Error versus changed circumstances
If an article incorrectly stated a 20-times wagering base when the source said 30 times, correcting the original error differs from updating an offer that changed after publication. Both can require a revision, but the explanation should identify what happened rather than making every change look like an ordinary freshness update.
A useful record can state the affected claim, old wording, corrected wording, evidence and date. It need not preserve irrelevant spelling edits as a public event, but a substantive change should be understandable to a reader who relied on the earlier statement.
Receiving reports
Provide a clear route for readers to identify the page, disputed passage and supporting source. A report is a prompt to investigate, not automatic proof of an error. Preserve relevant records and compare the exact claim with the appropriate source, market and date.
Updating connected claims
A corrected figure can appear in a review, directory card, comparison and schema. Fixing only the visible paragraph can leave other representations inconsistent. A single content source and a review of dependent fields help keep the correction coherent. Named review responsibility should reflect completed work rather than an automatic date change.
What the policy establishes
The policy describes an accountable process, not a guarantee that a site will never publish an error. Readers benefit from explicit scope, traceable evidence and a clear outcome. Avoid deleting an inconvenient record solely to create the impression that no conflict ever existed. A correction should improve the factual answer while explaining material implications for affected content.
Should a changed claim also update structured data?
Yes, dependent representations should remain consistent with the corrected visible content. A revised definition, author responsibility or offer fact can affect metadata, cards and schema as well as prose. Check those fields through the site's single editing source rather than making disconnected manual changes. A correction record should identify the substantive issue and outcome. Updating only a date can imply review without addressing the actual error, while leaving old schema can cause readers and machines to receive conflicting versions of the same claim.