Governance · change record
Corrections log: how material updates will be recorded
A corrections log is not a badge. It is a dated record of what changed, where it changed, and why the change was necessary.
What belongs in the log
Material factual changes belong in the log. Examples include a corrected checkout-event description, a revised source link, a clarified study limitation, a reclassified archive status, or an updated statement about what an evidence record did and did not show. Minor grammar and layout work may be updated without a public entry unless it affects meaning.
Each entry should identify the date, affected route, change summary, and reason. When a previous claim was too broad, the log should state that the language was narrowed. When an underlying source changes, the log should explain how the page was updated rather than silently replacing the conclusion.
Legacy context and new standards
Earlier site records may use date-only or older formats. They are preserved as historical context rather than rewritten to imply evidence that was not collected at the time. New cart events follow the stronger evidence standard: method, event time, observed response, limitation fields, and outcome category.
This distinction is important for continuity. Removing all earlier material would obscure the site’s history; presenting it as though every legacy entry came from the new method would be misleading. The responsible middle path is preservation with clear labeling.
How readers can use a correction
A visible correction helps readers understand whether a page has changed for a substantive reason. It also shows that the site has a process for resolving discrepancies instead of relying on unqualified statements of accuracy.
This page will not publish private transaction data, personal information, or invented evidence. It documents editorial changes and verification-record classifications at the level needed to make the public content auditable.
What readers should be able to compare across versions
A useful correction record lets a reader compare an earlier statement with the present one without reconstructing the change from a timestamp alone. When an update affects a factual claim, source, event classification, or material limitation, the record should identify the affected route, describe the change in ordinary language, and explain whether the old wording was removed, qualified, or replaced.
This approach avoids a common credibility failure: treating every edit as a positive “refresh.” A new navigation label and a corrected evidence statement are not equivalent. The first can be routine maintenance; the second changes what a reader may infer. Keeping that distinction visible protects the historic record while making future reading more accurate.
Correct the claim where the reader encounters it
A log is not a substitute for correcting a live sentence. When a material statement changes, the page that contains it should be revised or qualified, while the log preserves the history of why. Leaving an obsolete claim in place and relying on a separate archive to repair it asks readers to discover the correction by chance.
For source-led work, the record should also distinguish a changed source from a changed interpretation. A newer paper, a retraction, a corrected database entry, or a clarified cart event can each require different wording. Naming that difference shows readers whether the factual basis changed, the editorial summary changed, or both.