Correct one shared fact by freezing reuse, mapping every direct and derivative use, publishing visible notes, updating discovery signals and verifying closure.
Short answer: answer: Freeze the claim in the evidence register, verify the correction against the authoritative source, then traverse every linked article, chart, FAQ, schema block, PDF, translation and distributed excerpt. Update each rendered use, add a visible correction note wherever the error was material, send accurate discovery signals and independently verify every dependency. Quietly editing the first article is incomplete because readers and retrieval systems may encounter a derivative.
The obvious response is site search. Exact search finds copied sentences but misses paraphrases, image text, translated claims and numbers embedded in downloads. It also cannot tell whether a mention is historical and should remain unchanged.
The opposite response is a bulk replacement. That can turn an accurate quote or dated forecast into a false record. CDM's position is that corrections must propagate through a claim dependency graph, not a string replacement, and material errors deserve a visible record even when silent edits would look cleaner.
The Correction Dependency Map
The Correction Dependency Map connects one claim record to every use and derivative. Its eight stages are trigger, verify, contain, discover, decide, repair, signal and close.
1. Open a correction event
Create an event ID, reported issue, reporter, time, affected claim ID and initial risk. Preserve the published wording and source version. Do not overwrite the evidence record while investigating; a correction needs to explain what readers could see.
Triggers include a source correction, revised dataset, reader report, legal notice, failed procedure or internal discovery. A newer number is not automatically a correction: it may be a new period, method or projection. Assign a research owner to determine the relationship.
2. Verify the replacement fact and its scope
Open the authoritative source, version history and method. Record the old proposition, why it is wrong or outdated, the supported replacement, effective period and reviewer. Distinguish source correction from editorial error and routine update.
If uncertainty remains, contain the claim and publish a temporary note when harm warrants it. Do not rush from one unsupported value to another. Statistical, legal and technical corrections go to qualified reviewers.
3. Contain further spread
Set the claim status to blocked—correction open. Stop scheduled articles, syndication, newsletters, creator briefs and generative templates that pull it. Notify owners of high-risk live uses. Preserve evidence without leaving a known harmful instruction active merely for audit purposes.
Containment is not deletion. A historical article accurately saying the company projected X at the time may remain, while a current instruction must change. The decision happens per use.
4. Discover direct and semantic dependencies
Start with registered use rows. Then search the CMS, repository, DAM, PDFs, image OCR, structured data, translations and campaign systems for the number, phrases, source URL and claim ID. Search paraphrases such as three months alongside 90 days.
Follow second-order dependencies: a comparison table copied from Article A into Article C; an infographic exported to a PDF; an FAQ used as an AI answer block; a social post linking to a now-corrected page while stating the old fact. Record each as a node and its relationship: exact, paraphrase, calculation, visualization, translation or quotation.
5. Decide the treatment for every node
Use correct with note, update without correction, preserve as historical, remove, or pending review. Materiality drives visible treatment. A wrong number that changes the conclusion, advice, safety, rights or reader decision warrants a clear note. A typo that did not alter meaning may not.
Publisher standards support transparency. AP says corrections should be identified to both subscriber editors and consumers, labeled as corrections rather than euphemisms. Reuters says it rectifies errors promptly, clearly and comprehensively across story, caption, graphic or script. A brand blog need not imitate a wire service mechanically, but silent material edits set a lower trust standard.
6. Repair source nodes before derivatives
Correct the canonical claim record and highest-authority article first. Update wording, citations, chart data, alt text, structured data and downloadable files. Add a dated note stating what was wrong and what is now correct without repeating unnecessary personal or harmful information.
Then move outward through dependent nodes. Preserve version history and record editor, reviewer, publish time and rendered evidence. If a PDF cannot be replaced at the same URL, clearly mark the obsolete file, publish the corrected version and update every link. Avoid redirects that obscure the correction record.
7. Send accurate discovery signals
Update sitemap lastmod only for pages with significant changes. Google says a truthful last-modified value can help schedule crawling and warns against setting it falsely; it does not use changefreq or priority. For a few important URLs, an authorized Search Console user can request recrawl. Google also states that crawling may take days to weeks and a request does not guarantee immediate inclusion.
Refresh feeds, caches and internal search indexes. Re-submit updated structured data tests where appropriate. Monitor public snippets and AI answers as observations, not proof of propagation. You cannot force every external cache, quotation or model to forget an old fact; document outreach and residual limitations.
8. Verify closure independently
A second reviewer opens every node from the map and checks the rendered result, correction note, links, downloadable files and localization. Search again for the old variants. Confirm scheduled content is clean and the claim is unblocked only with the new approved version.
Close with counts: nodes found, corrected, preserved, removed, externally unresolved and verified. Schedule a seven- or 30-day residual check according to consequence. A zero-result exact search alone is not closure.
Reader asset: simulated correction dependency map
The following tabletop exercise is entirely simulated. TikTok's current documentation checked for this article says leads in the described product become unavailable after 90 days. TikTok has not been observed changing that period to 30 days. The exercise asks what CDM should do if an authoritative source hypothetically corrected 90 days to 30 days.
```text CLAIM C-90: "Platform lead records remain available for 90 days"
+-- Article A, body paragraph ........ exact value -> correct + visible note +-- Article B, FAQ ................... paraphrase "three months" -> correct + note +-- Article C, comparison table ...... value drives recommendation -> correct + note
| +-- Chart C1 PNG ............... image text -> regenerate + replace + note |
|---|
+-- Article D, PDF checklist ......... downloaded derivative -> version + supersession banner
| +-- Email automation E4 ........ links PDF, repeats value -> pause + correct |
|---|
+-- Article E, HowTo/FAQ schema ...... machine-readable claim -> correct + validate +-- Spanish version ............ "90 días" -> local review + correct ```
Simulated correction register
| Node | Dependency | Material effect | Treatment | Verification |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article A | direct | retention advice wrong | replace; dated correction note | live HTML + source checked |
| Article B | semantic | reader may delay export | replace paraphrase; note | FAQ and mobile render |
| Article C/C1 | calculated + visual | comparison ranking changes | recalculate; regenerate chart; note | values, alt text and image hash |
| Article D/E4 | PDF + distribution | stale offline instruction | issue v2; mark v1 superseded; stop email | download and automation test |
| Article E/ES | schema + translation | retrieval/local advice wrong | update JSON-LD; fluent review | validator, rendered page and locale |
This map demonstrates mechanics, not a real CDM correction or platform event. In a live case, node URLs, owners, due times and evidence IDs would replace the generic labels.
Write a correction note that answers four questions
State what was wrong, the correct information, when the change was made and whether the conclusion changed. Example for the simulation: Correction, [date]: This article previously stated that leads remained available for 90 days. The platform's current documentation states 30 days. We updated the export deadline and recommendation.
Do not say updated for clarity when a fact was wrong. If the correction changes no conclusion, say so; if it reverses advice, make that prominent. Attribute the authoritative source and link to the policy where readers can inspect it.
Related guides
Frequently asked questions
Does every factual edit need a public correction note?
No. Use a visible note for material errors—those that change meaning, conclusions, safety, legal or financial understanding, or a reasonable reader's decision. Silent fixes can be appropriate for spelling, broken links or immaterial formatting. Maintain internal version history regardless. When unsure, transparency usually costs less than appearing to hide a substantive error.
Record the materiality decision and approver. The caveat is privacy, security and legal risk: a note should explain the correction without republishing sensitive data, defamatory detail or an exploit.
How do we find paraphrases of the wrong fact?
Combine the claim register with searches for numbers, units, date forms, source URLs, distinctive phrases, synonyms and translations. Search OCR from images and extracted text from PDFs, plus structured data and repositories. Embedding or language-model search can propose semantic matches, but humans must confirm them. Follow calculations and assets derived from each match. Ask subject experts to identify domain-specific equivalents.
The caveat is coverage: inaccessible third-party copies and old downloads may remain, so record known external distribution and residual uncertainty rather than claiming exhaustive removal.
Should we change an old article when a newer statistic is released?
Not necessarily. A historical article can accurately report the value or forecast available at that time. Add the newer figure when current context matters, but preserve date, vintage and methodology. A correction is required when the old article misstated its source or presents the old value as current. Create a successor claim instead of overwriting provenance.
The caveat is a publisher revising the historical series itself; then assess whether the original statement remains accurate as a record and whether a note is needed.
Will requesting reindexing remove the old fact from Google immediately?
No. Google says recrawling can take days to weeks and a request does not guarantee instant inclusion. Correct the page first, use truthful sitemap lastmod, request recrawl for a few important URLs and monitor Search Console. External snippets and caches can lag. Do not repeatedly submit the same URL expecting faster processing.
The caveat is urgent harmful information: search removal tools and legal routes may exist for qualifying cases, but those are separate from ordinary factual correction and require their own criteria.
How should we correct a PDF that readers may have downloaded?
Publish a versioned replacement, mark the old hosted file as superseded or remove it where appropriate, and update every inbound link. Put a prominent correction notice in the new PDF and on its landing page. Notify known recipients when the error is consequential, and preserve restricted evidence of the old version.
You cannot alter copies already downloaded, so avoid claiming complete recall. The caveat is legal deposit, contracts or records policy: these may require retention, but retained files should not remain the active public instruction.
Who signs off that a multi-article correction is complete?
Use an editor or research owner who did not perform every repair to verify the dependency map and rendered outputs. Specialist reviewers confirm statistical, legal or technical replacement facts; channel owners confirm their nodes. Closure requires either evidence for each node or an accepted exception with an owner and review date.
Small teams can separate the work temporally and use a checklist. The caveat is an open external dependency: mark the event conditionally closed and keep monitoring rather than certifying an outcome outside your control.
Next decision: Return to the claim register and prevent untracked reuse
Related reading: Trace circular citations · Verify marketing statistics · Set evidence refresh dates
Sources and research notes
- Associated Press, Telling the Story: Corrections/Correctives — checked 26 September 2026. Primary publisher standard on visible, labeled corrections across formats.
- Reuters, Standards and Values — checked 26 September 2026. Primary publisher statement requiring prompt, clear and comprehensive correction.
- UK Statistics Authority, Code of Practice for Statistics 3.0 — checked 26 September 2026. Official-statistics principles on corrections and transparent quality.
- Google Search Central, Ask Google to recrawl URLs — checked 26 September 2026. Official limits: requests do not guarantee immediate indexing.
- Google Search Central, sitemap `lastmod` guidance — checked 26 September 2026. Official recommendation to use significant, truthful modification dates.
- TikTok for Business, Manage and download collected leads — checked 26 September 2026. Real 90-day source used only as the baseline for a clearly labeled hypothetical correction.
Research limitation: no actual TikTok 90-to-30-day change or CDM correction is claimed. The dependency map, nodes, dates and correction text are a simulation designed to test the CDM workflow; real treatment depends on the source, materiality and distribution footprint.
This article is editorial guidance. Apply the principles in proportion to your market, evidence, and responsibilities.
