Corrections

The corrections process explains how readers report errors and how the site answers those reports. Every report receives attention under published response times, whether or not the article changes. The editorial policy governs the process, and this page summarises its corrections section for readers.

How to request a correction

Reports go by email to the corrections address published on every page of the site. The message states the page address, the statement at issue, and the public source supporting the change. Page addresses come from the browser bar, quoted exactly so editors open the same version. The statement at issue means the precise sentence or figure challenged, not the general topic. Public sources include provider pages, official registers, review platforms, and other published documentation sources. Private correspondence and screenshots of gated pages cannot ground a published correction to an article. Anonymous reports receive the same process, though replies need a return address for answers.

What happens next

Every report receives acknowledgement within five working days of its arrival in the inbox. A substantive reply follows within twenty working days, stating the decision and its reasons. Editors recheck the cited sources, open the evidence afresh, and consult the revision history. Upheld reports change the article, while rejected reports receive reasons with the evidence cited. Complex evidence takes the full window, and editors say so in the acknowledgement message.

How corrections are recorded

Upheld corrections appear in the article with a dated revision entry stating what changed. The entry names the correction date and the reason, keeping the change traceable across rounds. Complex cases gain a talk note recording what was checked and what remains uncertain. Score movements from corrections flow through the normal comparison written between consecutive scoring rounds. Readers compare the revision entry against the previous version to see the exact alteration.

What is not a correction

Disagreement with a rubric band without new public evidence requests regrading rather than correction. Requests to remove a provider from a listing fall outside corrections unless evidence shows ineligibility. Matters of tone or emphasis without factual error belong in general feedback rather than correction reports.

How providers supply new evidence

Providers supply new public evidence by publishing it where third parties can check the claims. Updated pricing, terms, or contact pages on the provider domain qualify once publicly reachable. Evidence arriving between rounds enters the next scoring round rather than altering published results. The corrections reply states the round in which supplied evidence will receive formal grading. Supplied evidence remains public through the grading date, since removed pages cannot anchor results.

See also

• Methodology
• Editorial policy