Dưới đây là bản hoàn chỉnh cho Corrections Policy, đồng bộ với các trang Editorial Standards, How We Research, Fact-Checking Policy và hồ sơ tác giả Duc Nguyen.

URL: /corrections-policy/
SEO Title: Corrections Policy | Explained How
Meta Description: Learn how Explained How identifies, reviews, corrects, discloses, and documents factual errors, outdated information, and material editorial changes.

Corrections Policy

Last reviewed: October 6, 2026

Explained How aims to publish accurate, clear, evidence-based explanations of how things work.

Even with careful research and fact-checking, mistakes can happen.

A technical specification may be misread. A scientific explanation may be oversimplified. A regulation may change. A source may later be superseded. A sentence may imply more certainty than the evidence supports.

When we identify a meaningful error, our responsibility is not to defend the original wording.

It is to correct the record.

Our corrections policy is based on a simple principle:

Accuracy matters more than preserving the appearance that we were always right.

This page explains how Explained How reviews reported errors, distinguishes corrections from ordinary edits, updates published content, and communicates material changes to readers.

Our Commitment to Accuracy

Explained How is a mechanism-first publication.

That means an error can affect more than a single isolated fact.

If one step in a causal chain is wrong, the reader’s entire understanding of the system may become inaccurate.

For that reason, we pay particular attention to errors involving:

how a process works;
why one event causes another;
technical specifications;
scientific mechanisms;
numerical claims;
dates;
laws or regulations;
product or system versions;
safety-related information;
high-stakes topics;
attribution;
source interpretation.

When an error materially changes the meaning of an explanation, we aim to correct it promptly and transparently.

What Counts as a Correction?

A correction is appropriate when published content contains a factual or explanatory error that could reasonably cause a reader to misunderstand the subject.

Examples include:

an incorrect technical statement;
a wrong number or unit;
an inaccurate date;
a misidentified component;
an incorrect causal relationship;
a statement attributed to the wrong source;
an outdated regulation described as current;
a specification copied incorrectly;
a misleading oversimplification;
a statement presented as established fact when the evidence is uncertain;
an explanation that omits a condition necessary for the mechanism to work.

Corrections are different from routine editing.

Corrections vs. Minor Edits

Not every change requires a public correction note.

We distinguish between minor editorial edits and substantive corrections.

Minor Editorial Edits

Minor changes may include:

correcting spelling;
fixing punctuation;
improving grammar;
repairing formatting;
replacing a broken link;
improving sentence clarity without changing meaning;
adjusting image placement;
fixing obvious typographical errors.

These changes usually do not require a correction notice because they do not materially change the factual content.

Substantive Corrections

A substantive correction changes information that affects the reader’s understanding.

Examples include:

correcting a scientific mechanism;
replacing an incorrect statistic;
changing an inaccurate technical specification;
correcting a legal or regulatory statement;
revising an explanation that overstated certainty;
correcting a factual claim central to the article;
changing the meaning of an important conclusion.

When practical, material corrections may be disclosed to readers.

How We Review Reported Errors

A correction request is not accepted or rejected solely because someone disagrees with the article.

We review the evidence.

When a potential error is identified, we consider:

What exactly is being challenged?

Is the issue factual, interpretive, technical, numerical, or stylistic?

What source supported the original statement?

Was the source authoritative and correctly interpreted?

Is stronger or newer evidence available?

Has the relevant scientific understanding, regulation, standard, specification, or system changed?

Does the issue materially affect the explanation?

Would a reasonable reader understand the mechanism differently after the correction?

Is the disagreement factual or interpretive?

Two reasonable interpretations do not necessarily mean one side contains a factual error.

Our response depends on what the evidence establishes.

We Correct Evidence, Not Pressure

Explained How may receive correction requests from:

readers;
companies;
institutions;
manufacturers;
researchers;
public officials;
advertisers;
affiliate partners;
other interested parties.

The identity or influence of the person requesting a change does not determine the outcome.

We do not alter accurate content simply because it is unfavorable to:

a company;
an advertiser;
an affiliate partner;
an institution;
a public figure;
another interested party.

Similarly, we do not refuse a valid correction because the request comes from someone with a commercial interest.

The question is:

What does the evidence support?

Sources Used to Evaluate Corrections

Where possible, we verify disputed claims against evidence closest to the underlying facts.

Depending on the subject, this may include:

primary documentation;
government agencies;
scientific institutions;
technical standards;
academic research;
legislation;
court decisions;
official product documentation;
engineering manuals;
manufacturer specifications;
regulatory sources;
recognized professional organizations.

When a secondary source conflicts with a primary source, we generally give greater weight to the primary source unless there is a clear reason not to.

For more detail, see:

[How We Research →](/how-we-research/)

and

[Fact-Checking Policy →](/fact-checking-policy/)

How Corrections Are Presented

The way a correction is displayed depends on its significance.

For a small factual error, we may simply correct the sentence.

For a meaningful error, we may add a correction note.

A correction note may explain:

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that [incorrect information]. The article has been updated to reflect [correct information].

For more substantial changes, the note may also include the date of the correction.

We aim to make the correction understandable without unnecessarily repeating incorrect information.

We Do Not Quietly Rewrite Major Errors

When an error materially changes the reader’s understanding of a subject, simply rewriting the article without acknowledging the change may not provide enough transparency.

In those cases, we may preserve a visible correction note.

We are especially likely to do this when the error affects:

the central mechanism;
health or safety information;
financial information;
a legal explanation;
a major scientific claim;
a substantial numerical claim;
a factual accusation or attribution.

The objective is accountability, not embarrassment.

Updates Are Different From Corrections

Not every change means the original article was wrong.

Some information changes over time.

For example:

software is updated;
technical standards change;
regulations change;
scientific evidence develops;
government programs change;
platforms modify how systems operate;
products receive revised specifications.

When an article was accurate when published but later becomes outdated, we generally describe the change as an update, not a correction.

That distinction matters.

A correction addresses something that was inaccurate or misleading.

An update reflects information that changed after publication.

Publication Dates and Updated Dates

We aim to represent dates accurately.

Published should indicate when the article was first made public.

Updated should indicate that the content received meaningful editorial revision.

We do not change the date merely to make an older article appear fresh.

A substantive update might include:

new evidence;
a changed technical standard;
a changed law;
a corrected mechanism;
major new sourcing;
a significant rewrite that improves factual accuracy.

Changing punctuation or fixing a typo does not justify presenting an article as newly updated.

Corrections to Scientific Content

Science changes as evidence develops.

A scientific article may require correction when:

a study was misrepresented;
a finding was described too strongly;
correlation was incorrectly presented as causation;
a scientific model was explained incorrectly;
consensus was overstated;
newer evidence materially changes the explanation.

We do not describe normal scientific development as if researchers were simply “wrong.”

When appropriate, we explain how the evidence changed.

Corrections to Technical Content

Technology and engineering content can become outdated quickly.

Corrections or updates may be necessary when:

specifications were incorrect;
a protocol changed;
software behavior changed;
a standard was revised;
a system version changed;
a manufacturer corrected documentation.

Where version or date matters, we aim to make that context clear.

Corrections to High-Stakes Content

We apply greater urgency to potential errors involving:

health;
medicine;
personal safety;
finance;
investing;
insurance;
law;
elections;
government benefits.

If an error could materially affect a reader’s health, financial situation, safety, or civic decisions, it receives higher priority.

When needed, we may seek stronger sources or qualified review before finalizing the correction.

Corrections to Product and Affiliate Content

Affiliate relationships do not change our correction standard.

If an affiliate article contains an incorrect:

specification;
feature description;
warranty term;
compatibility claim;
product dimension;
pricing statement presented as current;
availability claim;

we should update or correct it when reliable evidence establishes the problem.

We do not preserve incorrect information because a product generates affiliate revenue.

If we did not personally test a product, a correction should not introduce language implying that we did.

Corrections to Images and Visuals

Visuals can also contain errors.

A correction may be necessary if:

a diagram labels a component incorrectly;
arrows show the wrong direction of a process;
a chart contains incorrect data;
a reconstruction is misleading;
an AI-assisted illustration visually implies something that is technically false.

When a visual materially contributes to the explanation, it is subject to the same accuracy standard as the text.

Misleading Language Can Also Be Corrected

A sentence can be technically defensible and still give readers the wrong impression.

For example:

“GPS satellites tell your phone where it is.”

may be understandable shorthand, but it can create the wrong mental model.

A correction or clarification may be appropriate if wording:

hides an important mechanism;
exaggerates certainty;
implies causation without evidence;
removes a necessary condition;
creates a misleading comparison.

Our goal is not merely technically defensible wording.

It is accurate understanding.

When We Do Not Make a Correction

A correction is not automatically warranted because:

someone dislikes the conclusion;
a company prefers different wording;
an article contains an opinion clearly identified as interpretation;
evidence remains genuinely disputed;
a source offers a different but not necessarily superior explanation.

In those situations, we may:

leave the article unchanged;
improve clarification;
add context;
acknowledge competing interpretations.

We do not label legitimate disagreement as factual error.

Retractions

In rare cases, correcting individual sentences may not be enough.

An article may require substantial revision, temporary removal, or retraction if:

the core explanation is fundamentally unreliable;
major sourcing problems affect the entire article;
substantial portions are based on fabricated evidence;
the article creates a serious risk of harm;
the central premise cannot be responsibly supported.

Retraction should be rare.

If an article is retracted, we aim to preserve enough information for readers to understand what happened rather than silently making the URL disappear without explanation.

Duplicate or Misattributed Content

If we discover that published material:

was improperly copied;
was attributed to the wrong person;
significantly reproduces another source without appropriate attribution;

we investigate and take appropriate action.

Depending on the circumstances, this may include:

correcting attribution;
rewriting the affected material;
removing material;
retracting the article.

Explained How aims to provide original explanatory synthesis rather than recycled content.

AI-Related Corrections

AI-assisted tools may occasionally contribute errors during research, drafting, editing, or visual creation.

An AI-generated error is treated the same as any other factual error.

We do not consider:

“The AI generated it”

an acceptable reason to leave incorrect material published.

Editorial responsibility remains with Explained How.

If AI produces:

a fabricated citation;
an incorrect statistic;
a false technical claim;
a nonexistent study;
a fake quote;
an incorrect visual;

the material should be corrected or removed.

Reader-Submitted Corrections

Readers are encouraged to report potential errors.

A useful correction report includes:

the URL of the article;
the specific statement or visual in question;
why you believe it is incorrect;
an authoritative source or supporting evidence, if available.

You do not need to be a subject-matter expert to report a problem.

A clear question can be enough for us to review the claim.

Submit corrections through:

[Contact Explained How →](/contact/)

How Quickly Do We Correct Errors?

Correction time depends on:

severity;
complexity;
availability of authoritative evidence;
whether expert review is required.

Potential errors involving safety, health, finance, law, or other high-impact topics receive higher priority.

Simple factual errors may be resolved quickly.

Complex scientific or technical disputes may require more research.

We prefer a careful correction over a rushed second mistake.

Who Is Responsible for Corrections?

Explained How is currently founded and primarily edited by Duc Nguyen.

At this stage, Duc Nguyen is responsible for reviewing correction requests and overseeing changes to Explained How content unless another reviewer is specifically identified.

Learn more:

[Duc Nguyen →](/authors/)

As the publication grows, additional editorial roles will be identified transparently when real people actually perform them.

Version Transparency

Explained How does not currently promise to preserve a public archive of every minor historical version of every article.

However, meaningful corrections may be documented directly on the article.

Where useful, the correction notice may include:

the date;
what was wrong;
what was changed.

This gives readers useful transparency without turning every punctuation edit into a public changelog.

Our Correction Standard

Before closing a correction review, we ask:

Was the original statement accurate?

Does stronger evidence contradict it?

Does the correction change the mechanism?

Does the revised wording reflect the correct level of certainty?

Should readers be told that the content changed?

Is additional context needed to prevent the same misunderstanding?

The purpose of the correction is not simply to replace one sentence.

It is to restore an accurate mental model.

A Correction Is Not a Failure of Transparency

A publication that never acknowledges a correction is not necessarily a publication that never makes mistakes.

Trust depends on what happens after an error is discovered.

Our goal is to be willing to say:

We got this wrong. Here is the corrected explanation.

That is part of responsible publishing.

Contact Us About a Correction

If you believe something published by Explained How is incorrect, outdated, misleading, or insufficiently supported, please let us know.

Include the article URL and as much detail as practical.

[Submit a Correction →](/contact/)

We evaluate correction requests based on the evidence available.