Factual correction
A source is misquoted or misread, a date or status is wrong or out of date, or a link is broken. If confirmed, the record is fixed and the change log says what changed and why.
Corrections and disagreement
Correct or challenge a record
Disagreement is data. Applying the adaptability test to this site means giving readers and course cohorts a real way to correct it and to contest its interpretations.
Two kinds of submission
Interpretive disagreement
You read the evidence differently, a confidence rating seems too high or low, or a perspective is missing. If it is supported by evidence, it is recorded as an attributed perspective or a debate position, not quietly edited in.
What to include
- Record identifier
- The claim, source, passage or page identifier, for example claim-teen-chatbot-use-pew or /levels#community.
- Disputed wording
- The exact words you think are wrong or one-sided.
- Source and locator
- Where the evidence is: a link plus page, section or paragraph.
- Proposed change
- What the record should say instead, or what should be added.
- Reason
- Why: what the source actually says, what is out of date, or which perspective is missing.
How submissions are reviewed and credited
- The editor reads every submission and checks the cited source and locator.
- Factual corrections are fixed and logged in the change log with the date.
- Interpretive disagreements with evidence are added as attributed perspectives or debate positions; without evidence, they are kept on file and may prompt further research.
- You are credited by name in the change log only if you ask to be. Otherwise the entry says “reader submission”.
This is an editorial process run by the framework's author during the research preview, not independent review.