to discover.