Accuracy & Corrections Log

Every correction to a factual claim, calculation, or data point on this site is logged
here, not just the ones that are flattering. See our
editorial policy for how we handle mistakes before they
reach this stage.

Why we keep this page

Most sites treat a correction as something to fix quietly and move on from. We think
that’s backwards for a site whose entire value is that the numbers can be trusted:
the willingness to show a mistake, timestamped and explained, is more convincing than a
page that has apparently never been wrong. A publicly wrong-then-corrected claim, logged
honestly, is worth more to a reader than an unverifiable claim of perfection.

What counts as a logged correction

Not every edit gets logged here, fixing a typo or rephrasing a sentence for clarity
doesn’t change what a reader would conclude from the page, so it isn’t a
correction in the sense this log tracks. What does get logged:

• Any change to a numeric figure that was previously wrong (a rate, a conversion, a constant).
• Any change to a regulatory, tax or customs claim.
• Any change to a source citation that turned out to be incorrect or outdated.
• Any city premium figure that gets revised after new evidence.

Each entry records what the issue was, what the value used to say, what it says now, the
source behind the fix, and a severity rating, minor, major or critical, reflecting how
much the error could have affected a reader’s decision.

How a correction happens

A correction can start from our own review process, from an automated validation check
catching an inconsistency, or from a reader report through our
contact page. Once flagged, we verify against a primary source
before publishing the fix, we don’t change a number just because someone claims
it’s wrong, but we also don’t dismiss a report without checking it properly.

How severity is decided

A minor correction is something that didn’t meaningfully change what
a reader would have concluded, a rounding inconsistency, a source link that pointed to an
outdated but not-yet-superseded version of the same document. A major
correction is one where a reader relying on the old figure could reasonably have made a
different decision, an incorrect making-charge range in a guide, a wrong unit conversion.
A critical correction is one where the error was directly financial or
regulatory in nature, a wrong VAT rate, a materially wrong reference rate that stayed live
for more than a few minutes, or a customs claim that could have led someone to break a
rule unknowingly. We’d rather over-classify severity than under-report how much an
error actually mattered.

What this log doesn’t replace

This is a record of corrections, not a substitute for checking our
data sources page for what’s currently active, or our
methodology page for how a figure is calculated today. A clean
log, few or no entries, doesn’t mean nothing has ever needed fixing; it may simply
mean this site is new enough that most content hasn’t been under scrutiny for long.
Judge us on whether we correct things properly when they do come up, not on the raw count
of entries here.

How this compares to how most sites handle mistakes

The more common pattern, quietly fix, don’t mention it, hope nobody archived the old
version, is understandable from a publisher’s perspective: admitting error feels like
it undermines authority. We think it’s the opposite for anything financial. A reader
who catches a site quietly reversing a claim without explanation has more reason to distrust
everything else on that site, not less. Logging the correction with a timestamp, the old
value, the new value and the source that prompted the change is simply what a source
worth trusting with money-adjacent decisions should do as a baseline, not as something
exceptional.

This is also why every entry here keeps the old, wrong value visible rather than only
showing the corrected one, deleting the mistake from the record would defeat the entire
point of keeping a changelog in the first place. If you ever notice an entry has been
edited to remove the original wrong value, that itself would be worth reporting through
our contact page.

We review this page itself periodically as part of the refresh commitments in our
editorial policy, to confirm the logging mechanism is
actually working as intended, not just the entries it contains. Each entry below is also
tagged by which language edition it applied to, since a correction on one side doesn’t
automatically mean the same error existed on the other, English and Arabic pages are
researched and reviewed independently, and one can be wrong without the other being wrong
too.