1. Official source before an independent claim
We link directly to the Royal Navy, British Army, Royal Marines and RAF recruitment sources wherever practical. For a numerical fitness benchmark, we identify the service, role, assessment stage, measure and public source. A figure from an Officer PJFA page is not automatically a Commando recruit standard; a soldier 2km run is not the Army officer bleep test.
Every numerical comparison is deliberately narrow. It does not assess the complete recruitment standard, medical fitness, technique or the likelihood of selection. If a requirement isn't verified for the exact route, we prefer not to publish a score at all.
2. Conflicting sources are flagged, not silently harmonised
In October 2026 the Royal Marines main joining-process page referred to a four-day Candidate Preparation Course, while the dedicated CPC page described five days. We explain the discrepancy in our CPC guide and recommend that candidates follow their actual joining instructions. We will not invent a definitive duration where the official sources differ.
Likewise, the Royal Navy's PJFT changed from the historic 2.4km run to a 20-metre multistage fitness test for the relevant candidates from 1 October 2026. Older guides can remain publicly accessible long after such changes. Our editorial preference is to explain the transition and link the original notice.
3. Automated checks are only prompts for review
The codebase monitors a limited allowlist of official public information pages. During the October 2026 initial automated run, several official recruitment servers refused automated access with HTTP 403. A failed fetch is not evidence that the military has changed a requirement. Changes are held for manual review rather than automatically inserted into the standards registry.
We do not scrape candidate portals, reproduce confidential selection material or imply access to privileged assessment methods. A future source update should document the current official link, date and exact role/stage before any published metric is changed.
4. Authors, experience and commercial independence
Project Selection is a provisional independent project. Its founder, Deepak Shukla, has published a personal account of applying to 21 SAS Reserve and has a background in endurance events. That experience is not service in the SAS, completion of military selection or a licence to present professional exercise or medical qualifications.
Our explanatory articles are assembled using independent research, public-source comparison and AI-assisted drafting. They have not been presented as the work of military instructors or as individually medically reviewed training prescriptions. We do not invent serving personnel, specialist qualifications, testimonials, military affiliation or pass rates.
5. How corrections and updates work
If an official source changes, we check the scope: the affected service, applicant role, assessment stage, date and related pages. We then update the factual information and any tools that depend on it. No entry is approved solely because an automated checker reports a different HTML page.
To suggest a correction, send us the affected page URL, the relevant primary-source link and the passage that appears outdated. Do not send medical records, military IDs, application credentials or other sensitive personal information.
6. Health, age and data
Maximal fitness testing and unfamiliar swimming tasks involve risks. We do not prescribe extreme workouts, individual load-bearing targets or water-confidence drills without appropriate qualified supervision. Our free assessment compares one self-reported number in the browser and does not store it on our servers.
Paid coaching, subscriptions and private member registration are not yet operationally approved. Under-18 visitors may read public information, but any eventual account offering needs its own documented privacy and safeguarding controls.