Corrections
An instrument that reports the press’s gaps owes the same candor about its own.
This page records substantive errors in published Prism reports: a misattributed account, a conflict that was not genuine, a framing an article did not carry, a material qualification lost, or a figure or chronology misread. Each entry identifies the affected report and passage, states what was wrong, explains the correction, and records when and how the problem was found.
Code confirms that every published receipt quotation occurs at its recorded span in the frozen article body. That prevents fabricated receipts; it does not prove that Prism interpreted the passage fairly or synthesized the corpus wisely. Editorial judgment remains corrigible.
WHAT APPEARS HERE
- A Prism correction changes a claim, category, attribution, receipt use or material implication because the published report was wrong or misleading.
- A source update is noted when an outlet materially changes the article Prism froze; the original snapshot remains the basis of the dated report.
- A later development does not make a dated report erroneous and is not silently rewritten into it.
- A method change belongs in the method changelog unless it also corrects a published report.
A suspected error can be raised through the maintainer’s public profile. Reports should name the Prism story, disputed passage and relevant source text where possible.
