The page link
Send the exact article, archive page or newsroom URL that contains the detail you want reviewed.
See a company detail, figure, date or source issue that may be wrong? Send us the article and the supporting material, and we will review it against the published record.
Names, tickers, dates, figures and transaction terms can materially change how a company development is understood. When a client, reader or source identifies a possible issue, we review the article against the supporting record.
The goal is simple: correct what is wrong, preserve what is accurate and make material changes visible enough for readers to understand what was updated.
A specific request backed by a source is easier to assess than a general complaint and gives us a clearer path to a responsible update.
Send the exact article, archive page or newsroom URL that contains the detail you want reviewed.
Point to the sentence, figure, date, headline wording or company information you believe is inaccurate.
Include the filing, news release, exchange notice or other source that supports the requested change.
Leave the best email or phone number for follow-up if we need clarification before completing the review.
We review the concern, compare it with the source and decide whether the page needs a minor fix, a material correction or no change.
We open the article, identify the disputed detail and review the material you supplied.
The published wording is checked against the release, filing or other authoritative document connected to the story.
We decide whether the issue is cosmetic or whether it changes the facts, timing, parties or meaning of the article.
When a change is warranted, the article wording and related publication details are updated.
Substantive corrections receive a visible note or updated modification time so the record remains clear.
Factual statements, company names, tickers, dates, transaction terms, quoted figures, source attribution, headlines, labels and publication details can all be reviewed when a specific concern is raised.
Requests that simply disagree with accurate sourcing or that seek to remove truthful reporting without a factual basis may not result in a change.
Spelling, grammar and formatting may be fixed quietly when meaning does not change. When a revision changes how the story is understood, the update should be visible.
A substantive correction may include revised wording, an updated modification timestamp and a clear note identifying what changed. The source and disclosure information remain visible after the update.
Accurate coverage is not removed simply because it is inconvenient. Removal or retraction may be considered for legal obligations, privacy or safety issues, duplicate publication, invalid source material or a serious error that cannot be corrected responsibly.
Where practical, the newsroom may preserve a record that the article was removed or materially changed.
The clearest correction requests include the page link, the disputed wording and the primary document that supports the requested update.
Sponsored coverage is held to the same factual standard. A commercial relationship does not prevent a company, reader or source from requesting a legitimate correction.
Email a correction request →Use this route for factual errors, incorrect figures, source issues, labeling concerns or publication-detail corrections.