Corrections & appeals

A record must be open to correction.

Publishing a finding should come with a responsibility to listen, check new evidence, and correct mistakes.

This is a proposed process. Public submissions and appeals are not open yet. A working intake channel, responsible reviewers, and response expectations must be published before business assessments launch.

Make it free to raise an issue.

Anyone should be able to flag a factual error, an outdated claim, a missing business, a misleading conclusion, or a relevant conflict. A business should not have to become a customer to respond or request a correction.

A useful submission would identify the record and claim, explain the concern, and provide supporting evidence where available. Someone who cannot supply a document should still be able to flag an issue for review.

Show how the review works.

1. Acknowledge the submission. Confirm what was received and explain the next step.
2. Check the claim and evidence. Review the source, scope, dates, and any conflicting information. Seek a response from affected parties when needed.
3. Decide and explain. Correct the finding, retain it with reasons, or mark the question unresolved. Notify the person who raised it.
4. Allow an appeal. Route a disputed decision to a reviewer who did not make the original judgment and has no relevant conflict.

Reports involving the wrong business, exposed private information, or a potentially harmful factual error would receive urgent review. Specific response targets still need to be set and tested; this draft does not promise a turnaround time.

Treat disagreement fairly.

A complaint is an account to examine, not an automatic adverse finding. A business’s denial is also not proof that the complaint is false. The review should consider the available evidence and preserve unresolved differences.

During a material dispute, the record should make its status clear. Serious questions about identity, privacy, or the evidence may require limiting or withholding a claim while it is checked. A dispute alone should not erase an otherwise supported finding.

Keep a useful correction history.

Material changes should have a date, a short explanation, and a record of the affected claim. A newly available fact should be distinguished from a mistake in the original assessment.

The history should help readers understand what changed without repeating private, harmful, or unlawfully disclosed information. Corrections should carry through to the public page, structured record, and any future correction feed.

Protect people who submit evidence.

The intake process should explain how information will be used and shared before it is submitted. Public explanations should remove unnecessary personal information. A private submission should not become a public document without a proper basis for sharing it.

We would publish aggregate information about issues received, resolved, and still open, along with the period and totals covered. That would let readers see how the process performs once it is operating.

Read Our methods for how findings would be reached, and Data and access for how corrections would follow the record.