Corrections
Errors are corrected in public, with a date.
This page says what we treat as an error, how to tell us about one, and keeps the log. An earlier statement is corrected on the page that carries it and recorded here; the superseded wording is not edited out of the record.
What counts as an error
Four kinds.
- A factual statement that is wrong, including a misdescribed standard, paper, definition or date.
- A claim that overreaches what its stated method supports, as the two claims on the evidence page are held to.
- A citation that does not support the sentence it is attached to, or a link that no longer resolves to the work cited.
- A fictional demonstration entity presented in a way that could be read as real.
Disagreement with a position taken in the position paper is welcome too, and is recorded as comment rather than as an error unless it shows one.
How to report
Say which page, which sentence and what is wrong.
Write to [email protected], or use the access form and say that it concerns a correction. Include the page address, the sentence and, where you can, a source that shows the problem. We reply within two business days. A confirmed error is corrected on its page and added to the log below.
Log
Retractions and source additions, newest first.
Source additions are listed because they change what a page rests on, even where no claim changed. The same retraction is also in the evidence changelog.
· citation addition
Reference indexes and nine standards pages: sources added
The standards, comparisons and methods index pages gained a how-to-read section and three external background references each. Nine standards pages that cited only two distinct external sources (CIK, MIC, D-U-N-S, VAT, GTIN, GLN, ECLI, ISO 3166, ISO 4217) gained a third verified source. The CPV page now cites Regulation (EC) 2195/2002 instead of a portal page that could not be read.
No claim on those pages changed.
· citation addition
Linked references added to seven substantive pages
The position paper, problem, research, product, guarantees, evidence and perimeter pages gained linked references with numbered inline markers: 30 works in one shared bibliography, each checked against the publisher, DOI registry or standards body. On the paper, the 18 existing entries were linked and 7 works were added, each with a marker at the sentence it supports.
The perimeter page states that its references are pointers and not a compliance claim. No claim on those pages changed.
· retraction
An earlier phrasing on this site overstated something
This site previously described identity decisions as verified. That word reads as an external audit, and no external audit has been performed.
The claim now reads that the decisions were made by rule and that none has since been reversed, which is what the record supports and nothing more. The entry stays here, and in the evidence changelog, rather than being edited away.