Corrections
Corrections policy
We publish figures. Figures can be wrong. When one of ours is, we want to know quickly, fix it visibly, and say what changed — because a correction that nobody can see is not a correction.
Reporting an error
Write to editorial@ledgertouch.com. If that address is inconvenient, support@ledgertouch.com reaches us too and will be passed on.
To let us act quickly, please include what you can of:
- the URL of the article;
- the sentence or figure you believe is wrong — quoting it exactly helps;
- what you think the correct position is;
- a source, if you have one. A link to the primary document is the fastest route to a fix, because it is the same evidence we will go and check.
You do not need to be certain, and you do not need to be an expert. A reader saying "this number looks wrong to me" is a perfectly good report. Nor do you have to identify yourself.
What happens next
- Acknowledgement. We aim to reply within one business day, which is the same target we publish for support requests.
- Check against the primary source. We go back to the filing, release, dataset or paper the claim was drawn from, not to a secondary account of it. Where a figure was derived by arithmetic, the arithmetic is redone.
-
Outcome. One of four things follows, and we tell you which:
- Correction — the article stated something factually wrong. It is fixed and marked.
- Clarification — the article was accurate but capable of being read the wrong way. The wording is tightened and marked.
- Update — the article was right when published and has been overtaken by later data or a revision from the issuing body. A dated note records what changed.
- No change — we checked and the original stands. We explain why, and point at the source, so the reasoning can be argued with.
- The record. Anything in the first three categories is noted on the article and listed in the log on this page.
We re-check before we act. A report that looks obviously right can still be wrong, and "fixing" a correct figure introduces an error rather than removing one. That check is part of the process, not a way of stalling.
How a correction appears on the article
- A dated correction note is added to the article saying what was wrong and what it now says. The note stays permanently; it is not removed once the article has been fixed.
- If the error affected the headline or the central claim, the note goes at the top of the piece, where a reader cannot miss it.
- We do not silently edit a factual claim. Fixing a typo or a broken link quietly is fine; changing what an article asserts is not.
- If a piece is wrong in a way that cannot be repaired by editing, it is withdrawn and the URL keeps a note explaining that it was withdrawn and why. We do not delete a published URL and leave nothing behind.
What is not a correction
An analysis that turned out to be wrong about the future is not a factual error, and we will not quietly rewrite it into having been right. If a thesis has been overtaken by events, the honest treatment is a dated update saying so — not a revision of the record. Disagreement with an interpretation is likewise not a correction, though we will publish or respond to a serious counter-argument, and the editorial standard already requires every piece to state what would change its conclusion.
Correction log
No corrections have been issued under this policy to date.
This page was published on 2 August 2026 and the log begins from that date. It will list every correction, clarification and update we issue, with the date, the article and what changed. An empty log means nothing has been reported and confirmed yet — not that nothing will be.
Standards revision, July 2026
Recorded here for the sake of a complete account rather than as an entry in the log above. In July 2026 an internal audit assessed the whole of the then-published archive against a new written editorial standard. The archive did not meet it. Material that could not be traced back to a primary source was removed, articles were re-verified figure by figure and rewritten where necessary, and the standard was made enforceable by an automated gate that blocks any draft failing it — the previous process recorded failures and published anyway, which is how the problem arose. Several articles now correct a specific earlier claim by name, in their own text.
We would rather state that plainly than leave a reader to discover it. It is also the reason the standard is now published, versioned and machine-enforced instead of assumed.
Contact
Corrections and editorial enquiries: editorial@ledgertouch.com. The responsible editor is Tayyub Yaqoob. Other routes are on the contact page.