Corrections
This site logs every correction publicly with the date, what was wrong and what changed. Errors in enforcement records are corrected as a priority, and corrections that record a case resolving in a respondent's favour are treated as the most urgent category.
How to report an error
Email editor@example.com with the page URL and what is wrong. If you have a primary document that establishes the correct position, include the link — it makes the fix immediate rather than an investigation.
We aim to acknowledge within two working days.
What we prioritise
In order:
- A case that resolved in a respondent’s favour and is not recorded that way. A dismissal, an acquittal, a withdrawal, or charges dropped. This is the most consequential category of error this site can make, and it is fixed first.
- A factual error in an enforcement record — wrong amount, wrong date, wrong respondent, wrong status, wrong court, a technique tag that does not fit the conduct described.
- A broken or wrong primary-source link. Every case record’s value rests on that link.
- An error in an explanation — a misstated statute, a wrong citation, a worked example that does not compute.
- Everything else — typographical errors, awkward sentences, formatting.
How corrections are handled
We do not edit silently. When something material changes, the change is recorded in the log below with the date, the page, what was wrong and what it now says.
Where a case has resolved in a respondent’s favour, the outcome is rendered above the fold on the case page and on any person page linked to it, before the description of what was alleged. We do not delete the page. Deleting it would make the original allegation harder to find without removing it from the internet; keeping the page with the outcome on it is the only version that actually corrects the record.
Where a record was machine-extracted and is wrong, we fix the record and, where the error came from a rule rather than a one-off, we fix the rule as well.
What we will not do
We will not remove an accurate record of a public enforcement filing on request. Enforcement actions brought by regulators in public are public. If a matter has resolved, we will record that prominently. If a record is inaccurate, we will correct it. If it is accurate and unresolved, it stays, described as an allegation.
We will not add material about individuals beyond what public filings state. See the editorial policy for what a person page may contain.
Corrections log
Entries appear in reverse chronological order, each with the date, the affected page, the nature of the error, and the change made.
2026-09-08 — a case was described as stock promotion when it was accounting fraud
Affected: Is short selling market manipulation? and Pump and dump has moved to Telegram.
The error. Both posts cited SEC litigation release LR-25195 as a paid stock promotion action carrying a $62 million penalty. It is not a promotion case at all. It concerns accounting irregularities at a large food company, and our classifier had tagged it paid stock promotion because the release states that the company “touted” purported cost savings to the market — the word appearing in an accounting context rather than a promotional one.
The cause. The keyword rule for that technique matched the bare term “touted”. A term that describes conduct in one context and ordinary corporate speech in another is not specific enough to tag on, and the rule now requires language about compensation for publicising a security.
The change. The record was removed from the library when the corrected rules were re-run across the corpus. Both posts now cite actions that genuinely are promotion cases, with their correct figures.
What else it prompted. The same audit found five further rule terms matching boilerplate rather
than conduct — including one that tagged any release mentioning a “task force” as settlement price
manipulation, because the trade-at-settlement acronym “TAS” sits inside the word “task”. All are
fixed, and the reasoning is recorded in DECISIONS.md in the repository.