# Corrections Policy

Canonical: https://supplementexplained.com/corrections-policy/
Last modified: 2026-05-16T21:40:23+00:00
Indexing: noindex, follow. This markdown file is a machine-readable alternate of the canonical HTML page.
Publisher: Supplement Explained
Review model: Editorial evidence review, not medical review unless explicitly stated on the canonical page.

Corrections Policy If a page includes an error, unclear wording, outdated evidence framing, or a safety statement that needs correction, we aim to revise it promptly and transparently rather than quietly leaving a misleading version in place. Supplement content is only as trustworthy as its willingness to correct visible mistakes. A publisher-grade health site should make the correction path real, not decorative. Why this exists Meaningful fixes should be visible This page explains how factual corrections, clarifications, and material updates should be handled so stale wording does not hide behind old dates. Report it Contact Use this route when a page needs fixing or clarifying. Publishing rules Editorial Policy See the quality standard corrections are meant to protect. Workflow Research Process See how updates fit into the wider publishing workflow. Publisher About See the site’s role and why clarity matters. How corrections should be handled When a correction is justified, we want the page updated promptly and clearly rather than quietly left misleading. Some fixes are light wording clarifications. Others change the practical answer, safety framing, or next-step guidance enough that the update should be more visible. What makes a correction request easier to verify The fastest correction requests are specific: page URL, exact sentence or section, what looks wrong, and the supporting source or reasoning. Broad complaints are slower to verify because they do not show what needs fixing. Corrections versus updates Not every change is a correction. Some are normal updates triggered by new evidence, changed product labels, stronger internal-linking structure, or better editorial standards. But if the old version materially risked confusing readers, we treat that as more than a routine polish pass. Why this matters on a supplement site Supplement topics are unusually vulnerable to stale framing, overstatement, and safety omissions. That means the correction path is not a side feature. It is part of how trust is maintained on a site dealing with health-adjacent decisions. Key Takeaways Meaningful errors should be fixed clearly, not left to age in place. Specific correction requests are easier to verify and act on. Some changes are routine updates; others are material corrections. Correction policy is part of trust, not a footer formality. Next Questions to Read Contact Editorial Policy Research Process How We Review Evidence About Disclaimer What Can Trigger a Correction Factual errors. Incorrect ingredient details, dose math, certification claims, or source interpretation. Outdated framing. Old wording that no longer matches current evidence, product labels, or site standards. Safety gaps. Missing or unclear interaction, side-effect, lab, or referral context on a meaningful page. Structural confusion. Page wording or navigation that routes readers toward the wrong next step.