Corrections Policy

What we correct

PulseAugur publishes two kinds of content: aggregated links to third-party articles, and our own editorial layer on top of those aggregations (cluster titles, home Brief chrome, /entity/ and /topic/ summaries, translations). Our corrections policy applies differently to each.

Our own editorial layer

We correct:

• Typos and formatting errors in any text we authored.
• Factual errors in our summaries, titles, or hub-page prose — including hallucinated claims from the summarization pipeline that are not supported by the underlying sources.
• Source-attribution errors — for example, a cluster title attributing a paper to the wrong lab, or a summary quoting one source while citing another.
• Translation errors in our English or Simplified Chinese editions when they change the factual meaning.

Aggregated source articles

We do not edit source articles — they are hosted by their original publishers and remain their editorial responsibility. What we can do:

• Mark a source article as "correction pending" when the original publisher has issued a correction we are aware of.
• Mark a source article as "retracted upstream" when the original publisher has retracted the piece.
• Remove a source article from cluster displays when a retraction is confirmed.
• Update our own summaries and cluster titles to reflect the corrected or retracted status.

What we do not correct

Some things are subject to editorial review but are not "corrections":

• Rankings. Story rank reflects the ranking pipeline's judgment at the moment of display. Disagreement with a ranking is feedback we welcome, but it is not a correction.
• Opinions and editorial framing. Our characterization of a story — whether we describe a release as "notable" versus "incremental," for example — is editorial judgment, not a factual claim.
• LLM word choice within accurate analyses. Individual phrasings in AI-generated summaries can always be sharper. When they are inaccurate, that is a correction; when they are merely awkward, it is a revision target for editorial review.
• Source-selection decisions. Whether we track a particular publication is editorial policy. Complaints about inclusion or exclusion are handled through the source-review process described in the Editorial Standards.

How to request a correction

Email [email protected] with:

1. The URL of the page where you saw the error.
2. A description of what is incorrect.
3. Where possible, a source we can use to verify the correct information.

Response timeline

We aim to acknowledge correction requests within 72 hours and to publish verified corrections shortly after acknowledgment. Straightforward corrections (typos, obvious factual errors with clear sources) are usually handled faster; corrections that require us to reach out to the original publisher may take longer.

If we cannot verify a requested correction, we will respond explaining why and, where relevant, note the request on the affected page.

Correction log

Corrections to our editorial layer are recorded with the corrected content, dated, and briefly described. Where a correction materially changes the meaning of a summary or title, the previous version is preserved in the version history rather than silently overwritten.

Retractions

When an original publisher retracts a source article we have aggregated:

• The article is marked "retracted upstream" on any cluster that includes it.
• The article is removed from ranking calculations going forward.
• If the retracted article was the sole source in a cluster, the cluster is unpublished.
• Our own editorial layer (summaries, titles) referencing the retracted claim is updated or, where the claim was central, removed.

Contact

• Corrections: [email protected]
• Editorial (source suggestions, feedback): [email protected]
• Everything else: see Masthead