Corrections

The errors this pipeline makes are specific, and knowing their shape makes them easier to report:

Attribution. The claim is credited to the wrong person — two speakers in one video, or a host reading out someone else's opinion.

The quote. The words are not exactly what was said. Automatic captions mishear, and a mishearing that survives our verbatim check is a mishearing in the captions themselves.

The reading. The words are right and our interpretation of them is wrong — a joke read as an endorsement, a conditional read as a flat recommendation, or a criticism of one thing attached to another.

The subject. The claim is attached to the wrong product or brand. Two manufacturers make similarly named skillets, and the resolver refusing to guess is what is supposed to prevent this.

Who someone is. We describe people by occupation and by community — chef, cookware reviewer, collector. Calling someone a chef who is not one is a statement about a person's professional life and it is the error we treat most seriously.

Disclosure. A commercial relationship we failed to label, or a label applied to someone who has no such relationship. Both directions are errors and the second is a slur.

The link. A deep link that lands in the wrong place, or a source that has since moved or been deleted.

Write to corrections@reachedfor.com. What helps most, in rough order: the address of the page, the name shown beside the claim, and what is wrong. If you can point at the moment in the source, that settles it fastest — but do not wait to find it. A rough report is far better than a silent error.

If you are the person quoted, say so, and say whether you would rather we corrected the claim or removed it.

There is no support desk. Mail goes to the person who built the site, so the wait is in reaching us rather than in the fix — an error we can verify against the source is corrected the same day it is verified.

We check it against the original. The source is the arbiter, not our record of it and not our memory of reading it. Every claim keeps the quote and the timestamp it came from, which is what makes this a lookup rather than an argument.

If the quote is wrong, the claim goes. A claim without an accurate verbatim quote has nothing left holding it up.

If our reading is wrong, the claim is replaced and the observation is kept. The corrected reading is written as a new claim against the same original quote, and the old one is retired rather than deleted. We never overwrite the record of what was observed, including when the record is of us being wrong.

If we described a person wrongly, that is fixed first. It affects every page they appear on rather than one, so it takes priority over a single mistaken claim.

If we think we had it right, we say so and say why. Sometimes the answer is that a source really does say the surprising thing, and then the reply is the timestamp.

A correction that changes what a page says changes the page, because pages here are generated from the graph. There is no separate copy of the text to forget to update.

We publish short quotations with a link back to the moment in your own source, and never a transcript. If you want your words off this site, write and say so and we will remove them. We will not ask you to justify it and we will not make you send it twice.

If instead you want to be described more accurately — a job title, a cohort, a disclosure we missed, or one we applied that does not apply — tell us what is right and how you know, and it will be corrected across every page you appear on.

It is not a route for a brand to have criticism removed. A negative claim that is accurately quoted and accurately attributed stays, and objections are half of what makes this site worth reading. If a claim about your product misquotes someone, misattributes them, or misreads what they said, that is a correction and we will make it. If it reports something true that you would rather was not on the internet, it is not.

What we would genuinely welcome instead is more evidence. If people who know your products well have said something on the record that we have not read, tell us where. The method page explains what makes a source usable.