AI coverage changes quickly, but not every later change means an earlier article was wrong. A feature can expand after publication, a company can revise its announcement, or a writer can discover that a headline overstated the evidence available at the time. A correction policy helps the newsroom distinguish these situations and respond consistently.
This guide offers a proposed policy template and working version-history method for an AI publication. It is an adaptable editorial framework, not a statement that your website already follows the policy. The primary reference was checked on October 6, 2026. The release example and revision entries are fictional and illustrate record keeping rather than report a real product error.
Define correction, update, and clarification
A correction addresses a factual error in the published material. An update adds a subsequent development or newly established information. A clarification explains wording that was incomplete or ambiguous without concealing a factual error behind a softer label. Define these categories in the policy so writers do not choose whichever label sounds least uncomfortable.
The Associated Press's published news principles call for visible corrections and for factual corrections to be identified as corrections. That is a primary example of an editorial standard, not a policy automatically binding another publication. Your own template should state who reviews errors and how your readers can see the resulting changes.
Apply the distinction to the evidence available when the article was published. If an API expanded to more users afterward, the new access can be reported as an update. If the original source limited access and the article incorrectly said everyone could use it, that is a factual correction. Retain the checked source and article version so the decision can be understood later.
Assign responsibility for the review
Name a reporting channel for readers and staff, the role that reviews a suspected error, and the role authorized to approve the public change. A small publication can assign several responsibilities to one person, but the policy should still identify the decisions involved. An inbox without an owner can leave a clear error waiting indefinitely.
Ask the reporter to identify the exact claim, original evidence, proposed replacement, and any affected headline, caption, image, or link. Where practical, obtain another editor's review before publishing a material correction. Urgent errors may need a prompt corrective action while the complete review continues, so describe how that exception is recorded.
Keep the process focused on evidence. A reader's complaint, a provider's objection, or a social reaction can initiate review but does not by itself establish an error. Record what was checked, what the source supports, and which factual statement needs to change. If the disagreement remains unresolved, identify the unanswered question instead of pretending the review settled it.
Use an adaptable policy template
The following proposed text is original template wording. Replace the bracketed roles and channels with your actual process before adopting it. Do not promise a response time or independent review step that the newsroom cannot consistently provide.
Readers can report a possible factual error through [reporting channel].
[Reviewing role] checks the published claim, source records, and proposed replacement.
Confirmed factual errors are corrected and accompanied by a visible correction note.
The note identifies the affected information, the corrected fact, and the correction date.
Later developments are marked as updates when the earlier reporting was accurate at publication.
Materially ambiguous wording is clarified without disguising an underlying factual error.
We review the headline, body, captions, links, and distributed summaries affected by the change.
We retain an internal record of the original version, evidence, decision, reviewer, and approved revision.
If evidence remains unresolved, we describe that uncertainty and continue the review as appropriate.
Our public policy is reviewed when responsibilities or publication channels change.The template describes behavior rather than guaranteeing that every dispute has a simple answer. Add the publication's own scope and contact method. Keep the public policy easy to find, and make sure staff understand that an update label should not replace a correction label for a confirmed factual mistake.
Build a useful revision record
Retain an immutable reference to each reviewed version or a protected copy of the relevant text. Give the revision a stable ID and record the event that prompted it. The internal history should explain what changed and why; a timestamp without a reason is inadequate when a future editor needs to reconstruct the reporting decision.
| History field | Information to retain | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Article and revision ID | Stable URL and version reference | Identifies the affected publication |
| Original claim | Exact passage and location | Preserves what the review addressed |
| Evidence | Original and newly checked source records | Makes the decision traceable |
| Change class | Correction, update, or clarification | Explains how the change is presented |
| Approved replacement | Revised passage and public note | Connects the decision to the final text |
| Reviewer and time | Responsible role and approval timestamp | Records accountability |
| Distribution review | Affected summaries, captions, and channels | Prevents stale companion material |
Keep the original record rather than editing its history to match the new conclusion. If the review itself later changes, add another entry explaining the new evidence. Limit access to internal material appropriately when it contains private information; public transparency does not require exposing every internal note or personal detail.
Write a correction readers can understand
A public note should state the factual point that was wrong, supply the corrected information, and identify when the correction was made. Use direct language. Avoid a vague statement that “the article has been updated” when the relevant change corrects a factual claim. Readers should not need to compare hidden versions to understand the material difference.
For a fictional example, an article originally says that Harbor Image is available to all accounts, while the checked announcement specifies invited testers. A suitable example note would explain that the earlier version overstated the audience and that access was limited to invited testers according to the source used in the correction. The body and headline should be revised to the same scope.
Do not repeat an unsupported rumor more prominently than necessary to explain its correction. Keep the note proportionate and factual. If the original problem concerns a number, date, model identity, or access condition, identify that point clearly rather than attaching a broad apology that leaves readers unsure what changed.
Review every affected part of the article
Check the headline, excerpt, introduction, tables, FAQs, captions, metadata, and internal links. A corrected paragraph can coexist with an outdated search description or FAQ answer if the editor changes only the first visible occurrence. Maintain a list of affected locations in the revision record and confirm that their wording agrees.
Review the featured image when it communicates factual content. An illustrative cover may need no change, while an image containing an incorrect date or claim may require a corrected version and caption. Keep generated illustrations clearly separate from evidence screenshots so an editorial image is not mistaken for the source of the corrected fact.
Also consider previously distributed summaries. The publication's policy should identify the channels it operates and the process for correcting material there. Record what was updated and what could not be changed. This guide describes that review process; it does not direct any actual message to be sent or assume control over another publisher's copies.
Maintain the policy alongside the site
Review the policy when the team, workflow, or distribution channels change. Make ownership explicit and retain the policy's own revision history. A new contact address should not leave older readers using a dead route, and a change in approval responsibility should be communicated internally before the next error review.
Use topic-specific evidence records to support correction decisions. A date discrepancy note can explain an uncertain release date, while an architecture claim ledger can preserve the distinction between a rumor and a disclosure. The corrections policy supplies the publication response; those records supply the factual basis.
Frequently asked questions
Is every later product change a correction?
No. A later development can justify an update when the original article accurately reflected its checked evidence. A correction is appropriate when the published factual claim was wrong. Preserve the original source and version to distinguish those situations.
Can a factual error be labeled a clarification?
The policy should not use clarification to conceal a confirmed factual mistake. Identify what was wrong and supply the corrected fact. Reserve clarification for explaining materially ambiguous wording without disguising an underlying correction.
Does the public need the full internal version history?
Not necessarily. A clear public note should explain the material correction, while internal records preserve evidence, decisions, and approvals. Publish the information needed for reader understanding without exposing private material that is unnecessary to explain the change.
Should FAQs and metadata be checked too?
Yes. An erroneous claim can appear in summaries, captions, tables, FAQs, and search descriptions. Review all affected locations so the corrected article presents a consistent account, and record the completed review in its revision history.
What if the suspected error cannot yet be resolved?
Record the checked evidence and the unanswered question. Where the uncertainty affects the article, explain it rather than making a definitive unsupported replacement. Keep the review open under the publication's stated responsibilities until evidence supports a conclusion.
