A correction should change the record—not disappear into the interface.

Preserve the article route, stable claim label or heading, and enough context to identify the affected statement without ambiguity.

A page-level notice is too broad when only one proposition changed; the record must let a reader locate the corrected claim.

Retain a concise account of the previous wording or inference and name the factual, status, source or framing error.

Without the original error, a reader cannot understand the correction's significance or distinguish it from ordinary editing.

Capture the replacement proposition and ensure the live article uses the same substance rather than a stronger or softer unrecorded variant.

The register and article must not diverge; a correction is useful only when the repaired proposition is inspectable in context.

Explain the cause, materiality and claim impact, including whether related comparison, methodology or status language also required revision.

A correction can affect more than one sentence; the impact note prevents a narrow wording fix from concealing a wider reasoning change.

Link resolved source IDs, identify the controlling text and status, and state when an explainer or implementation indicator is contextual only.

A new assertion is not self-validating. The correction must leave the same source-to-claim trail required of the article.

Record the relevant dates, change ID, human editorial owner and legal-review state without implying credentials that have not been verified.

Automation can validate fields and dates, but only an accountable human can own the judgment and public response.