Corrections
The public log of editorial corrections, methodology updates triggered by standards revisions, and reporter attribution where consent was given. The deliberate visibility of corrections is part of the editorial accountability commitment.
Why Publish Corrections
Publishing a visible correction log creates accountability that abstract editorial standards cannot. Anyone who finds an error on the site has a public record of how corrections are handled. Anyone evaluating the site's editorial rigor can see the corrections actually published over time. The deliberate visibility makes silent revision impossible — which makes silent error tolerance also impossible.
The corrections page is part of a broader transparency commitment that includes the methodology page, the sources page, and the editorial standards page. Together they make the editorial process inspectable: a reader can see what sources we cite, how we cite them, what review process we follow, and what we have corrected when we got it wrong. The deliberate construction of this paper trail is what makes the site's claims defensible.
Correction Categories and Response Timelines
Corrections fall into five categories with different urgency and response timelines.
| Category | Examples | Severity | Implementation target |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critical safety / regulatory | CO exposure thresholds; refrigerant handling requirements; code-mandated minimums | Highest | 14 days |
| Material methodology | Formula error in a calculator; wrong R-value in a data table; incorrect AHRI rating point cited | High | 30 days |
| Sourcing attribution | Wrong source cited for a correct claim; missing inline citation; outdated source URL | Medium | 30 days |
| Out-of-date content | Standard has been revised and our content reflects the previous version; tax credit thresholds changed | Medium-low | 60 days (or next regular review) |
| Typo and copyedit | Wrong word, misspelling, broken markdown formatting | Low | 7 days |
The severity classification determines log-entry depth. Critical and high severity entries include the original claim verbatim, the corrected claim, the supporting source, and the implementation date. Medium severity entries summarize the change and reference the article URL. Low severity entries (typos and copyedits) are typically not logged individually unless they appeared in published headings or summaries.
Methodology disagreements (covered in the FAQ above) are not "corrections" in the editorial-standards sense — they are documented as alternative positions when reasonable practitioners disagree. The log entry for a methodology disagreement marks it as "methodology disagreement, documented" rather than "corrected," and the affected article gets a note explaining the alternative position.
How to Report an Error
Use the contact page with subject category "Correction" and include the following information for fastest resolution.
(1) Article URL. The specific page where the error appears (e.g., /heat-pump/sizing/, /tools/btu-calculator/, /glossary/).
(2) Quoted original text. The exact text on the page that you believe is incorrect, copy-pasted from the page (not paraphrased). Quotation makes the correction unambiguous.
(3) Proposed corrected text. The text you believe is correct. Direct replacement is fine; suggesting the corrected wording is also fine.
(4) Supporting source. The primary source supporting the correction. Tier 1 sources (ACCA, ASHRAE, AHRI, NFRC, NEEP, DOE, EPA, IRS, NOAA, EIA) are strongly preferred. Tier 2 sources (NREL, LBNL, ORNL, peer-reviewed academic literature) are acceptable when tier 1 does not address the specific point.
(5) Attribution preference. Whether you want to be credited by name in the correction log (and if so, with what affiliation if any). Default is no attribution unless you affirmatively opt in.
The acknowledgment confirming receipt arrives within 14 days. Resolution timeline depends on severity per the table above. If the report turns out to identify a methodology disagreement rather than a clear-cut error, the response explains the evaluation and either implements an alternative-position note or defends the original content with citation.
Reporter Attribution Policy
Reporter attribution is opt-in. Default treatment is no attribution: the correction log records what was corrected and when, but does not name the reporter.
When a reporter opts in (by writing "attribute as [name, affiliation]" in their correction report), the log entry includes the attribution. Examples of attribution format: "Reported by Dr. Sarah Chen, RESNET HERS rater", "Reported by Mike Rodriguez, HVAC contractor", "Reported by anonymous building scientist", "Reported by reader (anonymous by request)".
Editorial commitment around reporter privacy: we do not share reporter identity with third parties without explicit consent, do not aggregate reporter identity data for any business purpose, and do not retain identity data longer than necessary to complete the correction (typically the data is purged from working systems within 90 days of correction publication, while the attribution itself remains on the correction log when the reporter opted in).
Public Correction Log
The correction log will populate here as corrections are made. Each entry includes: date of correction, affected URL, category, severity, original claim (quoted), corrected claim (quoted), supporting source, and attribution where given.
| Date | URL | Category | Change | Source | Attribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| — | — | — | No corrections logged yet. | — | — |
Standards-Triggered Update Log
When a referenced standard is revised (new edition of an ACCA Manual, new ENERGY STAR Version, new NEEP CCASHP Version, new DOE Final Rule, new IRS Section 25C Fact Sheet), the affected articles are updated and the update is logged here. These are not "corrections" in the strict sense — the world changed, the content tracks the change. But the same audit trail discipline applies.
| Date | Standard updated | Change in standard | Affected articles |
|---|---|---|---|
| — | — | No standards-triggered updates logged yet. | — |
The standards-triggered log will populate as standards bodies revise their published documents. The standards most likely to trigger near-term updates are AHRI 210/240 (if revised before the next typical 5-year cycle), NEEP CCASHP (revision typically every 2-3 years), ENERGY STAR Version 6.x/7.x (revision typically every 3-5 years), and IRS Section 25C Fact Sheet (revised annually).
Frequently asked questions
- Why have a corrections page at all?
- Because publishing a visible correction log creates accountability that abstract editorial standards cannot. Anyone who finds an error has a public record of how the site handles corrections; anyone evaluating the site's editorial rigor can see the corrections actually published over time. The deliberate visibility makes it harder to quietly revise content when no one is watching.
- What counts as an error worth correcting?
- Any factual claim, numeric value, formula, sourcing attribution, or methodology choice that disagrees with the cited primary source. Errors range from typos (low severity, fixed quickly without major log entry) to material methodology corrections (high severity, full log entry with original and corrected claim, attribution, and date). The severity classification is published below.
- How fast do you respond to correction reports?
- Acknowledgment within 14 days of receipt. Implementation timeline depends on severity: critical safety corrections (CO thresholds, code requirements) within 14 days of receipt; material methodology corrections within 30 days; typos and copyedits within 7 days. Methodology disagreements that require substantive evaluation get an acknowledgment within 14 days and a substantive response within 60 days, with the original content left in place until the evaluation concludes.
- What if I disagree with how you fixed something?
- Tell me. The corrections process is iterative — a correction that introduces a different error or that I implemented incorrectly can be re-reported through the same process, and the corrected correction gets logged as a new entry with reference to the original. The goal is accuracy, not perfectionism about the first attempt at fixing.
- Do you attribute every correction to the reporter?
- With the reporter's explicit consent. The default is no attribution unless the reporter affirmatively opts in by writing 'attribute as [name, affiliation]' in their correction report. The reason for the opt-in default is privacy — some reporters prefer not to be publicly associated with their HVAC commentary. The opt-in form is in the correction acknowledgment we send within 14 days.
- What if a "correction" turns out to be a difference of opinion?
- Real methodology disagreements (reasonable practitioners reading the same standard and reaching different conclusions) are evaluated and documented as such rather than implemented as corrections. The original article either gets a note explaining the alternative position and its source, or — when the disagreement is broadly contested — the article presents multiple positions as legitimate alternatives. The corrections log entry in those cases marks the entry as 'methodology disagreement, documented' rather than 'corrected'.
Related articles
Reviewed May 30, 2026