What we correct

We correct material factual errors. That includes an incorrect price band, a wrong headquarters, a service that no longer exists, a stale date, a misattributed client or capability, and a claim presented as verified that is only a vendor statement.

What we do not correct

We do not correct opinions, assessments, or characterisations of a provider's strengths and limitations. If you disagree with our conclusion, we will consider a factual argument that changes the conclusion, and we may note a substantive disagreement. We will not change a conclusion because a provider disagrees with it, or because it is commercially inconvenient.

We also do not remove accurate information because a provider would prefer it not to appear. A published limitation stays on the profile.

How to submit a correction

  1. Email the editorial team through the contact page with the page URL.
  2. State the specific claim you believe is wrong, and give the source that shows it.
  3. Where a source is not publicly accessible, say so and describe what it shows. We will ask to see it.

We do not require that a correction request comes from a company officer. A reader who spots an error should be able to report it.

What we do

Requests enter the correction requested state, move to under review, and result in either a correction, a note, or a rejection with reasoning. Material factual errors are corrected transparently on the page, with a dated correction note explaining what changed. Where a correction is significant, we note it in the corresponding review or guide.

Review currency

Every record carries a last-reviewed date, and that date refers to the evidence rather than to the relationship. We recheck pricing, service availability, geographic coverage, ownership and leadership changes where relevant, and material service changes. A record is not labelled updated unless a meaningful review has actually taken place.

Our commitment

Vendors must be able to submit corrections to factual errors, and a correction request must not entitle a vendor to control editorial conclusions. We consider that a provider being unable to correct a wrong fact about itself, or being able to suppress an unflattering but accurate finding, would undermine the only thing that makes a guide worth reading.