The official government program page and its published questions and answers, read in full and dated. Anything else, including summaries, intermediary marketing material and secondhand accounts, should be treated as commentary and checked against the official text before it is relied on.
One official source, archived with a date beside it
This program has attracted a large amount of third-party commentary, some of it confidently wrong, and its terms are capable of change. The practical response is narrow: read the government's own page, save a copy with the date on which it was read, and note any question the page does not answer rather than filling the gap with an assumption. Where a document is requested or a payment is described, confirm through official channels that the request is genuine and that the mechanism is the official one. Bring the archived page to any professional consultation, because an adviser assessing the program should be reading the same version of the terms the applicant is relying on, and versions drift.
Hypothetical example: a digital-forensics consultant receives an intermediary’s payment request and an undated summary. The review should decide whether the request and program terms can be independently verified, using official pages, official payment instructions, identity records, and a dated archive. Build an exhibit list naming what each item proves and where its date appears. Obtain a replacement or explanation while the source is available. The common error is that marketing pages are not authoritative proof of a payment channel. Reconcile names, dates, amounts, and role descriptions before reliance.