UniReady Global

UniReady Risk Optimiser

A recruitment plan
shaped around your teams.

Start with the cities your teams cover and the enrolments you intend to recruit. Choose an Evidence Level objective or an exact planning score.

  1. Country and city market intelligence

    Explore market data alongside your university’s outcomes.

  2. Targets shaped around local teams

    Set intended enrolments, minimum allocations and capacity for the cities your teams cover.

  3. An explained recruitment mix

    See which allocations increase or decrease, and why the recommended mix meets your chosen target.

  4. Daily monitoring and scenario planning

    Track the changing outlook and compare recruitment scenarios before committing to a plan.

Explore the Risk Optimiser ↗

A university planning example

Chosen maximum modelled score2.45EL2 objective · 1,000 intended enrolments
Intended mixRecommended mix2.672.449
Intended and recommended enrolments by city
CityIntendedRecommendedChange
Shanghai China1751750
Beijing China1251250
Guangzhou China1001000
Hanoi Vietnam100165+65
Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam1001000
Manila Philippines1001000
Jakarta Indonesia80800
Surabaya Indonesia20200
Ludhiana India200135−65
Total1,0001,0000

All 1,000 enrolments retained. Move 65 places from Ludhiana to Hanoi. The other allocations remain unchanged.

What does the score mean?

This is the illustrative planning scenario used in the UniReady presentation. The modelled score moves from 2.67 to 2.449, within the chosen maximum of 2.45. The recommendation depends on the scenario’s outcome assumptions and allocation constraints.

A planning score is not an official provider Evidence Level decision or a prediction of an individual visa outcome.

UniReady GS-360

Five assessment areas.
One connected view.

Recruitment plans bring applications. GS-360 checks the evidence behind them, so admissions officers can focus on judgement.

  1. 01

    Identity

    Passport authenticity, document validity and identity checks.

  2. 02

    Academics

    Qualifications, records and results against entry requirements.

  3. 03

    English

    Test verification, overall score and required component bands.

  4. 04

    Financials

    Sponsors, funds, income and loan repayment sustainability.

  5. 05

    GS interview

    An adaptive AI interview based on the SOP, with advanced proctoring.

Connect what the applicant submits, says and demonstrates.

Cross-check interview responses with submitted documents and university policy. See findings for each document, ratings by category and an overall assessment, with the reasons and evidence behind them.

The complete capacity-to-pay picture.

What is available? Is it sustainable? What does the evidence support?

≈5 minFinancial analysis
and report preparation
  1. 01

    Funds available

    Bank savings, fixed deposits and eligible education loans against tuition, living and travel costs.

  2. 02

    Ability to sustain

    Sponsor income, occupation stability, ongoing costs and education-loan repayments assessed for affordability.

  3. 03

    Evidence connected

    Sponsor eligibility, ownership and sources of funds matched across records and checked against policy.

For a low-risk case, see what supports that conclusion. For a case needing review, see the inconsistency, missing evidence or integrity concern and the next action. The officer retains the admissions decision.

GS-360 in practice / Nadia’s sample case

A promising application.
Evidence that needs review.

Nadia appears to meet key requirements and her submitted funds cover the first year. The assessment continues beyond those headline numbers.

Follow the officer’s review from sponsor eligibility to income, funding, supporting evidence and loan affordability.

At first glance

Nadia Rahman

Master’s applicant · Bangladesh

Identity, academics and English verified

1.31×apparent first-year
funding coverage
Funds presented
AUD 88,512
First-year requirement
AUD 67,786

Loan repayment coverage: 1.56×
on declared parent income.

Human review required

Funding sufficiency depends on authentic records, reconciled transactions and continuing access to the money.

Explore Nadia’s full report ↗

The concern comes
with the evidence.

Based on detection patterns from past cases, Nadia’s sample assessment shows how each concern leads to a specific review action.

F01 / Cross-account reconciliation

Eight credits.
One matching debit.

Two sponsor statements, 30 pages each. Seven claimed transfers do not reconcile.

Evidence and officer action

Eight credits of AUD 1,250 imply AUD 10,000 of support. Only AUD 1,250 matches an outgoing debit in the supplied records.

Next action: Obtain complete bank records and reconcile account, date and transaction references before accepting the claimed support.

F02 / Document integrity

An FD letter
with an integrity concern.

A seal and signature appear as overlays in a PDF presented as an original scan.

Evidence and officer action

The document structure raises a concern about how the claimed scan was produced. A digital signature alone does not establish fraud.

Next action: Authenticate the letter and fixed-deposit balance directly with the bank before relying on it.

F03 / Continuing access to funds

Money arrives.
Then leaves again.

AUD 6,000 enters in four deposits, then leaves to the same party.

Evidence and officer action

Narrations and account references connect the deposits and withdrawal. The balance alone would not explain the movement.

Next action: Establish the source, purpose and continuing availability of the funds before accepting them as sustainable support.

The officer sees why the case needs review and where to investigate. UniReady supports the judgement with traceable evidence.

Across our university partners / Over six months

Approximately 100 working days
of equivalent manual checks.

Detailed investigations can take 30–60 minutes and still miss connections. The activity data shows the scale of checking that UniReady brings together for officer review.

3,646assessment activities over six months
≈754 hoursestimated equivalent manual workload

About 100 working days at 7.5 hours per day. This is an estimated workload equivalent; remaining officer review and follow-up time have not been deducted.

See the activity breakdown and assumptions
Six-month activity totals and assumed manual handling time
ActivityCountMinutes eachHours
Passport1,306243.5
Academics20927.0
English776225.9
Financials & work experience29230146.0
GS interviews1,06330531.5
Total3,64645,232 minutes753.9

45,232 minutes ÷ 60 = 753.9 hours. At 7.5 hours per working day, that is 100.5 working days, shown here as approximately 100. At 20–22 working days per month, it represents around 4.6–5 staff-months of workload, distributed over the six-month reporting period.

The calculation uses 2 minutes for passport, academic and English activities, and 30 minutes for financial/work-experience and GS interview activities. The 30–60 minute investigation example above is not the basis for every activity. These are estimated manual handling times, not measured net time saved, headcount savings or elapsed turnaround. Multiple activities can relate to one student.

AIEC university pilot offer

50 applications.
Six weeks.

A GS-360 pilot with your own applicant cases.

No assessment fee.Standard value: AUD 5,000
50 assessments at AUD 100 each.

Register your interest during AIEC.Email your pilot interest ↗

This offer covers GS-360 application assessments. A Risk Optimiser demonstration or evaluation can be discussed separately.