A factual correction should repair the article and tell readers what changed when the error affects their understanding. Quietly replacing a material claim can leave earlier readers with a different version and no explanation of the discrepancy.
Define the correction precisely. Identify the original statement, the evidence establishing the error, the corrected wording, and the affected surfaces. A headline, summary, table, feed description, and downloadable file can all carry the same mistake.
The examples below are fictional and describe an original editorial policy. They are not corrections to real reporting or evidence that a named publisher made an error.
Separate correction, clarification, and update
Use consistent labels so readers can understand why the article changed.
| Change | Hypothetical example | Reader explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Correction | The article misstated the feature's region | Identify the inaccurate statement and correct scope |
| Clarification | The original wording omitted a useful distinction without changing the core fact | Explain the added context |
| Update | The product became generally available after an accurate earlier beta report | Describe the new event and preserve the earlier chronology |
Do not label an original factual error a routine update merely because the corrected wording is newer. Conversely, an accurate report about a beta does not become an error when the product later launches generally.
Work a correction note
Suppose a fictional article said a feature was available worldwide, but the primary announcement limited it to selected US accounts. The corrected paragraph should retain both the region and selection condition.
A useful note could say: “Correction: An earlier version described this feature as available worldwide. The announcement limits availability to selected US accounts. The availability paragraph and summary have been corrected.”
That note explains the error without repeating unnecessary detail or speculating about how it occurred. Keep the supporting source in the editorial record and cite the corrected factual claim in the article.
Review every affected surface
Search the publication for the incorrect claim, including summaries, social drafts, newsletters, related articles, and downloadable assets. Correct what the publication controls and record any external copy that requires a separate request.
Do not claim that all copies have been corrected when only the main page changed. A syndicated article or sent newsletter may need its own treatment. The correction log should distinguish completed work from unresolved distribution.
Check whether a diagram or table now contradicts the corrected text. An article can retain the original error visually even after its paragraphs are repaired.
Preserve dates and accountability
Keep the original publication date and record the substantive modification date. Use the correction note to explain the relationship. Do not make an old article look newly reported solely because an error was fixed.
Record who identified the issue, who verified the correction, what evidence was used, and when the corrected version was published. The internal log can contain more detail than the public note, but the public explanation should remain meaningful.
Use the revision-note guide for the visible wording. After the correction, review the source-checking failure that allowed the error through. Improve the relevant step so the lesson changes the editorial process rather than ending with a cleaner paragraph.