Applies to: All QPF and Quantum Policy Radar content · Review cadence: Annual
Commitment
QPF holds itself to high standards of factual accuracy. When we get something wrong, we correct it promptly and transparently. Our credibility depends on readers trusting that what we publish is as accurate as we can make it, and that when errors occur, we acknowledge them.
How corrections work
When QPF identifies a factual error in published content, whether through our own review or through a reader’s report, we correct it. The correction is made directly in the published piece. A note is appended to the piece stating what was corrected, when the correction was made, and what the original text said. The correction note is permanent and is not removed.
For errors that materially affect the analytical conclusions of a piece, QPF will publish a separate correction notice in the same publication channel (qpf.org for Insights and Briefings, the Quantum Policy Radar weekly briefing for QPR content) identifying the error and its implications.
Retractions
In the rare case that an entire piece is found to contain errors serious enough that the analysis cannot be salvaged through correction, QPF will retract the piece. Retracted pieces remain accessible with a prominent retraction notice explaining what went wrong and why the piece was retracted. Retracted content is not silently deleted.
Reporting errors
Readers who believe they have identified a factual error in QPF or Quantum Policy Radar content are encouraged to contact [email protected] with the specific piece, the specific claim, and the evidence supporting the correction. We review all submissions and respond within five working days.
Corrections log
QPF maintains a public corrections log listing all corrections and retractions issued, with dates, affected pieces, and the nature of each correction. This log is updated whenever a correction is issued.
No corrections have been issued to date.
Analytical disagreements
A correction addresses factual errors: dates, figures, attributions, or misrepresentations of source material. QPF’s analytical assessments are matters of professional judgement and are not subject to the corrections process. Readers who disagree with our interpretation of a development are welcome to write to [email protected]. We value substantive disagreement and may publish responses or updates where the disagreement illuminates the issue.