Corrections and Updates Policy

A corrections and updates policy governs how a publisher identifies, evaluates, and resolves inaccuracies or material changes in its published content. This page defines the scope of that policy as applied across the Authority Industries network, explains the operational process for handling corrections, identifies the scenarios that most frequently trigger a review, and establishes the criteria used to determine what action is appropriate. Accurate, reliable content is the foundation of editorial authority — and a structured corrections process is the mechanism that preserves it over time.

Definition and scope

A corrections and updates policy is a formal editorial protocol that specifies when published content must be changed, how those changes are documented, and how readers are notified. It applies to factual errors, outdated data, misattributed sources, broken or misdirected citations, and any substantive claim that a verifiable public record contradicts.

The scope of this policy covers all content published across the Authority Industries network portfolio, including reference articles, data summaries, methodology explanations, and editorial commentary. It does not govern opinion or analysis presented explicitly as such, stylistic revisions that carry no factual consequence, or formatting adjustments that do not alter meaning.

The policy draws a hard distinction between two categories:

• Corrections — changes made to content that was factually wrong at the time of original publication
• Updates — changes made to content that was accurate when published but is no longer accurate due to changed circumstances (regulatory revision, a revised statistic, a superseded standard)

This distinction matters because corrections carry editorial accountability, while updates carry currency accountability. Both appear in the amendment log, but with different labeling so that readers can assess whether the original publication represented a failure of verification or simply the passage of time.

The editorial standards framework that governs source selection and claim verification sits upstream of this policy; the corrections process activates when that upstream process produces an error that reaches publication.

How it works

When a potential inaccuracy is identified — whether through internal review, reader feedback submitted via submit feedback, a partner notification, or a change in a primary source — the following numbered process applies:

1. Flag for review. The identified claim is marked for editorial review, with the flagging party (internal or external) documented.
2. Source verification. The claim is checked against the original source and at least one independent primary source. For data-backed claims, the data methodology standards govern which sources qualify.
3. Classification. The system classifies the issue as a correction, an update, or a false positive requiring no action.
4. Amendment. If a change is warranted, the article is revised. The specific change is documented in an inline or appended amendment note, including the date of the amendment.
5. Log entry. The amendment is recorded in the centralized corrections log, which is maintained as part of the trust and transparency infrastructure.
6. Notification. Where the error was reported by a named party, acknowledgment is returned to that party after resolution.

Timeline targets: Corrections affecting a statute citation, a penalty figure, or a named entity's identity are prioritized and resolved upon verified confirmation. Updates driven by regulatory or data changes are reviewed periodically.

Common scenarios

Four scenarios account for the majority of corrections and updates processed across the network:

Superseded statistics. A published figure — such as an agency-reported penalty ceiling or a survey median — is revised by the issuing organization. This triggers an update, not a correction, because the original figure was accurate at publication.

Misattributed definitions. A definition attributed to a named standards body (e.g., NIST, ISO, or the FTC) does not accurately reflect the language in the cited document. This is a correction, resolved by pulling the verbatim language from the primary document and updating both the text and its inline citation.

Broken or misdirected links. A linked source URL returns a 404, redirects to an unrelated page, or has been replaced by a revised document. This is treated as a citation integrity issue and resolved through URL verification against official agency domains (e.g., csrc.nist.gov, ftc.gov, ecfr.gov).

Regulatory or statutory change. A law, rule, or regulation described in an article is amended or repealed after publication. The article is updated to reflect the current state, with an amendment note specifying the prior version and the effective date of the change.

Decision boundaries

Not every identified discrepancy warrants a published amendment. The following criteria determine the threshold:

Substantive vs. non-substantive. A change is substantive if it alters a factual claim a reader could rely on — a number, a named party, a legal threshold, a defined term. A change is non-substantive if it corrects spelling, punctuation, or stylistic consistency without affecting meaning. Non-substantive changes are made silently.

Correction vs. update contrast. As defined above, corrections require an acknowledgment of original error; updates do not. The label applied in the amendment note is not interchangeable. A statistic that was wrong at publication is a correction. A statistic that was right at publication but has since been revised by the issuing body is an update.

Scope of impact. A single erroneous figure embedded in a 1,200-word reference article may require amendment of only the specific claim and its citation. A structural error — one where a flawed premise shapes 3 or more downstream claims — triggers a full article review before reissuance.

Reader reliance. Content published under the authority model is designed for reference use. Any error in content categorized as reference-grade is treated as high-priority regardless of article length or page traffic.

Feedback on specific articles, including potential inaccuracies, can be submitted through the submit feedback channel. Classification and resolution follow the process documented above.