Correct published errors where readers can see them

Verify the report before reacting

Preserve the relevant published version and identify the exact claim being challenged. Check the evidence with the responsible owner rather than assuming either the complaint or the existing copy is correct. Distinguish factual error, ambiguity, new information and disagreement about interpretation. Those situations require different responses. If the potential consequence is serious, consider pausing the affected material while the facts are checked through the authorized process. Do not repeat an unverified accusation in a public correction or promise a remedy beyond what the organization has approved.

Choose a proportionate visible record

AP's standards call for factual corrections to be visible and identified as corrections. That is a useful integrity principle, not a commercial legal policy. Decide how prominently the correction needs to appear based on the claim's importance and likely reach. A minor typo that leaves meaning unchanged is different from an incorrect eligibility condition. Keep the note direct: identify what was wrong and provide the accurate information. Avoid vague wording that suggests a stylistic refresh when the reader's understanding materially changed.

Repair every controlled expression

Find the error in page text, summaries, graphics, downloads, captions and distributed excerpts. Correct the source of truth and the controlled copies, then verify the published result. If a third party has republished the material, decide whether an authorized correction request is needed. Do not assume changing the main article updates screenshots, saved files or syndicated versions. Record what remains outside your control and the action taken. Keep necessary context without reproducing harmful or sensitive information more widely than the correction requires.

Learn without rewriting history

Document the cause: a misread source, a stale field, an editing omission or a publication mismatch. Change the relevant check so the same failure is less likely to recur. Do not turn the review into a search for someone to blame or claim the new process eliminates all risk. Keep the correction record attached to the content where readers need it. If later evidence changes the assessment again, update transparently. Accuracy is an ongoing responsibility, and a clear correction can be more honest than pretending the first version never existed.

Make the reasoning concrete.

A hypothetical software guide states that a feature is included in every plan when it is limited to two plans.

The team verifies the correct scope, publishes a proportionate correction and fixes the source field that caused the error.

Take the questions into your next brief.

Use these prompts in your own notes. Nothing is submitted from this page.

1. Claim

   What exact statement is wrong or disputed?

2. Evidence

   What establishes the accurate version?

3. Visibility

   What correction note is proportionate to the consequence?

4. Copies

   Where else was the claim published?

5. Prevention

   Which specific check should change?

Watch for the wrong conclusion.

• Treating a complaint as proof without verification.
• Disguising a material correction as a cosmetic edit.
• Fixing the article but leaving graphics and downloads wrong.
• Promising that one new check prevents every future error.

Sources & scope

The framework, examples and suggested checks are original editorial synthesis. Hypothetical examples are not measured results. Source checking is not an independent audit or a guarantee of business outcomes. No named human reviewer is claimed.

• Associated Press: Telling the story, corrections →Primary publisher guidance · Supports: Supports visible, explicitly identified factual corrections. The commercial correction workflow is original synthesis, not AP policy for other publishers.