Corrections Policy

Our standing rule

If a number on a page disagrees with the underlying DOL / USCIS / travel.state.gov / IRS source, we treat the source as authoritative and update the page. The federal source wins, every time. Our role is to publish what the data says — not to defend a prior version of what we said.

How to report a correction

Email [email protected] with:

• Page URL and section heading.
• The specific value you believe is wrong.
• The correct value, with a link to the official DOL / USCIS / travel.state.gov / IRS / CFR / US Code document.
• Screenshot of the federal source page showing the correct value, if available.

Our timeline

• Within 2 business days — we acknowledge receipt and confirm whether we are treating the report as a correction.
• Within 5 business days — the page is updated, the prior value is preserved in the page-history note, and the correction is logged.
• Same day for emergencies — if a number is materially misleading (e.g., a wage cited 10× higher than the real PWD, or a priority date cited as current when it is retrogressed), we patch the page within hours of confirming the report.

What counts as a correction

• A number on the page that disagrees with the cited federal source.
• A factual claim about a regulation, form, or process that contradicts the underlying USCIS Policy Manual chapter or 8 CFR / 20 CFR / 26 CFR text.
• A broken or wrong inline citation URL — the page links to an old DOL or USCIS URL that no longer resolves to the cited content.
• A statutory or regulatory citation that points to the wrong section (e.g., citing 8 CFR §214.1(l)(1) when the relevant provision is 8 CFR §214.1(l)(2)).
• A "Last verified" stamp that is older than the federal source's published cadence (e.g., visa-bulletin page showing a stamp from two months ago when the current bulletin has been published).

What does not count as a correction

• Disagreement about how to interpret a regulation. We'll consider clarifying language but the federal text is what we cite. Where the USCIS Policy Manual provides one interpretation and an AAO decision provides a different interpretation, we surface both — but a reader-disagreement is not a correction.
• Personal-case predictions. "USCIS told me X about my case" or "My attorney said Y" are individual data points, not corrections. We can't generalize from individual case notes.
• Lawyer-blog estimates that disagree with our DOL / USCIS sources. We use the federal source. If the federal source has changed, that is a correction; if a lawyer-blog has a different number, that is not.
• Style preferences. Writing-style suggestions are appreciated as feedback ([email protected]) but are not corrections.
• Out-of-date pages we haven't gotten to yet. If a page's "Last verified" stamp shows that the page is on the next ETL refresh queue, that's the system working as intended — not a correction.

Visible-correction stamp policy

Not every fix gets a visible "Corrected on YYYY-MM-DD" notice on the page. Our distinction:

• Visible correction stamp added when: the change materially alters reader takeaway (a wage was wrong by more than ±5%, a priority date was reported as current when it was retrogressed, a procedural claim was reversed). The stamp lists the correction date, the prior value, and the corrected value. The stamp persists for at least 90 days.
• Silent fix when: the change is editorial (typo, broken link, malformed CFR section number with no semantic impact, formatting inconsistency). The change is logged internally but does not appear on the page.
• Federal-source restatement when: DOL / USCIS / IRS itself restates a number after the fact (BLS revised an OEWS percentile, USCIS reissued a processing-time matrix). The page is updated and a "Federal source restated on YYYY-MM-DD" note is added.

Federal-source revision handling

Federal agencies sometimes restate published data — DOL revises an OEWS wage tier after a methodology update, USCIS reissues a processing-time table after an audit, IRS releases an erratum to a Pub 519 edition. When this happens:

1. We treat the restated value as authoritative going forward.
2. Pages are updated within 5 business days of the restatement being confirmed.
3. A "Federal source restated on YYYY-MM-DD" note is added to the page, distinguishing the restatement from a reader-reported correction.
4. The "Last verified" stamp updates to the restatement date.

Disputed corrections

If a correction is reported and we determine it does not meet the correction threshold (e.g., the reported "wrong" number actually matches the cited federal source), we reply with our reasoning and the source URL. The reporter can re-submit with additional evidence — typically a screenshot of the federal source page showing a different value, or a citation to a more recent version of the source.

If after that exchange we still disagree, we will run the source URL through our build-time HEAD-check and contact the federal agency's data team for clarification. Our default bias is to accept the federal source as authoritative, so disputes are uncommon — most correction reports are either valid (and resolved) or addressed by clarifying which version of the source is canonical.

Who reviews corrections

Priya Anand reviews and resolves all corrections. The process is logged with timestamps and source documentation. There is no separate corrections committee — single editor, single byline, single accountable person.

Annual transparency

At the end of each calendar year, we publish a summary of corrections received and resolved during the year — total count, breakdown by pillar, breakdown by correction type (federal-source restatement vs reader-reported error vs editorial fix). The first such summary will publish in January 2027 covering 2026.