Source Update to Correction Loop

Source change notes help a public summary stay honest when the source behind it changes. They are short maintenance notes that say what changed, what did not change, and whether the public summary needs revision.

A change note should begin with the old supported claim. This prevents the editor from reviewing a page generally and missing the reason the source was saved. Then write the current source state: same wording, narrowed wording, expanded wording, removed section, redirected page, broken link, or replaced document.

The next step is impact classification. No-impact changes include layout updates, navigation changes, or rewritten examples that do not affect the cited claim. Minor-impact changes may require wording such as “often” instead of “always.” Major-impact changes require updating or removing the public summary. Unknown-impact changes need a second source or a handoff to someone with domain knowledge.

Public summaries should avoid pretending that a changed source never changed. If the old source supported the claim at the time of checking, the record can say so. If the current source no longer supports it, the summary should be revised. This is especially important for software docs, platform policies, public programs, travel rules, financial product terms, and health or safety guidance.

The change note should also record the edit made. For example: “Updated summary sentence to remove exact limit,” “Added recheck date,” “Marked source stale,” or “Replaced source with versioned document.” This closes the loop between source checking and public text.

The point is not to make every summary perfect. The point is to make corrections traceable. A reader should be able to see that the summary was based on a checked source, that the source later changed, and that the public record was adjusted rather than silently drifting.

Source Change Notes for Public Summaries

// COMMENTS

ON THIS PAGE