What this page adds

• It gives readers a same-domain corrections path before they use off-site network routes or public comments.
• It separates factual correction, source-tip, permissions, privacy, and safe-sharing concerns so a useful fix can move through the right lane.
• It keeps correction work tied to public, reviewable evidence instead of private family, genetic, legal, or identity-sensitive material.

Use this route for

• A factual error, unclear date, broken source trail, or wording that overstates what a public source supports.
• A source suggestion, archive lead, public map, public-history page, or citation that can improve a page.
• A privacy or safe-sharing concern involving living people, contact details, private records, or re-identification risk.
• A permissions question about quoting, classroom use, reuse, screenshots, or linking.

What not to send publicly

Do not submit raw DNA files, private family records, legal documents, unredacted living-person information, private lineage notes, private oral-history material, current addresses, personal contact details, or sensitive identity information through public or insecure forms.

Correction packet

1. Name the page URL and the exact sentence, claim, source, or privacy issue.
2. Provide a public source link or source description when available.
3. Explain what the source supports and what the current wording may overstate.
4. Suggest safer wording or a review lane: correction, fact check, source review, safe sharing, or hold.

Public proof rule: Public claims require public, reviewable evidence. This site does not certify identity, ancestry, tribe, nationality, DNA conclusions, legal status, descent, or membership.

Low-depth value guardrail

This page is part of the site’s public trust layer, not a thin administrative form. A correction path creates value because it lets readers see how a source trail can change, how wording can be narrowed, and how sensitive claims can be slowed before they become public certainty.

A strong correction does not need to be long, but it must be inspectable. The reader should be able to identify the page, the disputed wording, the source or source gap, the safer replacement, and the reason the change matters. That is what separates a useful editorial correction from a generic contact page or an unmoderated comment thread.

When a correction involves a place, record, image, archive item, or Muur/Moor wording, the correction should link back into Research Method, Source Review, Evidence Gates, Safe Sharing, and the Corrections Log so the public can follow the reasoning instead of relying on a private decision.

For low-depth review, this page should answer a practical reader question: “What should I do if I see a weak claim?” The answer is not to argue in comments or submit private proof. The answer is to name the public wording, provide reviewable sources, protect sensitive material, and let the correction path decide whether the page should be updated, narrowed, held, noindexed, or routed to fact check.

That makes the correction route part of the learning experience. Readers learn how evidence discipline works by seeing the submission standard before they send a note.

It also keeps the public surface accountable: every useful correction should make the next reader less likely to repeat the same overclaim.

That accountability is the reason corrections remain indexable as trust content instead of hidden internal maintenance notes.