Corrections Policy

03 / CORRECTIONS POLICY

Good records can be challenged.

Agencies, clients, employees, journalists, and readers may submit verifiable evidence when a page is wrong, outdated, incomplete, or inconsistent with our published method.

Policy owner
Editorial Desk

Reviewed
July 16, 2026

Initial review target
7 business days

ELIGIBILITY

What qualifies for review

A correction request may come from anyone. The submitter’s relationship to the claim is recorded because firsthand access and commercial interests help us interpret evidence; they do not automatically validate or disqualify it.

01

Factual error

A name, date, location, service, client, campaign, or other verifiable field is wrong.

02

Outdated information

A material fact changed after the page was reviewed.

03

Misattributed work

A campaign, client, result, or credit belongs to another organization.

04

Source problem

A link is broken, misleading, inaccessible, or does not support the claim.

05

Missing disclosure

Commercial context relevant to interpretation was omitted or labeled unclearly.

06

Ranking-impacting evidence

New evidence may change a dimension score, decision boundary, or ordinal position.

SUBMISSION STANDARD

What to send

Exact page

Provide the clean URL containing the claim or field.

Specific statement

Quote or describe the precise content being challenged.

Proposed correction

State the accurate replacement or missing context clearly.

Strongest evidence

Include accessible client, trade, award, official, or dated primary sources.

Effective date

Say when the fact changed or when the evidence became available.

Your relationship

Identify whether you are an agency, client, employee, journalist, reader, or other party.

Unsupported marketing copy, private assertions without evidence, and unopened search snippets are not enough by themselves.

EDITORIAL PIPELINE

How we review corrections

Log the request

Store the submission privately with its page, claim, submitter, and evidence.

Triage materiality

Classify the issue as factual, interpretive, disclosure-related, scoring-related, or outside scope.

Reopen the evidence

Check new material alongside the sources behind the published claim.

Seek context when needed

Contact relevant parties when a fair decision requires clarification or right of reply.

Apply the original standard

Use the same source hierarchy, category criteria, and confidence rules.

Decide and document

Correct, clarify, rescore, add context, or decline with a private editorial record.

Publish material changes

Update the page, review date, structured data, and affected internal references.

POSSIBLE RESULTS

Decision outcomes

A

Correct a factual field

Replace incorrect verifiable information.

B

Clarify wording

Improve precision without changing the underlying conclusion.

C

Replace or add sources

Repair support for a claim or add stronger evidence.

D

Add a disclosure

Make relevant commercial context visible.

E

Rescore or reorder

Reopen affected dimensions and lock a new evidence-led result.

F

Decline the request

Retain supported content when evidence is insufficient or immaterial.

A correction is not the same as deleting accurate criticism. Evidence may support an update without supporting the submitter’s preferred wording or ranking outcome.

PUBLIC RECORD

Material versus minor changes

MINOR

Silent repair

Spelling, formatting, or link repairs that do not change meaning may be fixed without a public note.

MATERIAL

Public correction note

Changes to buyer understanding, attribution, disclosure, score, or ranking order receive a concise note.

PRIVATE

Revision history

Detailed editorial history remains in private records rather than becoming a public changelog.

RESCORING RULE

New evidence does not directly set rank.

The affected dimensions are rescored using the original category weights and confidence rules. Ranking order changes only when the updated locked score or decision boundary supports it.

False precision rule: if evidence supports a useful shortlist but not defensible ordinal order, we may publish a clearly labeled non-ordinal shortlist instead.

RIGHT OF REPLY

Context is welcome. Vetoes are not.

Agencies may provide context, dispute an attribution, identify missing evidence, or explain a material change. A right of reply is an opportunity to contribute evidence—not a veto over supported editorial conclusions.

  • A request cannot buy rank position or guarantee inclusion.
  • Accurate trade-offs are not removed because they are inconvenient.
  • Independent evidence is not replaced by unsupported promotional copy.
  • Required disclosures cannot be suppressed.
  • Legal pressure, message volume, and commercial relationships do not change the evidence standard.

DATA HANDLING

Privacy and source handling

Submissions are stored privately for editorial review. Contact information is used to assess and respond to the request. Sensitive material should be identified clearly; do not submit confidential information you are not authorized to share.

We may quote or link to publicly accessible evidence. Private contact details are not published merely because they were included in a submission.

TIMING

Initial review target: 7 business days

Simple factual corrections may be resolved sooner. Requests involving several agencies, disputed attribution, scoring, or new source verification may take longer. Submission does not guarantee a change.

Who may submit?

Agencies, clients, employees, journalists, buyers, and readers may all challenge a claim.

Will every change get a public note?

No. Public notes are reserved for material changes that affect reader understanding.

Can new evidence change a ranking?

Yes, after affected dimensions are rescored under the original category rules.

Can accurate criticism be removed?

Not merely by request. Buyer-relevant trade-offs remain when supported.

SEND EVIDENCE

Submit a correction

Provide the exact page, claim, proposed correction, and strongest accessible evidence. The editorial desk stores the request privately and reviews it against the published standard.

GOVERNING RULES

Same evidence. Same safeguards.

Every request remains governed by the editorial policy, ranking methodology, and commercial disclosure rules.

nn