WELCOME FROM GEORGIA · HELP US KEEP INFORMATION CURRENT
Discover America Now World → Georgia → World See How We Build Trust
Corrections & Change Log

Trust means being open about meaningful changes.

When important information is corrected or updated, we explain what changed and why. This page shows how we review reports, verify sources and keep a clear change history.

See How We Build Trust Open Governed Sources
What belongs in the log

Some edits are small. Important corrections deserve a record.

Source update

Authority changed

A government agency, official program, rule, form, requirement or source page materially changed.

Correction

Platform error

The platform misstated, omitted, misclassified or incorrectly summarized material information.

Material revision

Meaning changed

The wording or routing was revised enough to alter how a reasonable user might understand or act on the information.

Editorial distinction: Typographic fixes, spacing adjustments and other non-material presentation changes do not need to be treated as substantive corrections unless they alter meaning.
Correction record

Every important correction should explain the essentials.

What changed The specific statement, route, field or record affected.
Why it changed New authority, discovered error, clarification or re-verification.
When Detection date, correction date and source verification date.
Who reviewed The human reviewer responsible for accepting the correction.
Source basis The authority or evidence supporting the new version.
Impact Which pages, pathways or governed records were affected.
Prior state Enough context to understand what the previous version said.
Current state The corrected version now presented to the user.
Correction workflow

Find it. Check it. Fix it. Review it. Record it.

1 · Detect A source changes, an error is reported or a reviewer identifies a problem.
2 · Verify Check the current controlling source and determine whether the issue is real.
3 · Correct Update the affected record, page, routing logic or explanation.
4 · Review A human reviewer checks meaning, authority, boundaries and downstream impact.
5 · Record Log the material change so future users and operators can understand the history.
Example correction entry

Show enough history to understand the change.

Example — source verification date updated

Status: Resolved · Type: Source update · Reviewer: Internal human review
Resolved
Previous state

A governed source record displayed an older verification date after the underlying agency page had been reviewed again.
Current state

The record now shows the new verification date while retaining the same authority and jurisdiction because the underlying substance did not materially change.

This is an example of how a change record may look. It does not claim that a specific public source was corrected on this date.

Change sensitivity

Some information needs to be checked more often.

High sensitivity Immigration, customs, tax, funding, eligibility, deadlines and regulatory requirements.
Medium sensitivity Programs, operating requirements, institutional resources and business procedures.
Lower sensitivity Stable institutional descriptions, historical context and background explanations.
Event-driven Information that should be rechecked immediately when an authority announces a material change.
User-reported issues

Everyone should have a clear way to report a concern.

Identify the exact page

A useful report should include the page, source record or pathway where the issue appears.

Provide the concern

Explain what appears inaccurate, outdated, unclear or improperly attributed.

Include supporting evidence

When available, identify the current official or primary source that appears to conflict with the platform.

What happens after a report

Every report deserves review, but it still needs verification.

Receive Preserve the original issue report.
Classify Determine whether it is factual, technical, editorial, regulatory or presentation-related.
Investigate Review the relevant primary sources and affected records.
Decide Correct, clarify, withdraw, retain or escalate for professional review.
Close the loop Update the record and preserve the correction history when material.
No silent certainty

When we're not sure, we'll say so.

Mark for review

If current evidence conflicts, flag the information rather than pretending certainty.

Withdraw temporarily

Remove a claim from active routing when it can no longer be responsibly supported.

Escalate appropriately

Route fact-specific regulated interpretation to a qualified professional instead of resolving it editorially.

Trust is maintained over time

Publish carefully. Correct visibly. Keep learning.

The corrections system completes the trust loop by connecting source verification, human review, material changes and future re-verification.

See How We Build Trust Open Library Start My Journey