MyEligible Standards

You remain the beneficiary of the reasoning, not a data source for an institution.

We explain what matters now, what you can control, and what happens next. One clear primary action comes before secondary detail. When we cannot match a program, we still aim to leave you with a manageable next step rather than a generic link list.

You should not have to learn government architecture to use MyEligible.

We start from what you are experiencing, ask only questions that change the route, and support overlapping needs where a journey requires it. Uncertainty is not punished; “not sure” paths still aim to be useful.

“Apply here” is not always the end of the problem.

We point to specific programs, forms, contacts, or evidence to prepare when verified routes exist, not broad homepages as the only answer. We distinguish new applications, renewals, interruptions, refusals, and rights-based escalation, with verified handoffs when they exist.

We check important information against authoritative sources before we present it as fact.

Rules, amounts, deadlines, and official steps should trace to current government or program sources with a genuine last-verified date where we make a consequential claim. We separate what is enacted today, what is announced for the future, and what still needs confirmation.

An honest unknown is better than a confident wrong answer.

Missing information must not silently mean eligible or ineligible. We say what is uncertain, who can resolve it, and what you can still do. We do not claim to approve benefits, adjudicate claims, or guarantee outcomes.

A benefit is not useful in isolation if another rule or household member changes the outcome.

We keep recipients, caregivers, and household members distinct; use country- and province-specific reasoning; and deduplicate actions so different needs lead to materially different next steps when official routes differ.

Plain language should reduce cognitive load, not hide important qualifications.

We write for normal Canadians and New Zealanders, not internal policy jargon. Material caveats stay near the conclusions they affect, using progressive disclosure for optional depth.

Essential actions must be operable and legible across devices, themes, and assistive technology.

We target WCAG 2.2 AA and run automated checks plus manual critical-path review. Lived-experience and assistive-technology testing is documented when it happens; we do not claim it occurred everywhere when it has not.

Visual design should help you understand, decide, trust, and act, not compete for attention.

We use a restrained MyEligible visual system: clear hierarchy, paper-on-cream surfaces, sage accents, and one dominant action per view. We avoid fear-based colour, decorative clutter, and misleading “clickable” affordances on informational cards.

We minimize data collection and do not sell access to benefits.

Partners may support infrastructure, never recommendation influence. We avoid putting sensitive situations into URLs or analytics when a safer design exists, and we describe privacy limits honestly in our data-handling practices.

Policy and trust stay local even when architecture is shared.

Canada and New Zealand use separate official sources and journeys. We do not export one country’s programs as another’s, and we describe where coverage is deep versus still growing.

Standards matter most when something is wrong, stale, or confusing.

We use consequence-based review, deterministic regression checks where practical, and a clear way to report problems. Corrections aim to be traceable; a green automated test is not the same as independent human sign-off on every change.