Corrections

How to report factual errors on CLCI Hub. We welcome correction requests from anyone — current and former members of groups we cover, researchers, journalists, family members, and named organisations.

How to report a factual error

Every group profile carries a “Suggest a correction” link in the header. The link opens a pre-filled GitHub issue with the profile slug and URL. Reporting a correction does not require a GitHub account — you can also email us at the address listed at the bottom of this page, or use the new-issue link directly.

What information helps us

A useful correction request typically includes the following fields. Only the first four are strictly required; the rest help us weight, contextualise, and respond to the request:

• Your name (or a stable pseudonym if you prefer; we will respect a request to keep your name off the public-facing record).
• Organisation you represent, if any, and your authority to speak for it. Leave blank if you are submitting as an individual.
• Profile page URL or slug (e.g. /groups/example-slug).
• The claimed error — quote the specific sentence or paragraph, or describe its location precisely.
• What you believe the correct fact is, in one or two sentences.
• A link to a supporting public-record source — court filing, government report, established news article, peer-reviewed paper, organisational primary document. URLs without supporting sources can still be useful but are weighted lower.
• Your requested correction — the specific edit you would like to see. We will not always make the exact edit you propose, but knowing your preferred outcome helps us understand the request.
• Right-of-reply statement (organisations only): if you wish your response published alongside the existing characterisation rather than replacing it, indicate that and provide the statement. This routes through the Right of Reply process.
• Contact email — for us to acknowledge receipt and follow up. You can request that we use this only for direct correspondence and not publish it.
• Consent to publish a response — yes / no / partial. If you would like your name or organisation acknowledged in the public changelog, indicate it. The default is to credit the submitter as “an external reviewer” without naming them unless they ask.
• Legal-representative contact, if applicable. If you are submitting through counsel, please include their name and contact details so we can correspond through the same channel.
• Your relationship to the matter — former member, current member, family member, journalist, academic researcher, member of the public, named individual on the profile, etc. This is optional but materially helps us weight the request.

You do not need to be an expert, fill every field, or use formal language. Even a single line — “the founding date is wrong, it was 1971 not 1972, see [source]” — is useful and we will act on it. The structured field list above is for substantial submissions; small fixes can be a sentence.

We do not auto-publish submissions. Every correction request is reviewed by an editor before any change is made to a profile or before any submitted response appears on the public-facing site.

What evidence we accept

Per the Source Policy, we prefer:

• Court records and government investigation reports (primary)
• Peer-reviewed academic work (secondary)
• Long-form journalism from established outlets with editorial standards (secondary)
• Books and documentaries from major publishers (secondary)
• Organisational public statements (primary, for what the organisation says about itself)
• Named, publicly-attributed ex-member testimony (tertiary, used carefully)

We do not act on anonymous allegations, leaked private documents we cannot independently verify, or material from sealed proceedings. We do not act on legal-threat letters as substitutes for evidence — see the Right of Reply page for the organisation-response process.

Our review process

On receiving a correction request:

1. We acknowledge the request within seven days.
2. We verify the source material independently and check for corroborating evidence.
3. If the correction is supported by adequate evidence, we update the profile, log the change in the profile's public changelog (forthcoming Round 32+ feature), and notify the original requester.
4. If the correction is partly supported, we update the supported portion and explain the rest.
5. If the correction is not supported by public evidence, we explain why and invite further documentation.

Routine fact-corrections (dates, name spellings, role corrections) are typically processed within two weeks. Score changes, confidence-level changes, and major narrative revisions go through additional editorial review and may take longer.

What we will not do

• Remove a profile entirely on request from the named organisation. (See Right of Reply for the organisation-response process.)
• Remove sourced, publicly-documented information at the request of an interested party.
• Suppress public-record information about court findings, government investigations, or peer-reviewed academic conclusions.
• Add unsourced material at the request of any party, including the organisation itself.

Public changelog

From Round 32 onward, every substantive profile edit will appear in a public changelog on the profile page (the existing lastReviewed field is already surfaced; the per-edit changelog is being added). The intention is transparency: readers can see when a profile was last updated, what changed, and what source supported the change.

Reporting concerns about CLCI scoring

Scoring concerns differ from factual corrections. If you believe a CLCI score is too high or too low, please describe the specific BITE axis or modifier you believe is mis-scored, point to specific evidence supporting your view, and compare against the relevant comparator entries in the dataset. Score-change requests follow the same review process but require a substantive evidence-comparison case rather than a single source.

Contact: corrections at clcihub dot com. See also Right of Reply for named-organisation responses, Editorial Policy for publication standards.