Key takeaways
- Correction reports should identify the page, claim, current evidence, and proposed change.
- Project status and feature reports should cite current official documentation or repository evidence.
- Security-sensitive issues should not include public exploit details or credentials.
- Material factual changes receive a correction note or release record and a new reviewed date.
- Disagreement is not automatically an error; the review checks scope, version, configuration, and source quality.
Runtime boundary
A useful architecture identifies what this layer receives, owns, emits, measures, and refuses to own. That boundary prevents overlapping products from being treated as interchangeable.
Receives
Page URL, quoted claim/section, evidence, impact, reporter contact preference, and security sensitivity.
Owns
Correction intake, evidence review, materiality classification, publication update, and response.
Emits
Acknowledgement, triage, verification, correction or rationale, update record, and review date.
Does not own
Public handling of confidential vulnerability details or accepting unsupported assertions.
Failure modes
Missing page/claim, stale secondary evidence, leaked secrets, silent material update, and unresolved broken link.
Evidence and metrics
Acknowledgement/correction time, open reports, material corrections, broken links, and recurring error categories.
What to report
Report factual errors, stale versions/status, broken or redirected sources, citation mismatch, code/schema defects, accessibility problems, or misleading scope.
Implementation
Include page URL, heading, exact issue, current source, version/date, and desired contact method.
Operational implications
Do not send production data, credentials, private prompts, or protected incident evidence.
Measure
Reports by category, completeness, duplicate reports, and security escalations.
Triage
Reports are classified as factual, current-status, benchmark, code, accessibility, editorial, broken-link, or security-sensitive.
Implementation
Assess impact, evidence strength, affected pages, and whether immediate unpublishing is required.
Operational implications
A benchmark correction may require raw methodology, not only a conflicting result.
Measure
Time to triage, severity, affected pages, and temporary mitigations.
Verification
Review primary sources, exact version/configuration, original publication context, and competing evidence.
Implementation
Replicate code or link behavior where practical and document unresolved uncertainty.
Operational implications
When sources disagree, publish the scope difference or qualify the claim.
Measure
Verification time, sources reviewed, reproduction result, and uncertainty.
Publication update
Correct the page, reviewed date, source list, related pages, glossary/directory metadata, and release docs as needed.
Implementation
Add a visible correction note for material factual or methodological changes.
Operational implications
Minor grammar/format changes may be fixed without a material note.
Measure
Correction date, pages changed, materiality, and release link.
Security-sensitive reports
Vulnerabilities in aRuntime.com or example code should be handled privately.
Implementation
Use the Contact page and state that the report is security-sensitive; provide minimal safe reproduction details.
Operational implications
Do not publish exploit details, credentials, or personal data in comments/social channels.
Measure
Acknowledgement, containment, remediation, disclosure coordination, and closure.
Editorial disagreement
Some reports concern terminology or recommendations rather than objective errors.
Implementation
Evaluate taxonomy, audience, evidence, alternatives, and trade-offs; update when the explanation can be clearer.
Operational implications
Neutrality does not require presenting unsupported positions as equal.
Measure
Response, page clarification, source additions, and recurring questions.
Reference tables
| Field | Example |
|---|---|
| Page URL | https://aruntime.com/benchmarking/ |
| Heading/claim | Warmup and cache state — paragraph 2 |
| Issue type | Current-status / methodology / broken link |
| Evidence | Official URL and relevant section |
| Version/date | Runtime 0.9, reviewed 2026-06-21 |
| Impact | Could mislead capacity decision |
| Security-sensitive | Yes/no |
| Contact preference | Email or anonymous |
Decision checklist
- Which page and exact claim or behavior is affected?
- What current primary evidence supports the report?
- What version, date, hardware, or configuration changes the claim?
- Is the issue security-sensitive?
- What other pages or structured data depend on the claim?
- Does the correction require a visible material-change note?
Common mistakes
- Sending credentials or private production data.
- Reporting only “this is wrong” without page/claim/evidence.
- Using an old secondary article to contradict current official docs.
- Publicly disclosing a security flaw before coordination.
- Treating a preference disagreement as a factual correction.
Sources and further reading
Last reviewed: 2026-06-21 UTC
Submit a correction
Identify the page and claim, explain the issue, and include an authoritative source when available. Contact information is optional and used only to clarify this report.