BasisMark public foundation
Corrections
BasisMark accepts corrections, evidence challenges, source questions, and other inquiries through one manually reviewed contact form.
Contact BasisMark
The form is the primary contact channel for corrections, evidence challenges, source questions, general inquiries, media inquiries, and collaboration or reviewer inquiries.
What readers may challenge
Readers may challenge source accuracy, calculation error, metric classification, year mismatch, geography, direct or indirect boundary, water-source classification, missing context, wording, a published label or verdict, confidence, ratio classification, or local-impact interpretation.
Useful correction information
Use the contact form to identify:
- The exact page or statement.
- A description of the issue.
- A supporting original source.
- The relevant page, table, or section.
- Why the evidence changes or clarifies the material.
Please avoid unnecessary personal information. Original-source links are preferred. Attachments are not accepted through the form, and submitted links are opened only after manual review. No fixed response time is promised, and BasisMark may not reply to every message.
Identity, privacy, and retention
Submitter identity is not published without permission. Messages and related records may be retained as needed for review, security, corrections governance, and decision records. Deletion requests are handled manually, but BasisMark’s internal retention practice does not control every vendor’s backup or retention period.
Form submissions are manually reviewed. Contact data is not sold, used for advertising, or used for unrelated purposes. Any later AI assistance must follow the published AI-use disclosure, with sensitive details removed where practical and every material decision made by a human.
Severity and temporary holds
- Critical: may reverse a central finding, expose prohibited output, or make continued presentation unsafe.
- Major: may materially change a key calculation, verdict, confidence, boundary, or central limitation.
- Moderate: may change meaningful context, source treatment, classification, explanation, or scoped confidence.
- Minor: affects a localized fact, citation, metadata field, or presentation without materially changing the finding.
- Editorial: improves style, grammar, accessibility wording, or clarity without changing meaning.
Decision outcomes
A logged request may be accepted, partially accepted, resolved with clarification or source update, classified as a methodology issue, marked for more research, rejected with explanation, linked as a duplicate, or marked out of scope. AI may organize evidence but cannot decide the outcome.
No silent material editing
For a material correction, the prior version is preserved with the changed version, date, reason, correction record, evidence disposition, and accountable human decision. Public change history explains what changed when appropriate.
Human decision and reconsideration
Evidence quality and impact—not submitter identity—determine the result. A rejection records its reason. Stronger evidence can reopen a decision.
Correction review process
- Receive a challenge or inquiry through the contact form.
- Log the issue and identify the exact page, statement, or source.
- Review original evidence and classify the issue.
- Record a human decision and its rationale.
- Preserve the prior material version when a change is made.
- Publish a change-history note when appropriate.