We get things wrong. This page says what we do about it, and what we have already had to do.
The policy
- We correct in place and keep the address. A corrected article stays at the URL it was published at, so existing links to it keep working. We do not delete an article to make a mistake disappear.
- We say what changed. Where a correction changes the substance of a story rather than its sourcing, the article says so.
- We withdraw rather than quietly patch. If an article should not have run at all, we take it down and record it here, rather than editing it into something defensible.
- We do not amend the record of what we published. Our internal drafting files are kept as they were. The published article is what changes, and the difference is the correction.
What counts as a correction
Adding a missing link is not the same as correcting a fact, and we would rather draw that line than blur it in our own favour. Most of the changes below are the first kind: the reporting was sound and the source had been read, but the article credited the publication that broke a story instead of linking the one we actually read. That is a sourcing failure, and it matters, but nothing we told you was untrue.
A smaller number were the second kind, where a claim was wrong or should not have been made. Those are named individually below.
The September 2026 audit
In September 2026 we audited the entire archive against one rule: you should always be able to reach what we read. Ninety-seven articles were amended and one was withdrawn. Almost all of the ninety-seven were the sourcing failure described above, corrected by naming and linking the outlet whose reporting we had actually read.
Withdrawn
“Galaxy Delivers 133 Megawatts of Helios Phase I to CoreWeave on Schedule,” carrying the date 6 July 2026. The completion it reported was announced on 10 July. The article reported as news of the sixth something that had not happened yet on the sixth, and the whole piece rested on that later announcement, so there was no version of it that was true on its own date. Withdrawn 16 September 2026.
Substantively corrected
- A 28 July 2026 article on memory stocks reported Samsung’s guidance that the shortage would run for years. Samsung said that on its second-quarter earnings call of 30 July, two days after our date. The headline was changed, the opening rewritten and the Samsung passage removed.
- Our report on the CXMT initial public offering credited five figures to Reuters, Bloomberg, the Financial Times, the South China Morning Post and the Wall Street Journal. We had not read any of them. The figures themselves were right and reconcile to TrendForce’s published numbers, so the credits were removed and replaced with the arithmetic, and TrendForce was linked.
- A 28 August 2026 item on XPeng attributed a claim to the Wall Street Journal that we could not locate and could not open. The credit was removed, and a detail about the vehicle platform went with it, because it was wrong.
- A report on TSMC price increases described what “Reuters’ sources” said. Neither source we could reach supported that characterisation, so it was softened to describe the reporting rather than the sourcing behind it.
What is still outstanding
Eighteen articles still name another publication without linking that publication. We would rather tell you the number than imply the archive is finished. In most of them the article names both the outlet that broke the story and the one we actually read, and links the second, so the chain is disclosed but the originator is not clickable. In a few, an outlet is credited directly with no route to it at all. We are working through them.
Every article published from 16 September 2026 onward is checked automatically before publication: if it credits a publication on our list without a matching source, and if it cites a source dated after its own dateline, the draft is flagged for a person to resolve before it can run. Neither check is complete — the first works from a list of publications and cannot see one nobody has added, and the second can only read dates out of web addresses, which about a fifth of our sources carry. They catch the cheap cases. They are not a substitute for the editing.
Telling us about an error
If you think something we have published is wrong, write to us through the contact page and name the article. We will check it against its sources and correct it if it is wrong. If you are the subject of an article and believe it misrepresents you, say so and we will look at it on the same terms.