Contact

If you found an issue, need help interpreting a calculator result, or want to suggest a workflow improvement, send a message below. We review feedback to improve formulas, input guidance, and tool clarity across the site.

Useful messages usually include the calculator name, the values entered, and what outcome you expected. That context helps us reproduce issues quickly and provide a precise response.

For the fastest support path, include whether your scenario is based on confirmed marks or estimated values, and state any institutional rules that affect interpretation (for example, minimum component passes, capped marks, or non-standard weighting structures).

Support scope

• Calculator behavior questions and input troubleshooting.
• Content corrections for formulas, examples, and terminology.
• Suggestions for additional calculators and guide pages.

What to include in your message

• The exact calculator URL and the date/time of your test.
• The input set you used, including units and weighting assumptions.
• The output you observed and the outcome you expected.
• Any institutional policy note that may affect interpretation.
• Browser/device details if you suspect a display or interaction bug.

If your request is about output interpretation, we can explain model assumptions and common edge cases. If your request is about official progression or award decisions, we will advise verification against your institution handbook or administrator guidance.

Response expectations

We review messages in sequence and prioritize reproducible issues that affect calculator correctness, accessibility, or user safety. Complex policy interpretation requests may require a clarification exchange before a final response can be provided.

Where appropriate, we may convert confirmed issues into product updates covering formula behavior, validation messaging, or guide-page explanations so future users benefit from the same resolution.

Issue triage workflow

Reported issues are categorized as correctness, usability, accessibility, content-quality, or policy-interpretation. Correctness and accessibility issues are prioritized because they can directly block user decisions. Content and phrasing issues are grouped into scheduled improvement batches.

When reports include reproducible inputs and expected behavior, remediation is significantly faster. If key context is missing, we may request clarification before confirming the final issue classification.

Data handling for support submissions

Contact messages are used only for support and quality-improvement workflows. Do not submit confidential institutional records, account credentials, or sensitive personal data that is not required to explain the issue.

If a report includes sensitive material by mistake, request redaction in your follow-up message and include enough context for secure identification of the submission.

Quality feedback that drives improvements

High-quality feedback helps us prioritize meaningful updates. Reports that connect a concrete input set to an unexpected output are especially useful because they can be tested and verified quickly. Suggestions about wording clarity, scenario guidance, and workflow friction also shape roadmap decisions for future releases.

When you share improvement ideas, include the task you were trying to complete and the point where progress slowed down. That context allows us to improve both technical behavior and page-level guidance with measurable impact.

For account-specific academic decisions, always confirm with your school’s official rules. We can help explain calculator logic, but we cannot override institutional grading policy.