How STACK handles changes, errors and clarifications
Privacy and security products change constantly.
Prices move. Features are added or removed. Apps change. Ownership structures evolve. Audits are published. Security incidents happen. Documentation gets rewritten.
That means even carefully researched work can become outdated.
STACK treats corrections and updates as part of maintaining the research record, not as something separate from it.
At the time of writing, there are no published corrections or update notices to list on this page.
As the site grows, this page will explain how material changes are handled and, where useful, provide a record of them.
Corrections
A correction applies when something STACK published was materially wrong at the time of publication.
Examples might include:
- an incorrect factual claim;
- a pricing figure recorded incorrectly;
- a platform feature described inaccurately;
- an ownership relationship misstated;
- evidence attributed to the wrong source;
- an audit or technical report represented beyond its actual scope.
Where a correction could affect the reader’s understanding or decision, we aim to correct the article and make the change clear.
Minor typographical or formatting fixes may be made without a formal correction notice where they do not alter meaning.
Updates
An update is different.
It applies when the original article was accurate, but the underlying reality later changed.
Examples include:
- a provider changing its price;
- a feature being added or removed;
- a new audit being published;
- a company changing ownership;
- a platform losing or gaining functionality;
- a policy being revised;
- new evidence becoming available;
- a previously unresolved question becoming answerable.
In those cases, the issue is not that the original reporting was wrong.
The subject changed.
Where the change is material to the article’s conclusion, we aim to update the relevant coverage rather than leave a historically accurate answer presented as if it were still current.
Clarifications
A clarification applies when the underlying facts were accurate, but the wording could reasonably create the wrong impression or needs additional precision.
That might include:
- making clear that a claim is provider-stated rather than independently verified;
- narrowing an audit claim to the system actually examined;
- distinguishing one platform from another;
- separating historical evidence from current status;
- making a conditional verdict more explicit.
Clarifications matter because accuracy is not only about whether individual words are technically defensible.
It is also about whether the reader is likely to understand the evidence correctly.
Not every change requires a notice
Some changes do not materially affect the research.
Examples may include:
- spelling and grammar fixes;
- formatting changes;
- broken-link repairs;
- minor wording improvements that do not change meaning;
- updated screenshots that do not alter the underlying finding.
We may make these changes without adding a formal correction or update notice.
The distinction is materiality.
If the change meaningfully alters what a reader should understand, we treat it differently from routine maintenance.
We distinguish old evidence from new reality
An older article can contain information that was once correct but is no longer current.
Where historical evidence remains relevant, we may preserve it while clearly distinguishing it from the present state.
For example, an earlier audit, incident, pricing structure or product capability may still matter when explaining how a company or service evolved.
Updating an article does not necessarily mean erasing that history.
It means making clear what happened then and what is true now.
Changes that can affect a verdict
Some updates are small.
Others can materially change the answer to the question an article is trying to resolve.
A new security audit might strengthen confidence in one area. A discontinued feature might weaken a product for a particular use case. A change in ownership may create new questions. A significant pricing change can alter whether a service still represents the same value.
Where new evidence materially affects an existing conclusion, we aim to reconsider the conclusion rather than simply append the new fact.
How to report a potential error
If you believe something on STACK is inaccurate, outdated or materially unclear, you can contact us and identify:
- the article;
- the claim in question;
- why you believe it should be reviewed;
- any supporting source or evidence you think is relevant.
We will assess the issue against the available evidence.
A disagreement with a conclusion does not automatically mean the article contains an error, but factual challenges and credible new evidence are taken seriously.
Current corrections and updates
There are currently no correction or update notices to list.
As STACK publishes more investigations and the products we cover evolve, material notices may be added here.
The principle is straightforward:
If we got it wrong, we correct it. If reality changed, we update it. If the wording needs more precision, we clarify it.