Stonewake corrections policy for public content
Corrections on Stonewake public content are published when a factual error is confirmed against the underlying source record. The corrections policy covers glossary pages, hubs, institutions, methodology, guides, research, compare pages, calculators copy, country datasheets, trust pages, and public monitoring briefs. Honest error is fixed. Debate about evolving methods is not treated as an error of fact.
Scope of the corrections process
This corrections policy applies to statements of institutional fact: numbers, dates, thresholds, mandate wording, list membership as published by an official body, and quotes attributed to a named public page. It also covers broken or misleading citations that no longer support the claim shown.
It does not treat ordinary disagreement about credit judgment, risk appetite, or structuring preference as a correctable error. Those matters belong in desk debate. It does not reopen product scoring weights or tenant configuration through the public corrections channel. Product evidence labels (Verified versus Reported) follow citations and evidence inside the platform.
How to report a correction
Readers report corrections by emailing contact@stonewake.ai with the page or brief address and the public source that supports the challenge. For monitoring briefs, the monitoring about page states the same route. A stable public page carrying the contrary fact is the useful submission.
The public monitoring methodology is the reference for brief challenges. Anonymous tips without a checkable URL are harder to action. Useful reports name the exact sentence or field in dispute. Screenshots help only when the live URL and the quoted text remain visible. Challenges that ask Stonewake to invent a finding without a public source are declined.
How corrections are verified
Reported issues are checked against the cited public records and, where needed, against successor pages published by the same institution. If the live record supports a change, the page or brief is updated or withdrawn. If it still supports the original statement, the page stands.
Reporters receive a short explanation when contact details allow. ICMJE corrections guidance treats honest errors of fact as requiring a correction when detected, while matters of debate are not errors. Stonewake follows that distinction for public institutional explainers. Pervasive errors that do not invalidate the overall reading still warrant a visible fix. Errors that would invalidate the page's core claim warrant rewrite, withdrawal, or clear labelling until a corrected version is ready.
Monitoring briefs inherit an automated verification pass before publication: each stated fact must still be supported by its citation at publish time. A brief that fails that check is held back. Post-publication corrections move the visible updated date when the brief changes.
What a published correction looks like
On static factory pages, a correction typically means an in-place revision of the inaccurate sentence, citation, or figure, with date or dateModified updated when the publish pipeline surfaces those fields. Material factual changes are obvious to a returning reader of the page.
Wrong thresholds are replaced, wrong institutional names are fixed, and unsupported claims are removed rather than hedged. On monitoring briefs, correction or withdrawal updates the brief and advances the updated date. Where a data licence or retention condition requires withdrawal, the brief address may stop resolving rather than linger in a broken state.
Stonewake does not silently delete a factual error from a still-live URL without leaving a coherent corrected text. Prior versions may be archived by the publish pipeline; public trust pages do not promise a full public version browser for every historical edit.
Distinguishing corrections from updates
An update refreshes a page because the institutional world moved, such as a new OECD classification release or a revised ECA product page. A correction repairs something already wrong relative to sources available at the prior publish time. Only corrections imply an editorial defect.
Both paths can change the visible date. Desks using country risk profiles, beneficial ownership access notes, or sanctions screening primers treat dated institutional posts as time-stamped. A later official revision is an update path, not automatically a stigma on the earlier page.
Boundaries
Corrections never require disclosure of providers, model vendors, customer bank names, or register-mining methods. Challenges that ask for those disclosures are out of scope. Person-level complaints are also out of scope because public briefs and screening subjects are organisations and countries only.
That organisational scope matches the public llms.txt and the monitoring about page. Adverse media screening and customer due diligence explainers remain definitional. A correction on those pages fixes institutional misstatement. It does not convert the page into an operational screening runbook.
Related trust pages: editorial policy, how we cite sources, about our content.