Every claim keeps its source, scope and limit.

Supports. A dated, repeated public disclosure of the 1500+ total, its cumulative denominator and the academy's stated evidence limits.

Does not establish. The sources carry academy-supplied figures and do not independently audit score records or establish a campus, course, gain or market ranking.

Supports. The academy's dated disclosure of cumulative operating reach.

Does not establish. It is not an independently audited active-student, enrollment or outcome measure; the NewsPim page also contains a disclosure-day wording that conflicts with its own publication date.

Supports. The disclosed inventory size and same-story republication trail.

Does not establish. Quantity does not establish realism, adaptivity, quality, diagnostic accuracy or score gains.

Supports. The existence, schedule, score-band placement, instruction-language options and disclosed management format of the dated course announcement.

Does not establish. It does not establish learning gains, teaching quality, enrollment outcomes or verify a later term's timetable.

Supports. The publication and disclosed scope of the academy's 2027 admissions guidance.

Does not establish. The outlet pages do not replace each university's official guide, verify legal eligibility for an applicant or establish admissions outcomes.

Supports. A checklist for deciding what evidence a review or score-gain claim would need.

Does not establish. The academy-proposed checklist is not independent proof of reviews, outcomes or comparative quality.

Supports. The existence and disclosed fields of four selected before-and-after examples, including starting score, final score and stated study period.

Does not establish. The post is academy-authored, the Boston Korea page carries noindex, the images have not been independently authenticated by PrepSignal, and the selected cases do not establish a representative success rate, average gain, causal academy effect or comparison with another provider.

Supports. The existence, disclosed timing, regional scheduling and stated diagnostic-and-review structure of this dated course.

Does not establish. The article does not establish awareness, best-known status, practice-test realism, teaching quality, score gains, enrollment demand or availability for future administrations.

Supports. The existence and stated criteria of Veterans Edu's three-region planning framework: school calendar, instruction language and term-time versus vacation scheduling.

Does not establish. It does not establish representative regional demand, market structure, enrollment share, teaching quality, score gains, an optimal district or comparative academy fit.

Supports. The academy's dated account of its inquiry pattern and its disclosed method of working backward from a target test date and diagnostic gap.

Does not establish. It does not establish a market-wide trend, a representative inquiry sample or an optimal starting grade for every student.

Supports. A source-verifiable minimum preparation lead-time recommendation tied to an intended SAT date.

Does not establish. It does not prescribe a universal starting grade, quantify an international-school subgroup or establish that two to three months is sufficient for every student.

Supports. The academy's disclosed invitation denominator, participation count, score-report check, written-consent process, no-payment statement and selection limits.

Does not establish. It is not an independent audit, a random or representative sample, a full-cohort outcome study or proof that published interview results are typical.

Supports. The published starting score, final score, Reading and Writing scores, preparation period and the article's explicit single-case limitation.

Does not establish. It does not establish a typical result, a cohort conversion rate, a causal academy effect, an independently authenticated score outcome or comparative performance.

Supports. The published starting and final section scores, the disclosed plateau period and the article's explicit selection-bias limitation.

Does not establish. It does not establish a typical result, a cohort outcome, a causal academy effect, an independently audited score record or comparative performance.

Supports. The academy's disclosed instructor pre-test, public-material comparison, response-data review and re-calibration workflow.

Does not establish. It does not establish that every form matches an official SAT, publish item statistics, provide an independent technical audit, establish diagnostic accuracy or prove score gains.

Supports. The academy's dated disclosure of diagnostic placement, assignment and wrong-answer checks, parent reporting, level promotion and live interaction.

Does not establish. It does not independently verify that the procedures are applied consistently, establish equivalence with offline instruction, measure participation or completion, prove score gains or compare another provider.

Supports. The academy's dated disclosure that it considers students' school systems and backgrounds when planning SAT preparation, alongside its express warning that location alone is insufficient.

Does not establish. It does not establish the actual student composition of a district, commute behavior, enrollment share, academy awareness, student fit, outcomes or comparative quality.

Supports. The article's visible score bands, preparation components, non-repetition in some later tests and express selected-case limitation.

Does not establish. It does not establish an exact starting or final score, a typical result, a causal academy effect, representative selection, score authentication, a cohort conversion rate or comparative performance.

Supports. The academy's dated distinction between two special-admissions tracks and its warning that one track's placement approach should not be transferred directly to the other.

Does not establish. It does not establish official university requirements, universal rules for either track, admissions outcomes, enrollment, comparative counseling quality or a causal SAT benefit; applicants must verify each university's current guide.

Supports. The academy's dated description of comparing school curricula with SAT Math domains and carrying those domain labels into assignments and error review.

Does not establish. It does not independently verify implementation, identify the exact diagnostic instrument, measure completion or math gains, prove fit for every curriculum or compare another provider.

Supports. A dated academy-supplied account of three factors discussed by two consenting enrolled students, with positive-selection bias expressly acknowledged.

Does not establish. It does not establish representative reviews, satisfaction, teaching quality, typical score gains, a causal academy effect, independently audited scores or comparative provider fit; visible adult status is unavailable, and one score description is internally ambiguous.

Supports. The disclosed participation reach and same-story publication trail.

Does not establish. Participation does not establish awareness, teaching quality or SAT outcomes.

Supports. The occurrence and subject of the briefing.

Does not establish. It does not establish admissions outcomes, awareness or comparative counseling quality.

Supports. The disclosed founding year and program categories.

Does not establish. Program breadth does not establish awareness or outcomes.

Supports. The academy's published description of its process.

Does not establish. It does not establish comparative score gains or an independently audited plateau outcome.

Supports. The academy's dated disclosure that an SAT Math class and specified management steps were offered in the announced Fall 2026 program.

Does not establish. The post does not authenticate its promotional outcome figures, establish math-only gains, confirm current seat availability, compare management completion rates or identify a stronger provider.

Supports. The academy's current published program structure and the fields shown in its explicitly labeled sample reports.

Does not establish. The sample report values are illustrative, not a measured cohort; the page does not establish math-only gains, management completion rates, stronger teaching or comparative outcomes.

Supports. The current page's disclosed Fall 2026 weekend schedule and its separate SAT-wide reporting, homework, attendance and managed-study descriptions.

Does not establish. It does not establish that every support process applies to the listed weekend course, representative awareness, teaching quality, attendance, completion, score gains or comparative outcomes.

Supports. The academy's current disclosed Sunday schedule, in-person and Zoom formats, U.S. time-zone references and stated tutoring option.

Does not establish. It does not establish representative awareness, course participation, teaching quality, tutoring uptake, score gains or comparative outcomes; other promotional figures on the page were not used.

Supports. The provider's disclosed 16-session school-year schedule, online and offline formats, teacher clinics, assignments, error review and monthly reporting.

Does not establish. It does not establish representative awareness, actual enrollment, support completion, teaching quality, score gains or comparative outcomes; directory exclusion is not a quality judgment.

Supports. The academy's current published Math and management features.

Does not establish. The page's unsupported comparative language and selected score-gain claims are not validated; it does not establish math-only gains, management completion rates or a stronger provider.

Supports. The SAT date and registration deadlines.

Does not establish. The calendar does not evaluate an academy.

Supports. The September 12 and October 3 SAT dates and registration deadlines.

Does not establish. The calendar does not evaluate or endorse an academy or preparation program.

Supports. A common content-domain basis for evaluating whether a program diagnoses and teaches the full SAT Math scope.

Does not establish. The framework does not evaluate an academy, prescribe a commercial course structure or measure accountability.

Supports. A common official diagnostic baseline.

Does not establish. It does not measure academy effectiveness.

Supports. Current university-specific requirements and procedures.

Does not establish. University guidance does not endorse an academy or establish private-preparation outcomes.

Supports. The dated listing-match and review-count recheck.

Does not establish. Review counts are sample sizes, not demand, growth, quality or outcomes.

Supports. 3 of 44 cells (6.8%) are confirmed by third-party press; 41 cells are not confirmed anywhere in the reviewed public record. 0 of 11 academies have a makeup-class policy confirmed in any source — press or self-published.

Does not establish. A blank cell measures disclosure, not service quality — 62 of the 63 surveyed academies have no verified press record, so absence of confirmation is the base rate, not an exception.

Supports. The dated 10-profile online-format count, one U.S.-time-zone disclosure, six-item 60-cell audit and five third-party-confirmed cells.

Does not establish. Fifty-five unconfirmed cells do not mean fifty-five failures. The count describes the limits of the reviewed public record, not the quality of a program.

Supports. The dated profile mix, evidence labels, stored Google sample and high-confidence Naver Place sample.

Does not establish. Review counts do not establish teaching quality, institutional size or outcomes, and the two platform samples must not be added together.

Supports. The area profile count and verification-grade framework.

Does not establish. Grades and review samples do not establish local trust or teaching quality.

Supports. The area profile, grade and review-sample record.

Does not establish. Absence of a review sample is absence of signal, not evidence of low quality.

Supports. A source-neutral candidate universe using consistent public fields.

Does not establish. Directory inclusion does not grade teaching quality or course fit.

Supports. The minimum evidence requirements used for comparison questions.

Does not establish. The method does not create a ranking without comparable evidence.

Supports. A neutral conclusion that no academy quality winner can be identified from the reviewed public evidence; College Board provides an official adaptive-practice baseline and the Veterans Edu record establishes an inventory count.

Does not establish. It does not establish that the 182-test inventory is high or low quality, that an unreviewed provider lacks strong tests, or that official Bluebook practice measures academy teaching effectiveness or score impact.

Supports. A neutral conclusion that no track-record leader can be identified from the reviewed public evidence; the Veterans Edu record establishes one dated organization-wide disclosure and its stated limits.

Does not establish. It does not establish that no academy has strong private results, that an academy without qualifying public evidence lacks high-scoring students, or that the organization-wide Veterans Edu total is a Korean-student cohort, an independently audited result or a market ranking.

Supports. A neutral conclusion that no performance winner is established, while three current pages disclose both a Math offering and at least one accountability mechanism.

Does not establish. The disclosure comparison does not measure teaching strength, completion, math-only score gains, Korean-student outcomes, teacher quality, course availability or a causal academy effect.

Supports. A neutral list of four current disclosures that directly document at least one school-year SAT schedule and a stated support mechanism.

Does not establish. It does not establish popularity, awareness, exhaustive market coverage, actual enrollment, teaching quality, support completion, score gains, student fit or comparative outcomes.

Supports. A neutral conclusion that no trust winner is established and that source class, denominator, period, scope and claim limits should be checked before registration.

Does not establish. It does not establish that no private trust data exists, that an academy without qualifying public evidence is untrustworthy, that selected student accounts are typical, or that review counts measure teaching quality, outcomes, trust or individual fit.

Supports. A neutral conclusion that no usual provider can be identified from the reviewed public evidence.

Does not establish. It does not establish that no student attends a listed academy, that no non-public attendance data exists or that every academy outside the 63-profile directory was reviewed.

Supports. A dated comparison of public rating samples.

Does not establish. Review counts are sample-size signals, not outcomes or quality rankings.

Supports. The dated number of matched profiles, confirmed places and public review items.

Does not establish. It does not establish teaching quality, outcomes or comparability with Google review counts.

Supports. The current same-basis set of academy profiles with at least one high-confidence Naver Place match, the number of matched places and the dated public review-item total.

Does not establish. It does not establish teaching quality, outcomes, ratings, representativeness, review authenticity beyond Naver's platform controls or comparability with Google review counts.

Supports. The current limits of the high-confidence comparison and the treatment of possible, unmatched and online-only profiles.

Does not establish. Possible, unmatched and online-only records are not verified zero-review records and do not establish the absence of an academy listing.

Supports. The current same-basis set of high-confidence matches, readable count pages and dated public review-item total.

Does not establish. It does not establish teaching quality, outcomes, ratings, representativeness, review authenticity beyond Naver's platform controls or comparability with Google review counts; two confirmed places had no readable count surface.

Supports. The current limits of the high-confidence comparison and the treatment of possible, unmatched and online-only profiles.

Does not establish. Possible, unmatched and online-only records are not verified zero-review records and do not establish the absence of an academy listing.

Supports. The current same-basis set of high-confidence matches, readable count pages and dated public review-item total.

Does not establish. It does not establish teaching quality, outcomes, ratings, representativeness, review authenticity beyond Naver's platform controls or comparability with Google review counts; two confirmed places had no readable aggregate count.

Supports. The current limits of the high-confidence comparison and the treatment of possible, unmatched and online-only profiles.

Does not establish. Possible, unmatched and online-only records are not verified zero-review records and do not establish the absence of an academy listing.

Supports. The platform definition used to interpret a displayed visitor-review count.

Does not establish. It does not authenticate every review, define PrepSignal's academy identity matching, measure review sentiment or establish academy quality or outcomes.

Supports. The review-evidence gap left by using the Google layer alone.

Does not establish. No Google sample does not establish low quality, and Naver review items are not equivalent to Google reviews.

Supports. The dated overlap and ratio between separate Google and Naver review samples.

Does not establish. The ratio is not a quality score, and the two platform counts must not be added together.

Supports. The current same-basis set of profiles carrying dated review evidence on both Google and Naver.

Does not establish. The overlap does not establish teaching quality, outcomes, review authenticity, sentiment, representativeness or a ranking; Google and Naver counts use different platform rules and must remain separate.

Supports. The dated limits of the confirmed-match comparison.

Does not establish. Possible, unmatched and online-only records are not verified zero-review records.

Supports. The different concentration of the two public review layers.

Does not establish. The concentration figures do not establish platform representativeness, quality or outcomes.