A correction has to say it is a correction

The record

The Associated Press's Telling the Story standards, retrieved 16 September 2026, state that when we're wrong, we must say so as soon as possible, that a correction must be pointed out in ways that news consumers can see it, and that AP does not use euphemisms such as recasts, fixes, clarifies, minor edits or changes when correcting a factual error. The Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice, retrieved the same day, states in its Accuracy clause that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence. Separately, PitchBook's report methodologies page describes its own revision mechanism: for recent quarters it adds an estimate for deals not yet reported and states that both the original reported figure and the estimated figure are provided for the reader's reference.

What the sources establish

The two press-standards documents establish a shared newsroom norm: a correction must be labelled as a correction, made promptly, and visible to the reader, not folded quietly into a later version of the same story. PitchBook's page establishes a related but distinct practice for a data provider: rather than replacing a number, it keeps the original reported figure alongside the modelled estimate, so a reader can see both the as-first-reported and the adjusted view of the same period. Neither kind of document treats a revision as something to be hidden; both treat naming the change as the point.

Scope and revision

A data desk's corrections policy has to cover two different situations these sources separate. One is an error: a figure was wrong when published, and AP's and IPSO's standards both call for a prompt, visible, plainly labelled fix. The other is a scheduled revision: a figure was correct as a first pass and is later updated because more of the underlying activity has been reported, which is what PitchBook's estimation step describes. Treating a scheduled revision as though it were a hidden error, or treating an error as though it were a routine update, misdescribes what happened either way.

The decision in front of you

This is an editorial policy proposal for a data desk, built from press standards bodies and one provider's own revision note; it is not a claim that any single provider follows AP's or IPSO's rules. A number that changes should say why it changed and when.

• Was this a factual error at first publication, or a scheduled update to a figure that was accurately labelled as provisional?
• Is the original figure still visible alongside the revised one, as PitchBook's methodology describes?
• Does the correction use a plain word for what happened, rather than a euphemism that obscures it?

Both traditions converge on the same rule: name the change, show it, and do not let a quiet edit stand in for a stated correction.