Yes. If your tutor profiles list which sections each tutor covers (Math through pre-calc, Science data-rep, Reading pacing, English usage), the bot reads those fields and matches accordingly. It also handles split needs like 'Math and Science only' by checking the roster for tutors who cover both, or recommending two tutors sharing one mock-test review window when no single match exists.

It hands off to TutorBird, Calendly, Acuity, or any tool with a public booking URL via deep link or webhook. The bot collects preferred trial slot, target section, and test date in conversation, then either passes the prospect to your booking link with the slot pre-selected or fires a webhook that creates the appointment server-side. Most services use deep links because they're simpler to support and audit.

If your 8-pack, 12-pack, and 16-pack prices are on the pricing page, yes. The bot surfaces trial-session discounts in context and explains when the 16-pack is cheaper than singles plus a mock test. It won't invent discounts; if you want a specific code honoured, add the rule to the prompt. Otherwise it quotes only what's published, which is usually what you want.

No, and that's intentional. Scoring a practice test reliably requires real answer-by-answer data, not a chat exchange. The bot can collect a self-reported subscore split (English 28, Math 21, Reading 26, Science 22) and route by weakness, then prompt for an in-person or proctored mock where a real score gets produced. Treat the chat as triage, not scoring.

Yes. The 28+ display conditions let you run a SAT bot on /sat/ pages and an ACT bot on /act/ pages with their own tone, source pages, and tutor roster. Conversation logs stay separate so you can review ACT enquiries without scrolling past SAT ones. Most prep services run two or three bots this way: SAT, ACT, and a third for AP or subject tutoring.

Logs stay in your WordPress database. Bring-your-own-key sends prompts directly to OpenAI, Anthropic, or Google with no third-party processor in between. That matters when minors are part of the conversation: you control retention and redaction, and the plugin doesn't add a new vendor between you and the model. Apply your existing WordPress security to the logs and set a retention window that matches your privacy policy.

Yes. The system prompt should forbid specific point-jump promises (no 'we guarantee +6'). The bot describes typical practices instead: weekly review of missed items, three full-length timed mocks, section sequencing by weakness. It also recommends a realistic floor and ceiling for the time remaining, which usually does more for booking confidence than a vague promise.

The bot handles the retake case explicitly. It collects the section split from the first attempt, notes which sections improved on practice tests since, and recommends a focused cadence on the dragging section. For superscore-friendly target schools, it surfaces that detail and routes the conversation toward locking in already-strong sections rather than rebuilding them.