Design & content review · wedge-cheetah-x6sr.squarespace.com
Five pages reviewed at 1433 px and on mobile: rendering, copy, links, contrast and metadata. The argument is genuinely good. The delivery is losing about half of it — and nine of your calls to action currently go nowhere.
Most site reviews start with the visual layer. Yours shouldn't, because the visual layer is fine and the copy is better than fine.
The core argument is sharp and unusual. "An LMS manages courses, we manage apprenticeships" is a real wedge, and the comparison table on the Workforce page is the single best piece of writing on the site — five rows, each naming a specific failure of the alternative and a specific mechanism you replace it with. That table is close to sales-ready as written.
You write in the industry's own language. Journeyworker sign-off, skill sets, mandatory skills, hour milestones, RAPIDS, Red Seal, group sponsors, supervision rate. Nobody arrives at that vocabulary by accident, and a program administrator will notice within ten seconds. Keep every one of those words.
The diagrams earn their space. The three-component tree on Curriculum and the employer/provider/apprentice triad on Workforce both explain something a paragraph would take longer to say. They are the strongest visual assets you have — which is a problem only because they are almost the only visual assets you have.
The restraint is right. Cream, terracotta, slate green, one grotesque, one mono. No stock photography of people pointing at laptops. For a Canadian public-sector buyer that reads as competence, and it's a much better starting point than most seed-stage sites.
Nothing on this site proves the product exists. Across four content pages there is exactly one image: a file called Screenshot (8).png, 733 px wide, displayed at 906 CSS px on a 2× display, with no alt text. There is no logbook, no dashboard, no sign-off screen, no mobile view, no certificate, no customer, no pilot, no number that came from a real program. The site describes software with the confidence of a company that ships it and shows none of it.
That is the gap that matters. Every other problem below is a two-minute fix in Squarespace. This one is the reason a director at a college reads the whole Workforce page, believes you, and still doesn't book the call — because "operations layer for work-based learning" is a category, and a screenshot of an apprentice's progress bar at 62% with three skill sets outstanding is a product.
You've said screenshots are available. Section 06 is the shot list, in priority order, with the caption for each.
The site can't decide who it's for, page by page. Home splits evenly between Curriculum and Workforce. Market Landscape is 100% Workforce and half of it is about American JATCs and state licensing boards. Curriculum calls itself "the K-12 side" on one page and sells to "corporate learning" on another. A visitor who arrives from your Skilled Trades Ontario conversation has to do the sorting themselves.
You've chosen Workforce to lead. Section 03 restructures the site around that, and it fixes this in one move.
Everything here I verified directly in the browser — hrefs, computed styles, contrast ratios, natural image dimensions, rendered metadata. Fixes are specific enough to hand to whoever has the Squarespace login.
href and go nowhereOn Workforce: Build a program ↗, See how tracking works, and two of the three Read more cards. On Market Landscape: Explore Workforce↗, and two Read more cards. On Home: Explore Curriculum and the Read more under "What implementation looks like." The primary button on your lead product page is one of them.
Four of these point at pages that don't exist yet — a digital logbooks guide, a compliance and funding page, a "who it's for" page, an implementation page. Two of those I've written for you in section 05.
/peeristics-workforce#logbooks beats a button that does nothing. Delete any card whose content doesn't exist yet; an absent card costs you nothing, a dead one costs you trust.On two separate loads — Home and Workforce — I captured the hero with the eyebrow, the rule and the buttons all painted and the h1 completely invisible. The headline arrives a beat later, when a scroll-triggered fade fires. On the Workforce load, "Stand up an apprenticeship program in under 90 days" simply wasn't there.
Same mechanism, worse case, on Curriculum: the three column headings in "Who it's for" — Administrators & jurisdictions, Educators, IT & integration — sat at a computed opacity of 0.017 while fully inside the viewport. Invisible, indefinitely. On Home, the "What we do" headings and the three bottom cards' titles behave the same way.
h1, every section heading and any text that is above the fold. Squarespace: section settings → Animation → None. Keep the effect for decorative bands if you like it, but text that carries meaning must be at full opacity at rest. It's also what a reduced-motion visitor and any link-preview crawler will see.Home page, dark green band. Six white cards, each with a bold label — Data residency, Configurable, not custom, Works with your stack, Role-based governance, Reporting on demand, Long-term infrastructure — set to rgb(255,255,255) on a white card. They're in the DOM, they're selectable, and they're invisible. Every card reads as a floating orphan sentence.
#303636. This is the section that answers "is this thing procurement-safe" and right now it doesn't have visible headings.Your terracotta is #D4967D. White on it is 2.48:1. WCAG AA needs 4.5:1 for body text and 3:1 for large text, so the whole "What we do" section fails both. The three body paragraphs there are 16 px at a 1.2 line-height, which makes it worse.
#303636 — that measures 4.95:1 and passes AA at any size. Bump the body line-height to 1.55 while you're in there. For a public-sector buyer with AODA obligations, this is not a cosmetic note; it's the kind of thing that shows up in a procurement accessibility questionnaire.Filled: white label on #D4967D = 2.48:1. Outlined: #D4967D label on white = 2.48:1. That covers Book a demo, See both products, Which one fits me?, Explore Workforce, Build a program, Talk to us and every Read more. Two peer CTAs on Home are also styled differently for no reason — Explore Curriculum is filled, Explore Workforce is outlined — and they're 67 px and 71 px tall respectively.
#A65B3C for filled buttons with white labels (about 4.9:1), and use the ink for outlined-button labels with terracotta borders. Keep terracotta as your fill and accent colour everywhere it isn't carrying text. Then pick one primary style and one secondary style and use them consistently — same height, same padding, same radius.Screenshot (8).png is 733×158 native, rendered at 906×195 CSS px on a device-pixel-ratio of 2 — so it's covering roughly 1812 device pixels with 733, a 2.5× stretch. It will look soft on any modern laptop. Its alt attribute is empty, which means the entire "What Workforce coordinates" section is one eyebrow and one sentence to a screen reader.
Screenshot (8).png is visible in your sitemap and in the page source.og:image on any pageAll five pages: zero meta descriptions, zero Open Graph images. Every time someone pastes a Peeristics link into an email, Teams, Slack or LinkedIn, the preview is a bare grey card. For a business where the link travels by email into a procurement thread, that's a meaningful loss on a free fix.
h1The browser tab and every search result read Contact 1 — Peeristics, a leftover from the Squarespace template. The page also has zero h1 elements: "Tell us what you're running" is styled as a heading but isn't marked up as one, so screen readers and crawlers see a page with no title.
h1. Full replacement copy for this page is in section 04.At a 1433 px viewport the nav list is 456 px wide and 45 px tall — two lines, with "Contact Us" dropped below the other four items. Meanwhile the logo sits centred, the Book a demo button is jammed against the right edge, and there's a wide empty span between them. The header is the first thing every visitor sees and it looks broken at the most common desktop width there is.
Workforce · Curriculum · Market landscape · Company · Contact, with Book a demo as the only button.The header contains a cart icon showing 0, linked to /cart. On a site selling multi-year apprenticeship management software to ministries and colleges, it reads as an unfinished template.
Home page, both product cards: a five-line paragraph, a two-line audience list and four bullets, all centred. Centred text is fine for a single line and hard work for a paragraph — every line starts in a different place, so the reader's eye has to re-find the left edge five times.
The hero sits flush left at 32 px. "What we do" is a two-column split with a 260 px empty gutter and centred headings against left-aligned body text. The router table is 743 px wide, centred on 783 px rather than the page's 716 px centre. The dark bands run full bleed. Scrolling the page, the content keeps shifting sideways underneath you.
Each page's value proposition is set in uppercase mono at around 12 px, running four to five lines. It's your most important sentence in your least readable style. All-caps removes word-shape cues, mono removes letter-width cues, and five lines of both is a wall.
Market Landscape states "$1.2–1.8B size of the market in construction & trades workforce technology" and "~8% CAGR", plus "PSI alone holds contracts with 35+ US state licensing boards", with no citation or date anywhere. The section above them is headed "Six gaps the scan calls out" — referring to an internal market scan the reader has never seen.
You've told me there's nothing citable to publish yet. On a public page that names ApprentiScope, Prometric, Pearson VUE and PSI by name, unsourced numbers are the wrong kind of exposure.
It's the Workforce h1. Nowhere on the site is there a timeline, a phase breakdown, a named implementation or a single customer. The first question any experienced program director asks is "90 days from what, with whose staff, and who has done it?" — and the site has no answer.
Home sells it to "Ministries • School boards • Educators • Corporate learning." The Curriculum page's own product comparison calls it "The K-12 side." Corporate L&D buyers reading "K-12" leave, and ministry buyers reading "corporate learning" wonder whether it's built for them.
Nav says Market Landscape. The browser title says Peeristics vs the competition. The h1 says No one owns the full apprenticeship journey. The button on Home says Us vs the market.
h1, it's the best line on the page. "Us vs the competition" also frames you as the challenger before you've established what you are — the landscape framing is stronger.Workforce: "Apprenticeships need three parties and an authority in sync." The diagram directly above shows Employer, Training provider, Apprentice — and no regulator or authority node. The regulator is the party that makes your multi-party argument distinctive, and it's missing from the picture.
204.285.3331, a Winnipeg area code, against a Toronto office address with no postal code. Either use a 416/647 number or explain the Manitoba presence.Right now the home page is a fork in the road: two products, a comparison table, and a "which one fits me?" router. That's a site built for someone who already knows what Peeristics is. Nobody does yet.
Leading with Workforce isn't just reordering the home page. It changes what the site is for. Three things follow:
Not 50/50, not a router. The full apprenticeship argument — three parties, paper logbooks, sign-off, claims — carried on the home page, with Curriculum appearing once, near the bottom, as "we also do the classroom side, and here's why that matters to you." The "Find your starting point" table drops to a small three-row band or moves onto the Company page.
It's currently the third nav item on a site that hasn't yet said what it does, which is why it reads like an internal deck. Behind a Workforce-led home page it reads as exactly what it is: the market map from the company that has actually studied the file. It should be linked from the Workforce page as "why nobody else does this," not from the top-level nav as a peer of your products.
One caveat: half of it is about American JATCs, RAPIDS and state licensing boards. If the reader you care about is at Skilled Trades Ontario, lead the page with the Canadian tier and let the US tiers be the supporting evidence that no incumbent is coming for this market.
"Learning you can trace, from the first lesson to the credential" is a good line, but with Workforce leading it can't be the headline — it's too abstract for an employer who needs hours signed off. Demote it to the footer and the Company page, where it explains why one company owns both products, and let the home page open on the concrete problem.
A registered apprenticeship needs an employer, a training provider, a regulator and the apprentice to agree on the same record. Today that record is a paper logbook, four disconnected systems and a spreadsheet rebuilt at quarter-end. Peeristics Workforce is the shared record: hours logged from the field, skills signed off by the mentor who watched them, compliance reporting and funding claims assembled from the same verified data. And because we also build the classroom side, the competency proven in the classroom carries into the program without being re-entered.
Paste-ready. Where a line replaces something specific, the current version is shown above it so you can see the trade. Everything here uses only claims your existing pages already make — no new customers, no new numbers.
For employers, sponsors, colleges and training providers · Canada
The apprenticeship record still lives on paper. That's the whole problem.
Peeristics Workforce is the shared record for work-based learning. Apprentices log hours from the field, mentors sign off at the skill level, and the employer, the college and the regulator all read the same live file — so compliance reporting and funding claims assemble themselves instead of being rebuilt at quarter-end.
Book a demo ↗See how hour tracking worksWhat breaks today
Three failures, and none of them are about software
The logbook is paper. Hours get written on a page in a truck, keyed in weeks later, and argued over at completion. Everyone in the chain knows the number is soft.
A grade answers the wrong question. Passing a course says a course was passed. It doesn't say a journeyworker stood there and watched someone do the thing to standard. Competency and assessment are not the same record, and most systems only keep one.
Nobody holds the whole file. The employer has the hours. The college has the instruction. The regulator has the standard. The apprentice has a binder. When any two of them need to agree, someone builds a spreadsheet.
"Capture data at the smallest unit / Attribute it to an outcome / Keep every party in sync" describes your architecture. The version above describes the reader's Tuesday. Architecture is the right content for the product page; the problem belongs on the home page, and it's also the section that survives being read by someone who has never heard of you.
The product
One record, six jobs
Workforce covers the operational span of a registered program: build it from the standard, enrol against it, track hours and skills in the field, keep the audit trail intact, assemble the claims, issue the credential. Configured to your framework, not custom-built for it.
One company, two products
We also build the classroom side, which is why the handoff works
Peeristics Curriculum is the classroom and jurisdictional platform: modular curriculum, tracked to the paragraph, with causal attribution showing which material actually moved outcomes. It matters here for one reason — a competency proven in the classroom maps straight onto a skill the apprenticeship has to evidence. No re-entry, no second spreadsheet, no gap between the training and the record of it.
If your programs are classroom-first — a ministry, a school board, a college running instruction — start there instead.
Explore CurriculumWhat comes with it
Keep 2009 and 20+ years serving the Canadian public sector — those are corporate facts and they're the most credible numbers on the site. Drop 2 (products) and 1 (shared record); a "2" as a hero statistic reads as padding. Replace them with the two figures that will mean something the moment you have them: apprentices tracked, and hours logged.
For employers, sponsors, colleges and training providers
Stand up a registered apprenticeship from a template, not a build
Load the official standard for the trade, and the structure — skill sets, mandatory skills, hour requirements — is ready to enrol against. Apprentices log hours on mobile, mentors approve at the skill level, and every sign-off is timestamped, attributed and validated against the registry.
Book a demo ↗See how hour tracking worksModule by module
What a program looks like once it's on Workforce
"An LMS manages courses. We manage apprenticeships," with the five rows underneath, is the best-written thing on the site. Only two changes: strip the stray › characters, and add a sixth row for the gap you identified on Market Landscape and haven't claimed here — Exam eligibility: generic LMS "not tracked", Workforce "triggered by verified hour milestones." That's the differentiator your own market analysis says nobody in the market has, and it isn't on your product page.
The part nobody else does
Hours logged should tell the apprentice they're eligible
Across the market, hour milestones and exam scheduling are separate systems that never speak. An apprentice can be 200 hours past eligibility and not know it, and the sponsor finds out at the next review. Because Workforce holds the verified hours and the standard in one record, eligibility is a state the system already knows — not a calculation somebody does later, by hand, from a logbook.
See the market landscapeEmployers & sponsors
Colleges & training providers
Apprentices & mentors
Product comparison block, replace "The K-12 side":
"The classroom side: creates, distributes and analyzes curriculum down to the paragraph, so jurisdictions, boards and corporate programs can see what actually improves performance. K-12, post-secondary and corporate learning."
Loop heading, replace "Aggregate. Integrate. Attribute. Educate.":
"Aggregate. Integrate. Deliver. Attribute. Educate."
Integration Hub description, remove Pinterest:
"Lets educators keep content where it already lives and unlocks data a traditional LMS overlooks — Drive, OneNote, OneDrive, Dropbox, and connected repositories."
Hero subhead, out of all-caps and into sentence case:
"Peeristics Curriculum shows which teaching materials actually improve outcomes. It creates, distributes and analyzes curriculum down to the paragraph or activity level — so every decision a jurisdiction or an educator makes gets better with the next cohort."
Administrators & jurisdictions
Educators
IT & integration
Page title: "Apprenticeship market landscape — Peeristics"
Nav label and the button on Home: "Market landscape"
Keep the h1: "No one owns the full apprenticeship journey"
Hero subhead, out of all-caps:
"Trade certification runs as a relay with no handoffs. The companies that own each stage of the process don't share data, so information is lost and time is wasted at every exchange. Workforce is built for the gaps between them."
Replace "Six gaps the scan calls out": "Six gaps in the market today"
Tier table, fix the naming: the fourth row is labelled "Canada" while the others are "Tier 1/2/3". Either make it "Tier 4 — Canada" or rename all four by what they are: Exam delivery · Apprenticeship management · Standards bodies · Canadian public portals. The second is better — the tier numbers don't encode anything a reader can use.
Reorder: lead with the Canadian row. It's the row that says there is no incumbent in your actual market, and it's currently last.
Foot of page: "Analysis current as of September 2026. Figures are our own estimates from public sources; contact us for the underlying scan."
Typos: "license renewal ." → "licence renewal." · "Explore Workforce↗" → "Explore Workforce ↗" · "13 Canadian provinces & territories" → "10 provinces and 3 territories, each running apprenticeship independently"
Get in touch
Tell us what you're running
An employer standing up a registered apprenticeship, a college managing work placements, a group sponsor, a ministry setting curriculum — tell us which, and we'll show you the part of the platform that applies and what an implementation actually involves.
We reply within one business day.
Talk to us
General and demos
contact@peeristics.com
[416 number]
Procurement and vendor inquiries
procurement@peeristics.com — for RFP, RFI and VOR documentation, security questionnaires and insurance certificates.
Privacy and data requests
privacy@peeristics.com
Accessibility
accessibility@peeristics.com — tell us if any part of this site or the platform is difficult to use and we'll fix it.
Office
130 Queens Quay East
Toronto, Ontario [M5A postal code]
A Shore Consulting Group company since 2009
We use what you send us to answer your inquiry and nothing else. We don't sell it, we don't add you to a marketing list without asking, and you can have it deleted by writing to privacy@peeristics.com. Full detail on our Privacy page.
The "What are you running?" dropdown is good and should stay. Add Role (program administrator / compliance / finance / IT / executive / apprentice or mentor) — it's the single most useful routing field you can add, and it tells you who inside the organisation is actually looking. And with Workforce leading, reorder the dropdown so the apprenticeship option is first.
Nine new pages. Four of them are already linked from your existing dead buttons, so they're overdue rather than optional. The security page is the one a public-sector deal will stall without.
| Page | Path | Why | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Security, privacy & data residency | /security | First page a ministry or college privacy office asks for. Its absence stalls deals. | 1 |
| Implementation | /implementation | Already linked from Home by a dead button. Replaces the unbacked 90-day claim with an honest phase plan. | 1 |
| Digital logbooks | /digital-logbooks | Already linked from Workforce by a dead button. Your most demonstrable feature. | 2 |
| Compliance & funding | /compliance-funding | Already linked from Workforce by a dead button. This is the budget-holder's page. | 2 |
| Pricing | /pricing | Public buyers need a structure to budget against, even without numbers. No pricing page reads as "enterprise, unaffordable, ask later." | 2 |
| Company | /company | Twenty years of Shore public-sector delivery is your strongest credential and it currently appears only in footer small print. | 2 |
| Partners | /partners | Colleges, group sponsors and standards bodies are channel, not just customers. | 3 |
| Insights | /insights | Your market scan is genuinely good research. Publishing it in pieces is how a ministry finds you. | 3 |
| Careers | /careers | Signals a real company. One page, low effort. | 3 |
Written as a template, because most of these are facts I can't invent for you — anything in square brackets needs your answer before this page goes live. Fill them in and this page closes more procurement questions than the rest of the site combined.
Security, privacy & data residency
Where your learners' data lives, and who can see it
Peeristics holds records about apprentices, students, mentors and staff. Public-sector programs are accountable for that data under provincial privacy legislation, and their vendors have to be able to answer for it in writing. This page is that answer. If your privacy office needs more than what's here, write to privacy@peeristics.com and we'll complete your questionnaire directly.
Data residency
All customer data is hosted in [Canadian region / provider], and stays in Canada at rest and in backup. [State whether any data transits or is processed outside Canada, and if so, for what.] Where a jurisdiction requires in-province residency, [state whether that is available and how].
Who can see what
Access is role-based and scoped to the program. An employer sees their own apprentices. A mentor sees the apprentices they supervise and the skills they're asked to sign. A training provider sees its own learners. A regulator sees what the program is required to report. A group sponsor sees the group; each employer within it sees only itself. Nobody sees a learner outside their own relationship to that learner, and every access and change is written to an audit log with a timestamp and an actor.
Legislation we're built for
[FIPPA / MFIPPA for Ontario public bodies, PIPEDA for private-sector sponsors, and the equivalent provincial statutes where you operate — list the ones you can actually speak to.] We complete customer privacy impact assessments and threat risk assessments as part of onboarding, and we don't ask a customer to accept a term their own legislation prohibits.
Sub-processors
[List every third party that touches customer data — hosting, email, error monitoring, analytics — with what each one does and where it is located.] We'll give you notice before adding a sub-processor that touches customer data.
Retention and deletion
Apprenticeship records have statutory retention periods that outlast any software contract. We retain records for [period / as directed by your framework], and on termination we return your data in a documented open format and delete our copies within [n] days. A learner's own request for access or correction is handled through you, as the institution that holds the relationship — we support it, we don't intercept it.
Availability and integrity
[Uptime target and where it's measured. Backup frequency and restore testing cadence. Encryption in transit and at rest. Whether you hold or are pursuing SOC 2 Type II or ISO 27001, and honestly where you are on that path.]
If something goes wrong
We notify affected customers within [n] hours of confirming an incident involving their data, with what we know, what we've done and what we need from you. Our incident response plan is available under NDA.
Accessibility
The platform is built to WCAG 2.1 Level AA [state current conformance honestly — "targeting", "conforms with known exceptions", or "conformant", plus the date of your last audit]. An accessibility conformance report is available on request. If any part is hard to use, write to accessibility@peeristics.com.
Implementation
What it takes to get a program live
Workforce is configured, not custom-built — the standard, the trades, the skill sets and the hour requirements are set up rather than developed. That's why an implementation is measured in weeks of your team's time, not in a development cycle. Here's the honest shape of it.
Phase 1 · Scope and standards
What we do: load the official standards for the trades or pathways in scope, map your skill sets and hour requirements, and confirm which regulatory reports the program has to produce.
What you provide: the trades in scope, your current program documentation, and one person who can answer questions about how the program actually runs.
Phase 2 · Configuration
What we do: build the program structure, roles and approval chains; configure supervision ratios, notifications and report templates.
What you provide: your role list and who approves what — usually the longest conversation of the whole project, because it's the first time some organisations write that down.
Phase 3 · Data and integrations
What we do: migrate existing apprentice records and hour balances, connect single sign-on, and set up the connections to your systems of record.
What you provide: your current records in whatever state they're in — spreadsheets and scanned logbooks are normal and we plan for them — plus an IT contact for SSO.
Phase 4 · Pilot cohort
What we do: train the mentors and administrators, run a live cohort, and fix what the cohort finds.
What you provide: one real cohort and the mentors who supervise it. A pilot with real hours and real sign-offs tells you more in three weeks than a sandbox tells you in three months.
Phase 5 · Go live
What we do: roll out to remaining cohorts, hand over reporting, and move you to ongoing support.
What you provide: the go-ahead.
What you should ask us
How long each phase takes for a program your size; who from our team is on it; what happens if your framework changes mid-implementation; and what it costs to add a second trade in year two. Ask on the demo — we'd rather answer it there than have you find out in month four.
Digital logbooks
The hour that gets logged on site is the hour that counts
A paper logbook has one job and two failure modes: it can be lost, and it can be filled in later. Both are common, and both land on the apprentice at completion, when someone has to decide whether hours written from memory in a truck six months ago are defensible.
Logged where the work happens
An apprentice records hours and the skills they practised from their phone, on site, on the day. Offline entries sync when signal comes back. Every entry keeps its edit history, so a correction is visible as a correction rather than replacing what was there.
Signed off at the skill level
A mentor or journeyworker approves the specific skill they watched — not a week, not a course. Approvals can be granted individually or across a whole skill set, and every sign-off is timestamped, attributed to a named person, and validated against their standing in the registry, so the record shows a qualified person signed it.
Visible to everyone who needs it, and only them
The apprentice sees their distance to completion. The mentor sees what's waiting for approval. The employer sees the cohort and its supervision ratios. The provider sees its learners. The regulator sees what the program has to report. One record, five views, no reconciliation.
Which makes the rest automatic
Because hours and sign-offs are verified as they happen, everything downstream is derived rather than assembled: progress, eligibility, compliance reporting and funding claims all read from the same data. Nothing is re-keyed, and there's nothing to rebuild at quarter-end.
Book a demo ↗Compliance & fundingCompliance & funding
Claims an auditor can follow back to a signature
Most funding claims are reconstructions. Someone pulls hours from a spreadsheet, cross-references a paper logbook, estimates the rest, and files. It usually works. It works less well when an auditor asks who approved a particular skill on a particular day, and why the hours in the claim don't match the hours in the binder.
Built from verified progress, not re-keyed
Claims assemble from the same data the mentors signed. Every line traces to a specific approval, by a named approver, on a date, against a version of the standard that was current at the time. Standards versioning matters more than it sounds: a two-year-old sign-off has to stay defensible after the framework changes underneath it.
See what a program qualifies for
Wage subsidies and completion incentives are surfaced against the programs and apprentices that qualify, tracked from eligibility through submission to payout — so you find out what you're entitled to before the window closes rather than after.
Reporting that's already in the right shape
Regulatory reports are generated from program data in the formats your framework requires, with a complete audit trail behind every record and every change. Auditor exports are a report, not a project.
Book a demo ↗Pricing
Priced per apprentice, with everyone else included
We publish the structure rather than a number, because a 40-apprentice employer and a provincial rollout aren't the same purchase. What we won't do is charge you per seat for the people who make the program work.
How it's structured
What's included at every size
Every module — program builder, logbooks, approvals, compliance reporting, funding claims, credential issuance — plus data residency, role-based access, audit logging, support and standards updates as frameworks change. There is no tier where the audit trail is an upgrade.
Procurement
We're familiar with Canadian public-sector procurement and can respond to RFPs, RFIs and RFSQs, complete security and accessibility questionnaires, provide insurance certificates, and work through a VOR or standing arrangement where you have one. Write to procurement@peeristics.com.
Pilots
Most programs start with one cohort on one trade. It's the fastest way to find out whether this fits how you actually work, and it's priced to be a decision you can make without a full procurement.
Get a quote ↗Company
Twenty years inside the systems we're now rebuilding
Peeristics has been a Shore Consulting Group company since 2009, built and supported from Toronto. Shore has spent two decades delivering into the Canadian public sector, which is the whole reason Peeristics exists: we kept meeting the same problem from the inside.
Learning is recorded everywhere and understood nowhere. A ministry can tell you which curriculum was distributed and not which of it worked. An employer can tell you an apprentice logged 4,000 hours and not which competencies a mentor actually watched. Every party in a learner's progress holds a fragment, and the fragments are reconciled by hand, late, under deadline.
So we built two products against one idea: record learning at a small enough unit that you can attribute it, and keep one record that every party can read.
Peeristics Curriculum covers the classroom and jurisdictional side — modular curriculum with causal attribution, for K-12, post-secondary and corporate programs. Peeristics Workforce covers work-based learning — programs, logbooks, sign-off, compliance and credentials, for employers, sponsors, colleges and training providers. A competency proven in the first becomes a requirement evidenced in the second, on the same learner record.
Where we are
130 Queens Quay East, Toronto, Ontario. Built, hosted and supported in Canada, for Canadian frameworks — which in this market is a design constraint, not a marketing line: [n] provinces and territories each run apprenticeship independently, and a platform that doesn't take that seriously can't work here.
Leadership
[Two or three named people with one line each on what they did before. A public-sector buyer looks for this page and will notice if the company running their learner records has no names on it.]
Four groups, one short section each: colleges and training providers delivering related instruction against your record; group sponsors and industry associations running programs for many small employers who can't run one alone; standards and credentialing bodies whose frameworks the platform configures against; system integrators for jurisdictional deployments. End with the one thing a partner wants to know: what the commercial relationship is.
Your market scan is real research and it's currently buried on one page as bullet points. Six pieces are already sitting in it: why hour milestones don't trigger exam eligibility anywhere; what happens to a Red Seal apprentice who moves provinces; why 50–300-apprentice programs are stuck on spreadsheets; what a paper logbook actually costs at completion; how funding claims fail an audit; what "competency-based" means when nobody watched the work. Each is 700–900 words and each is a reason a ministry finds you through a search rather than an introduction.
One page. What Peeristics is, that it's Toronto-based inside Shore Consulting Group, the two or three roles you're actually hiring, and a general address. If you're not hiring, say so and give the address anyway — an empty careers page is worse than none, a candid one is fine.
| Position | Label | Contains |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Workforce | Overview · Digital logbooks · Compliance & funding · Who it's for |
| 2 | Curriculum | Overview · The learning loop · Who it's for |
| 3 | Why Peeristics | Market landscape · Implementation · Security & data residency · Pricing |
| 4 | Company | About · Partners · Insights · Careers |
| 5 | Contact | — |
| CTA | Book a demo | The only button in the header |
And a real footer. The current one is a single run-on sentence in all-caps mono with an address and an email. It should carry the four nav columns, the Shore Consulting Group line, Privacy, Terms, Accessibility, a LinkedIn link, and the tagline — which is where "Learning you can trace, from the first lesson to the credential" belongs once Workforce leads the home page.
This is the highest-value work on the list. You have one image on the site today; these nine turn a well-argued category description into a product. Export at 2× minimum — the current image is being stretched 2.5× and it shows.
A phone, on site, hours being logged against a named skill. Home hero and /digital-logbooks. This is the single most persuasive image you can produce, because it's the moment the paper logbook disappears. Caption: "Hours logged on site, on the day, against the skill they belong to."
Three or four skills awaiting approval, each with the apprentice, the date and the standard alongside. /digital-logbooks. Caption: "A journeyworker approves the specific skill they watched — timestamped, attributed, validated against the registry."
Distance to completion, hours by skill set, what's outstanding. The clearest possible answer to "what does this thing actually hold." Caption: "One record: hours, skills, sign-offs, and what's left."
A trade selected, the official standard loaded, skill sets and hour requirements populated. This is the shot that carries "from a template, not a build" — the claim replacing your 90-day headline. Caption: "Load the standard; the structure is ready to enrol against."
Every apprentice, progress, supervision status, at a glance. /peeristics-workforce. Caption: "Every apprentice's distance to completion, without asking three people for a status."
Claim lines with verified hours behind each one, traceable to approvals. /compliance-funding. This is the budget-holder's shot. Caption: "Every claim line traces to a named approval on a date."
Edit history, actor, timestamp, standard version. Boring to look at, decisive in a procurement review. /security and /compliance-funding.
The certificate with its number and registry publication. It's the end of the story the whole site is telling and it isn't shown anywhere.
One activity, its outcome signal, the cohorts it ran with. The Curriculum page's central claim is currently made entirely in prose.
Use plausible fake data, and say so. Real apprentice names and hours can't go on a public site. Invented ones that look real are better than blurred ones — blur reads as something to hide. Add a small "Illustrative data" label and no reasonable buyer will object.
Crop tight. A full browser chrome screenshot at 906 px wide shows nothing. Crop to the one panel the caption is about, at 2×, on your cream ground with a hairline border.
All five live pages currently have no meta description and no share image. These are written to length — titles under 60 characters, descriptions 140–158.
| Page | Title tag | Meta description |
|---|---|---|
| / | Peeristics — Apprenticeship management, built in Canada | The shared record for work-based learning. Apprentices log hours from the field, mentors sign off at the skill level, and compliance and funding claims build themselves. |
| /peeristics-workforce | Peeristics Workforce — Registered apprenticeship software | Build a registered apprenticeship from the official standard, track on-the-job hours on mobile, capture mentor sign-off at the skill level, and issue the credential. |
| /peeristics-curriculum | Peeristics Curriculum — Curriculum attribution platform | See which teaching materials actually improve outcomes. Create, distribute and analyze modular curriculum down to the paragraph, for jurisdictions, boards and educators. |
| /peeristics-market-landscape | Apprenticeship market landscape — Peeristics | Exam delivery, apprenticeship management and standards bodies each own one stage of trade certification. Nobody owns the handoffs. Our map of the market and its gaps. |
| /contact-us | Contact Peeristics | Tell us what you're running — an apprenticeship, a work placement program, or a curriculum network — and we'll show you the part that applies. We reply in one business day. |
| /security | Security, privacy & data residency — Peeristics | Where learner data lives, who can see it, how long we keep it, and which privacy legislation we're built for. Written for your privacy office. |
| /implementation | Implementation — Peeristics Workforce | Five phases from scope to go-live, what our team does, what yours provides, and the questions you should ask us before signing anything. |
| /digital-logbooks | Digital logbooks & mentor sign-off — Peeristics | Apprentices log hours on site from their phone. Mentors approve the specific skill they watched. Every sign-off is timestamped, attributed and registry-validated. |
| /compliance-funding | Compliance reporting & funding claims — Peeristics | Claims assembled from verified progress data, with every line traceable to a named approval on a date. Standards versioning included, so old sign-offs stay defensible. |
| /pricing | Pricing — Peeristics Workforce | Priced per active apprentice. Mentors, sponsors, administrators and regulators are never charged per seat. Pilot pricing for a single cohort, and how we handle procurement. |
| /company | About Peeristics — A Shore Consulting Group company | Built in Toronto since 2009, inside a consultancy with twenty years of Canadian public-sector delivery. Why we built two products against one idea. |