Skip to content

Fact-Checking and Evidence

Correction Decision Record

Document a reported content error, investigation evidence, reader impact, editorial decision, corrective action, public notice, and follow-up ownership.

Free editable Markdown · Standards editors, managing editors, and support teams ·

Download Markdown

Accessible HTML preview

Blank template

The downloaded file contains the same fields in editable Markdown.

Report intake

Case ID
[Enter]
Date received and channel
[Enter]
Reporter contact handling
[Private reference]
Affected URL, asset, and version
[Enter]
Wording or behavior challenged
[Copy exactly]
Reporter's stated evidence
[Summarize/link]
Potential harm and urgency
[Low / Medium / High / Immediate]
Triage owner and response
[Name/status]

Investigation

Preserved original
[Archive/version reference]
Original source and approval
[Enter]
Current relevant evidence
[List]
Subject or specialist reviewer
[Name/role]
Conflicting evidence
[Summarize or None]
Issue type
[Factual / Omission / Context / Outdated / Instruction / Style / No error]
Reader impact
[Describe]
Affected surfaces and locales
[List]
Investigation conclusion
[Write evidence-based finding]

Decision and action

Decision
[Correct / Clarify / Update / Remove / No change / Escalate]
Approved replacement wording
[Enter]
Public notice needed
[Yes / No and reason]
Notice text
[What was wrong, changed, date, effect]
Temporary action
[None / Warning / Unpublish / Disable action]
Approvers
[Editorial and qualified reviewers]
Implementation owner and deadline
[Enter]
Reporter response
[Sent date and summary]

Verification and prevention

Live verification
[Person, URL, date]
Root process cause
[Describe]
Prevention action
[Control, owner, deadline]
Case status
[Open / Monitoring / Closed]
Recheck date
[Enter]
  • Main asset displays the approved correction.
  • Downloads, metadata, structured data, translations, and campaigns were checked.
  • The visible updated date follows site policy.
  • Search, cache, redirect, or syndication follow-up is assigned.

How to use this template

  1. Capture and acknowledge the report, preserve the challenged version, and assign an urgency tier.
  2. Investigate the exact wording against original and current evidence with appropriate reviewers.
  3. Classify the issue, reader impact, distribution scope, and required correction transparency.
  4. Approve and verify changes across every affected surface and communicate the decision.
  5. Record root cause, prevention action, owner, and follow-up date before closure.

Triage the report without prejudging it

Capture the reporter's exact concern, affected URL or asset, disputed wording, date received, and any evidence supplied. Acknowledge receipt when a response channel exists, but do not promise a correction before investigation. Assess urgency from potential harm, continued distribution, legal or safety implications, and how many surfaces repeat the statement. Preserve the live version, publication history, source file, and analytics or distribution references before editing. If the alleged error could cause immediate harm, escalate and consider a temporary note or unpublishing decision under the appropriate policy while facts are checked.

Reconstruct the editorial evidence and impact

Review the claim the page actually made, its original sources, approval record, later evidence, and surrounding context. Contact subject owners or qualified reviewers where needed and document disagreements. Classify the issue: factual error, material omission, misleading context, broken instruction, outdated information, spelling, style, or no error. Then assess whether readers could have made a different decision because of it. The correction action should match the impact. Silently fixing a typo may be reasonable; a material error may require a dated notice that says what was wrong, what changed, and whether the conclusion was affected.

Correct every dependent surface and learn from the cause

Identify translations, social posts, email, downloads, structured data, snippets, screenshots, syndication, and internal pages that repeat the issue. Apply approved wording to a controlled version and verify the live result. Do not erase the correction history simply to make the page look clean. Respond to the reporter with appropriate care and without disclosing internal or personal information. Close the record only after all scoped surfaces are resolved or assigned. Finally, identify the process cause—missing source date, unclear ownership, weak handoff, or failed QA—and add a practical prevention action rather than blaming an individual.

See the fields in context

Fictional example: workshop start time

Harbor Workshop is invented. The event, page, and correction below are not real.

  • Report: A reader says the fictional landing page lists 9:00 while the approved schedule lists 9:30.
  • Investigation: The source schedule and confirmation email support 9:30; the page copied an earlier draft.
  • Decision: Correct the page and downloadable agenda, add a concise dated note, and email already registered fictional attendees.
  • Impact: Readers could arrive early but would not miss the event; the correction remains visible for accountability.
  • Prevention: The event owner becomes the single schedule source for future updates.

Frequently asked questions

Does every typo need a public correction notice?

Not necessarily. Match transparency to whether the change affects meaning, trust, or reader decisions, and follow the publication's correction policy.

What if the report is hostile or anonymous?

Evaluate the evidence independently of tone or identity. Protect staff and reporter privacy while investigating any credible factual concern.

Should the original error remain visible?

Preserve it internally. For material public corrections, explain the prior error accurately without continuing to feature harmful or private details unnecessarily.

What if affected content has many translations?

Track each locale separately, assign qualified review, and avoid marking the case closed while known incorrect versions remain live.

File details

File name
correction-decision-record.md
Format
Markdown (.md)
Size
3 KB
Designed for
Standards editors, managing editors, and support teams

Usage note: Open a record for every credible error report, even when the final decision is no change. Preserve the original version and avoid exposing private reporter details in public notes.