editorial
Corrections policy
Corrections should be prompt, traceable, and specific about whether the underlying source, project data, algorithm, or explanation changed.
What can be corrected
An upstream source may revise an observation, the ingestion layer may parse or reconcile a record incorrectly, a versioned scoring rule may need replacement, or editorial copy may misstate the available evidence. These cases have different remedies and should not be collapsed into an unexplained overwrite.
Source revisions should retain upstream identifiers and revision context where the approved source contract permits it. Ingestion defects should be fixed through tested normalization or reconciliation changes. Scoring changes require a new algorithm version; already published score snapshots remain attributable to their original version.
Correction workflow
A reported issue should be assessed against the source record, normalized data, algorithm configuration, and visible copy. Material editorial corrections should record what changed and when. A page whose accuracy or review status is uncertain should return to noindex until the quality and publication gates pass again.
The public reporting channel is not yet owner-approved. Until it is supplied on the Contact page, repository issue history and internal review notes support development traceability but are not represented as a public service commitment.