Skip to content

Trust

How we decide what to publish

Exam prep is a category where being confidently wrong is common and consequential. A candidate budgeting from a pre-2024 fee figure, or relying on an old version of California law, has been failed by whoever published it. These are the rules we work to.

  1. 01

    Provenance is part of the interface, not a footnote

    We link to controlling statutes, regulations and official guidance. Source notes identify the rule or calculation being taught. A general chapter link is context, not proof of every sentence; time-sensitive claims need a specific section and an actual check date.

  2. 02

    Unverified means unpublished, not softened

    An unsupported claim must be investigated or removed. Qualifications such as 'generally' belong where a rule has exceptions, not where its author lacks evidence. Monthly all-attempt pass rates cannot be relabeled first-time rates; separately published first-time figures need their own cohort and period.

  3. 03

    When DRE contradicts itself, we show both positions

    The calculator question is the live example. DRE's Examination Control Information lists calculators among prohibited items, while Regulation 2763(a)(6) quoted on the same page expressly permits a simple non-programmable one. We quote both, attribute both, and resolve neither, because DRE has not. The fact is flagged in the data so a later edit cannot quietly smooth it over.

  4. 04

    Derived numbers are labeled as derived

    DRE publishes approximate percentage weights, not a fixed question count for each area. The illustrative area counts alongside the blueprint multiply each weight by 150 and round independently; they sum to 152, not 150. Our practice-set allocator instead distributes exactly the requested number of items. Neither calculation establishes the composition of a particular DRE exam form.

  5. 05

    One source of truth, and the site audits itself against it

    Shared registries hold content areas, weights, topic lists, fees, examination mechanics, forms and the tool inventory. Question and tool counts are derived from their data. Tests check the weights, calculation examples, topic representation and content synchronization. A release manifest binds the delivered files, question fields and PDF downloads to the reviewed candidate; changing a hash requires review, not automatic approval.

  6. 06

    Calculation methods need independently checked examples

    The test suite exercises calculation methods with known inputs and expected outputs, including tax thresholds, fractional rates, proration dates and negative seller proceeds. These examples do not test every possible input. Learners should still check the problem's units, assumptions and rounding direction. Regression cases preserve fixes when the interface or formulas change.

  7. 07

    No real examination questions, ever

    Business and Professions Code section 123 prohibits unauthorized reproduction and use of licensing-exam questions. Violations can carry misdemeanor penalties and liability for actual damages up to $10,000 plus costs; section 10153.01 permits a candidate bar of up to three years. Our original practice items teach the published topics, not recalled DRE questions.

  8. 08

    No pass guarantee, and no competitor claim without evidence

    We do not publish a pass prediction without validated outcome evidence. Comparisons with other resources need documented support. The practice-evidence check offers study advice, not a calibrated probability or a guarantee.

  9. 09

    Complete results before any signup

    Public practice provides explanations without an email wall. Learn mode reveals feedback after an answer; test mode waits until the result screen. Calculators show their assumptions and calculation method. The website and paid app have different boundaries, which the pricing page explains.

October 2026 accuracy audit

On October 11, 2026, we reviewed all seven content-area guides, 249 public practice questions, 86 articles, 18 formula lessons, seven additional math lessons, 125 glossary entries, seven study plans and the downloadable study material against official sources available through October 10. We corrected legal distinctions, answer explanations and calculator behavior, then checked the PDFs against the revised website text. This is an editorial source review, not DRE approval or a promise that no error remains.

Earlier source-check dates remain part of the record. The public mock exams still offer 25 or 50 questions. The separate mobile and paid-app question banks were outside this website audit.

October 2026 accuracy audit

On October 11, 2026, we reviewed all seven content-area guides, 249 public practice questions, 86 articles, 18 formula lessons, seven additional math lessons, 125 glossary entries, seven study plans and the downloadable study material against official sources available through October 10. We corrected legal distinctions, answer explanations and calculator behavior, then checked the PDFs against the revised website text. This is an editorial source review, not DRE approval or a promise that no error remains.

Earlier source-check dates remain part of the record. The public mock exams still offer 25 or 50 questions. The separate mobile and paid-app question banks were outside this website audit.

Review cadence

Facts do not stay true. DRE fees increased on July 1, 2024, the first increase since 1997, and pre-increase figures are still republished across the web. The implicit bias course requirement took effect on January 1, 2024. Both changes made previously correct pages wrong overnight.

Each category of fact carries a review interval, and a record past its interval is meant to raise a notice rather than sit quietly. Fees and examination rules are reviewed every 90 days. The content outline and course rules are reviewed every 180 days.

Review dates belong to the material actually checked. A page update does not mean every legal claim received a new review. Material corrections appear in updates.

How we check the content

This resource uses AI-assisted drafting, editorial review and software tests. We compare legal claims with controlling sources, check the assumptions and arithmetic in worked examples, and record material corrections. Automated checks help detect changed content and calculation defects; they do not establish a pass rate or imply DRE endorsement.

What we deliberately do not publish

A first-time pass rate

Monthly salesperson pass rates combine first attempts and retakes. DRE has also published historical first-time candidate statistics separately; those must retain their cohort and reporting period. We do not infer a current first-time rate from the monthly overall figure.

A recommended total number of study hours

No substantiated source establishes one, so the study planner's 100-hour default is labeled a round starting number rather than a recommendation. What we do publish is the allocation, because the weights behind it are a published DRE fact.

If we get something wrong

We will. The correction policy, and the log of what has been corrected, is on the corrections page. Corrections are logged rather than quietly edited, because a silently fixed error teaches a reader nothing about how much to trust the rest.

Nothing on this site is legal advice, and it is not affiliated with or endorsed by the California Department of Real Estate. Where a decision turns on money or on a deadline, verify it against the DRE page we link to rather than against us.