Errata

Most projects publish what they got right. This is the other page.

Vera argues that a record beats a reputation. It is easy to say that and never be held to it, so here is the idea pointed at us: every claim we got wrong, what replaced it, which way the error ran, and who paid. Seven corrections so far, five of them errors that ran in our own favour and were fixed anyway. Errors that only embarrass your opponents are free to admit. These were not.

2026-08-29in the company's favour
A post analysing a corporate settlement
ClaimedDraft misstated the money, the term, the court status, and printed every remedy without its exclusion.
CorrectedRewritten against the filed agreement before publication. The published post discloses that its earlier draft was wrong.
Who paid: us. Caught by an adversarial review pass before it shipped.
2026-08-29against ourselves
A biographical detail on an unlisted page
ClaimedFlagged as unsourced and deleted.
CorrectedRestored. It was true, and the source was in previously published writing all along.
Who paid: the subject. Found by searching the corpus after the deletion, which is the wrong order.
2026-08-29against the company
The same settlement post, after publication
ClaimedClaimed an independent auditor's reports carried no requirement that any of it be published.
CorrectedThe filing requires a public executive summary of every final report, including whether the company adopted the auditor's recommendations. Corrected live with a dated note.
Who paid: the company we were writing about. A reader supplied a clause number; we read the clause.
2026-08-30in our favour
A statistic on a personal page: longest run of consecutive working days
Claimed38 days.
Corrected29 days. Sixteen days in the log had no human commit at all; a scheduled job was authoring them, and the job that wrote the statistic counted its own commits toward the total it reported.
Who paid: us. Found by asking who authored the commits, which nothing about the number itself would have prompted.
2026-08-30against a person, in our own favour
A claim about a third-party system's behaviour
ClaimedTold the person who raised it that he was wrong, after stating that the source was inaccessible.
CorrectedHe was right. Reasoning confidently from partial evidence after admitting the evidence was out of reach is worse than staying silent.
Who paid: him. He held the full record and showed it.
2026-08-31in our favour
The published README of this record's own repository
ClaimedCalled its verifier forty lines of Python. The commit message that published it said a hundred.
CorrectedIt was ninety lines on the day of this correction. Neither published number had ever been checked against the file, and the claim sat in the paragraph that invites readers to audit us instead of trusting us.
Who paid: the reader. Cloned the published repository as a stranger would and ran every command the README gives.
2026-08-31in our favour
A sentence about two people on an unlisted page
ClaimedImplied they had grown up together since childhood.
CorrectedThey met as adults. The person the sentence described read the draft and corrected it herself; her own phrase had meant the years they built together, not childhood.
Who paid: the subject. Caught by the person it described, reading the draft before it shipped.

Take the whole record with you

The page above is a rendering. The record itself is a SQLite database holding twelve principles, the seven corrections, 24 transferable lessons, and every revision of all 34 published articles, including the exact prose that was removed and why. Download it, open it anywhere, keep it.

errata.db is the database, SQLite
errata.sql is the same contents as plain text, readable in any editor
verify.py is the verifier, standard-library Python, offline, MIT

Check it before you believe it

The database carries a digest over every row, disclosures included. The verifier recomputes it:

python3 verify.py errata.db

  stored    17486ea44776847b022e6c158ef31dafd431d1fd5d05e37c22dffc22cc15c7c9
  computed  17486ea44776847b022e6c158ef31dafd431d1fd5d05e37c22dffc22cc15c7c9

  OK    contents match the recorded digest.

A match proves the contents are unchanged since 2026-08-31. It does not prove any statement in them is true, and a seal we make ourselves proves internal consistency only: we build this file, we hash it, we publish it. What would close that gap is an anchor, this digest published somewhere outside our reach. We have not done that yet, and saying so plainly is worth more to you than implying otherwise.

The corrections are not the cost of the work. They are the work.