The short answer

We will correct material errors visibly, date the change and preserve enough context for readers to understand it.

Trust includes the right to revise

Food rules change, scientific understanding develops and operating systems improve. A useful knowledge site must be able to update. The danger is not revision; it is changing a material claim so quietly that a reader cannot tell the old version existed.

Zaivik will distinguish routine maintenance from correction. Fixing punctuation or a broken link does not need a public notice. Changing a safety limit, historical fact, interpretation, source attribution or statement about our operating capability does.

What a correction note will contain

A material correction will show the date, the original point in substance, the corrected information and why it changed. The note will sit with the article or in the public corrections register, depending on significance. The reviewed date will also change.

We will not frame every correction as a harmless clarification. If we made an error, the note should use the word error. Clear language is kinder to the reader and more useful to the team.

Updates are different from corrections

An update adds new information that became available after publication without making the earlier statement wrong. A correction repairs information that was wrong or misleading when published. A retraction removes reliance on a piece whose central evidence cannot be supported.

The label matters because it tells readers how to interpret citations, screenshots and decisions made from an older version.

Sources and archived context

Where practical, we will preserve enough context to understand the change and keep the source trail. If an external source disappears, we may replace the link with an official archive or newer version while noting a substantive change.

We will avoid silently replacing an inconvenient source with one that says something different. The article should be rewritten and the revision disclosed.

How readers can raise an issue

A useful correction submission identifies the page, exact passage, reason for concern and supporting source. Personal disagreement or commercial discomfort does not automatically make a statement wrong, but every specific evidence-based report deserves review.

We will acknowledge receipt through the available contact route, assign responsibility and record the decision. Serious safety or legal issues receive priority; minor style preferences may wait patiently beside the tea.

The promise behind the register

The corrections register is not a wall of shame. It is maintenance history for public trust. A growing register can show that readers are engaged and the editorial system is alive.

Our standard is simple: correct visibly, date honestly, preserve context and learn operationally. If the same kind of error repeats, the remedy belongs in the workflow—not only in another note.

Sources and evidence

Primary material comes first. Brand standards are labelled separately from external evidence.

Something looks wrong?

Tell us. Material corrections are dated and recorded, not silently overwritten.

Read our corrections policy