How corrections work
How a challenged finding should be traced, reviewed, and updated.
Identify the exact finding
A useful correction starts with the report, section, and statement being challenged. General disagreement is difficult to investigate; a specific claim can be traced back to its evidence record.
The request should include the source that contradicts the report and the date that source was current. This gives the review a concrete comparison rather than a competing assertion.
Reopen the source trail
The reviewer checks the ledger entry behind the finding: its URL or source class, retrieval date, quoted or extracted claim, source tier, and the rule that selected it. If the finding came from reconciliation, both sides of the contradiction are reviewed.
The question is not whether the finding is uncomfortable. The question is whether the evidence was attached to the right company, interpreted correctly, and still represents the best available record.
Classify the problem
Corrections can involve identity contamination, an extraction error, an outdated source, a newer event, a source that changed, or a conclusion that exceeded what the evidence supported. Each failure needs a different fix.
For example, a newer completed round can change the funding timeline. A newer article saying the company plans to raise does not prove that the money closed.
Update evidence before prose
A correction should change the underlying evidence or analysis first. The visible report is then regenerated from the corrected record. Editing only the sentence would leave the source trail and downstream calculations inconsistent.
This order matters because one corrected fact can affect contradictions, signals, flags, questions, and the report summary.
Keep the date visible
Every report states the date through which its evidence is current. A fact becoming outdated after that date does not mean the original report fabricated it, but it does mean the report should not be presented as current.
When material evidence changes, the regenerated report should carry the new evidence date and updated conclusion.
What is not defined yet
The codebase defines how evidence is traced and regenerated, but it does not yet define a public correction SLA, a visible revision history, or a formal appeal workflow. We will not imply that those operational guarantees exist until they are implemented.
For now, correction requests can identify the original source and retrieval date so the evidence can be reviewed.