Corrections Policy

UAN World takes accuracy seriously. When we get something wrong, we say so — promptly, transparently, and on the record. We do not silently edit. We do not delete to avoid embarrassment. We hold ourselves to the same standard we would apply to any subject we report on.

This policy explains the difference between a correction, a clarification, an update, and a retraction; how readers and subjects can request changes; how we evaluate requests; how long we take; and how to escalate when you disagree with our decision.

The four labels are not interchangeable. They mean different things, and we use them deliberately.

• Correction. A factual error in the published story. We append a correction notice with the date, the original wording, and the corrected wording. Where the error materially affected the headline or summary, we update those too and note the change.
• Clarification. The story was technically accurate but capable of being misunderstood. We add a clarification note explaining the ambiguity and the intended meaning, and adjust the language where helpful.
• Update. New information that does not invalidate the original reporting. Updates are added with a clear timestamp and a one-line note describing what changed.
• Retraction. The story cannot stand — material facts are wrong, sourcing failed, or the story should not have been published. A retraction notice replaces the original story at the same URL, explains what was wrong and why, and is promoted with the same prominence as the original story (front-page or vertical-page placement where applicable, social, newsletter).

Minor typographical or copy-editing fixes that do not change meaning are applied silently. Anything that changes meaning is logged.

Email corrections@uanworld.com with:

• The URL of the story.
• The specific claim you are challenging — quote the exact wording where possible.
• What the correct fact is, in your view.
• Any evidence supporting your account (documents, links, transcripts).
• Your name and capacity (e.g. subject of the story, eyewitness, expert in the field).

For matters of right of reply — where you are the subject of a story and want to put your version on the record — use the subject line RIGHT OF REPLY — [story URL]. We treat right-of-reply requests with the same priority as corrections.

For requests that touch on source identification or that you consider sensitive, do not use ordinary email. See the Source Protection page for secure channels.

Every correction request is logged and reviewed by an editor independent of the original story (where staffing allows). We evaluate:

• Whether the challenged statement is a fact, an opinion, an inference, or a quote.
• The evidence supporting the original publication and the evidence supplied by the requester.
• Whether the original sourcing met our Editorial Standards.
• The materiality of the disputed point to the overall story.
• Where applicable, the legal context — defamation, privacy, contempt, embargoed material.

For serious or contested matters, the review escalates to a Senior Editor and, where warranted, to outside legal counsel. We do not adjudicate by complaint volume — a single well-evidenced correction request will be honoured even if no one else complained, and a coordinated pressure campaign will not move an editorial decision that the evidence supports.

Standard service levels.

• Acknowledgement within 48 hours.
• Substantive response within 5 business days. Complex matters that require additional reporting or legal review may take longer; we will tell you so.
• Urgent factual errors (those causing material public harm or affecting an identifiable person) are escalated immediately and addressed as soon as the facts are confirmed — typically within 24 hours.
• Breaking-news periods may slow responses to non-urgent requests. We will say so.

If we agree the story is wrong, we publish a correction, clarification, update, or retraction within the timeline above. If we disagree, we explain why, in writing, and invite escalation (see Section 09).

Corrections are not hidden. We display them as follows.

• Inline notice at the top of the story, dated, stating that the story has been corrected and what changed in plain English.
• Inline strikethrough or replacement at the point of the original error, with the corrected wording, so readers can see what changed.
• Updated headline and summary where the original error materially affected them, with a note recording the change.
• Public corrections log aggregating all corrections we issue (see Section 08).
• Distribution surfaces. Where the original story ran in a newsletter, social channel, or syndication partner, we issue a correction notice in those channels as well.

Retractions take over the original URL. The retraction notice replaces the original story, with a clear explanation of what was wrong and why we retracted. We do not delete the URL; readers who follow a link to a retracted story see the retraction.

Where a story makes a critical claim about an identifiable person or organisation, we seek comment before publication and offer reasonable time to respond, per our Editorial Standards. Where pre-publication comment was not obtained, or where you wish to put additional context on the record after publication:

• Email corrections@uanworld.com with subject line RIGHT OF REPLY — [story URL].
• Set out, briefly, the points you wish to make. Provide any supporting evidence.
• We will publish reasonable, on-point responses promptly, either as a quoted addition to the story or as a separate response piece, depending on length and substance.
• The right of reply is a right to put your position on the record. It is not a veto over coverage, nor an entitlement to dictate the framing of the story.

We maintain a public log of corrections and retractions. Each entry includes the date, the story affected, a short description of what changed, and a link to the corrected story. The log is updated as corrections are issued and is part of our annual transparency report.

The first edition of the log goes live with our public launch. Before launch, the log section below lists the corrections issued during the public-beta period.

If you receive a correction decision you disagree with, you have three escalation paths.

• 1. Senior Editorial Board. Reply to our correction response with the words ESCALATE — Senior Editorial Board and a brief reason. The matter is reviewed by a senior editor independent of the original story and the first-level reviewer. The Senior Editorial Board's decision is reported back to you in writing within 10 business days.
• 2. Independent Reviewer. Material editorial failures, and matters where you remain dissatisfied with the Senior Editorial Board's decision, may be referred to UAN's designated Independent Reviewer. The Reviewer is named in our annual transparency report and operates at arm's length from the newsroom.
• 3. Regulatory and legal channels. Where applicable, you retain the right to pursue complaints with relevant press-standards bodies and to seek legal remedy in the courts. Our willingness to engage in good-faith complaints handling does not curtail those rights.

We publish a summary of escalated matters and their outcomes in the annual transparency report, redacted to protect privacy and confidential sources.

To be plain: some requests will not be granted.

• Opinion you disagree with. Opinion pieces are labelled. Disagreement with an opinion does not make the opinion factually wrong, and we do not retract opinion under reader pressure.
• Unfavourable coverage where the facts are right. A story can be uncomfortable for its subject without being inaccurate. Discomfort is not a basis for correction.
• Demands to remove sources or sourcing. Source-identifying information is governed by our Source Protection Statement and will not be disclosed.
• Coordinated pressure campaigns. Volume of complaints is not evidence of factual error. We weigh evidence, not pressure.
• Threats and intimidation. Threats are documented and, where appropriate, reported. They do not change editorial decisions.

UAN uses AI in its editorial pipeline. AI-assisted output is held to the same accuracy standard as any other content; an AI-related error is not a lesser error.

Where an AI-assisted step (signal selection, claim extraction, transcription, translation, draft scripting, asset planning, visual sourcing) contributes to a published error, the correction notice will say so. The audit log retained for every AI-assisted step (model, version, input, output) supports root-cause analysis and process improvement; outcomes feed our internal review and the annual transparency report.

AI does not relieve us of responsibility. Every published story is reviewed and approved by a human editor; the editor — and ultimately UAN — owns the result.

• Corrections, clarifications, right of reply: corrections@uanworld.com
• Source-protection / sensitive requests: legal@uanworld.com or via the Source Protection page
• Privacy and data-rights requests: privacy@uanworld.com
• General enquiries: info@uanworld.com

The public corrections log opens at public launch. Until then, any corrections issued during the public-beta period will be appended in-line to the affected stories with the same correction notice format described above.