How to request a correction from a publisher: an evidence packet template

To request a correction from a publisher, send one short message that contains an evidence packet: the exact disputed statement with its address and capture date, the current official fact with a link to where you state it, dated proof that the fact is right, and the precise wording you would like instead. Make the request easy to check and easy to approve. Sending it, and whatever the publisher decides, happen outside any monitoring tool, and a corrected page does not guarantee that an AI answer will change.

In short

• Ask for a correction only when the publisher's own page states something wrong. If the page is right and the AI answer misread it, the publisher has nothing to fix.
• A good packet has four parts: the disputed statement, the current official fact, dated evidence, and the requested amendment.
• Capture the evidence before you write. A page can change, and a saved copy is what lets you show what it said and when.
• Keep the tone factual and the ask small: one sentence, one change, one link to proof.
• Treat the outcome as a hypothesis test. Recheck the AI answers afterward, and do not promise anyone that a fix will change what an engine says.

When is a correction request the right move?

A correction request is right when a third-party page you do not own states a claim about your company that is wrong, and that page is one an AI answer cited. It is the wrong move when the page is accurate, when the error appears only in the AI answer, or when you simply dislike how the page frames you.

Three situations look similar and need different responses:

• The page is wrong. Ask the publisher to correct it. This post covers that case.
• The page is right, but the answer garbled it. There is nothing for a publisher to change. Your options sit on your own site and in your monitoring: make the official fact easy to find and keep watching the answer.
• The page is a matter of opinion. A reviewer who calls your product slow has not made a factual error. A correction request on opinion damages trust; see review-site citations, evidence versus opinion for how to separate the two.

A cited source is a page the answer linked. It is not proof that the page caused the wrong claim, so confirm that the page really contains the statement before you write to anyone.

Where does the disputed statement come from?

Start from a wrong claim you have already found in an AI answer, and trace it to a page that states the same thing. In DiscoveredBy, the Fact check screen is built for the first half of that job: you keep a list of approved facts about your own brand, and it flags answers that contradict them.

A finding there shows the fact as it was checked, the engine, model and date, the engine's quote, an AI-written explanation, and the sources the engine cited for that sentence (or "No source was tied to this sentence"). The quote is the answer's own text, and our code drops a finding whose quote cannot be found in the answer. The explanation and the verdict are a model's judgement, though, so read the quote yourself and mark the finding Confirmed wrong only when the answer really is wrong. A finding can also turn out to mean that your own fact is stale, which is why Our fact is out of date exists as a choice.

Only after that do you go to the cited page. Open it, find the sentence, and confirm that it says the wrong thing in its own words. If the finding lists no source, or the cited page does not contain the claim, you do not have a publisher to write to yet. Findings from Claude answers never show sources, because Claude records no citation positions, so an empty list there says nothing about the answer. See brand mentioned without a source for what a missing source can and cannot tell you.

Enlarge image

What goes into an evidence packet?

An evidence packet is the small set of items a publisher needs to verify your request without doing research of their own. It has four parts, and each answers a question the publisher is silently asking.

1. The disputed statement. What exactly is wrong, and where? Give the page address, the sentence quoted word for word, and the date you captured it. Publishers cannot fix "your article is inaccurate".
2. The current official fact. What is true today? State it in one sentence and link to the page on your own site that states it.
3. Dated evidence. Why should they believe you? Point to something with a date they can check: a release note, a filing, a press release, a policy page with a visible last-updated line. Say when the fact changed if it did, because some errors are simply out of date.
4. The requested amendment. What do you want the sentence to say instead? Write the replacement wording. It is the fastest thing to approve and it removes room for a partial fix.

Two more items are useful but optional: how the error reached you (for example, "an AI answer quoted this sentence"), and whether you have a preferred way to be credited or noted, such as an editor's correction line. Mention the AI answer only as context. The case for a correction stands on the facts, not on what an AI engine said.

How do you capture the evidence first?

Capture the disputed page and your own proof before you send anything, because both can change. Save a dated copy of what the publisher's page said and a dated copy of your official page.

Do it in this order:

1. Save the disputed page as it looks now (a full-page screenshot and the saved page text or PDF), and note the date and time.
2. Copy the disputed sentence exactly, including punctuation. Do not paraphrase.
3. Save your own official page in the same way, with its visible update date if it has one.
4. Collect the dated proof, and store links and files together in one folder named for the request.
5. Record the AI answer that started this: engine, date, prompt, and the quoted sentence.

If you use DiscoveredBy, some of this is kept for you. Saving an earned-source opportunity records the page's address, title, domain, counts and up to five citation examples, each with collection date, provider, and up to 500 characters of saved citation context, as they were read when it was saved. That evidence is not refreshed by later collection. It is a record of the citation, though, and a saved snippet does not verify what the live page says, so take your own capture of the page too. If the timeline matters, the post on preserving the timeline when a source changed after the answer covers what to keep and how to date it.

The evidence packet template

Copy this table into a document and fill in every row before you write to the publisher. Leave nothing as "see attached" without saying what the attachment shows.

The correction request email

Copy and adapt this. Keep it short; the packet does the persuading. Replace everything in braces.

Subject: Factual correction request: {article title}

Hello {editor or team name},

I work at {company}. Your article "{article title}" ({URL}), which we
captured on {date}, includes this sentence:

  "{exact disputed sentence}"

This is out of date / incorrect. {One sentence stating the current fact.}
Our official statement is here: {link to your own page}.

Supporting evidence, dated {date}: {link to release note, filing,
press release or policy page}. {If it changed: The change took effect
on {date}.}

Could you update the sentence to read:

  "{requested wording}"

If you would rather add a correction note than edit the text, that would
also resolve it. I am happy to answer any questions or supply more
documents. Thank you for your time.

{Name}, {role}, {company}
{company email address}

Send it from a company address to a named editor or the publication's corrections contact if one is listed on the site, and use the publisher's own process where it has one. Requesting a correction is not the same as asking for a link, a review or a change of tone, so do not bundle those into the same message.

Worked example: Quillstone and a review roundup

Illustrative example: Quillstone and its competitors are fictional, and the numbers are made up to show the method.

Quillstone sells document-review software. Its approved fact in Fact check reads "Quillstone is available in English, German and French", in the Availability category. In the latest fact study, two of the three engines asked contradict it, and each finding quotes a sentence saying the product is English only. One finding lists a source: a roundup called "Document review tools for compliance teams" on the fictional site LegalOps Weekly.

The Quillstone team opens the roundup and finds the sentence: "Quillstone is currently English only." The page footer shows it was last updated on 12 February 2025. Quillstone's release notes say German support launched on 4 March 2025 and French on 10 June 2025. The wrong statement was true when it was written; it is now out of date.

The quote in the finding is real and the answer is wrong on the fact, so they mark the finding Confirmed wrong. The packet is filled in as follows.

The tone of the message is neutral, since the sentence was accurate when published. Two weeks later, on the follow-up date, they open the page again. It now carries the new sentence. They record the date, then wait for the next fact study before saying anything about what the engines do. Cause and effect stay separate: the engines may keep repeating the old text for a while, may cite a different page, or may pick up the change soon. If the next study shows the fact as Fixed (at least one engine contradicted it before and none does now), that is an observation worth noting, not proof the correction caused it.

How do you track the request afterwards?

Enlarge image

Keep a simple log with the packet: the date sent, the reply, the date the page changed, and the date you rechecked. If you use the Earned sources workflow, you can save the page as an opportunity and use the notes, assignee, follow-up date and status to keep the work visible. Its statuses are New, Planned, Outreach in progress, Placement reported and Dismissed. Follow-up dates appear on the record but do not schedule messages or notifications, and a reported placement is described as a team-entered claim, not independent verification. The workflow was built for coordinating outreach and placements, and a correction is a different kind of task. Put the real context in the notes and use Outreach in progress while you wait. Avoid Placement reported: it asks for a placement date and adds a before-and-after citation comparison, which measures something else.

To see whether anything moved in the answers, use the same prompts and engines you saw the error in, and compare like with like. The Fact check screen compares the latest study with the previous comparable one and labels each fact as newly wrong, fixed, still wrong, still right or no comparison. Its studies run weekly, and the screen limits how often you can start one by hand, so build the waiting time into your plan. If the error first showed up in one of your checked prompts, that fact's tracked accuracy over the window you choose is a second place to look. For the wider workflow of reviewing cited pages, see Sources.

What a correction request cannot do

Enlarge image

A correction request can change one publisher's page. It cannot change how an AI engine works, and it does not control what an engine says.

• The publisher may refuse. They may disagree, not reply, or reply after weeks. Do not assume they are obliged to act.
• The page may not be the source of the claim. The answer cited it, but that does not show the page was where the wrong claim came from. Several pages may say the same thing.
• A fixed page may not fix the answer. An engine may also draw on other pages or on what it already knows. Watch the answers, and do not promise a result.
• Old wording may be justified. As in the example, an old sentence can be accurate for its date. Ask for an update, not an apology.
• Some errors are yours. If you review a finding and decide Our fact is out of date, fix your approved fact first. A correction request based on a stale fact is unfair to the publisher and likely to be refused.
• Opinions and legal disputes are different. Defamation, privacy and copyright matters need advice from a qualified professional, not a template.

Also keep your own house in order. If your official page is vague or hard to find, a publisher cannot easily verify your claim. That is worth fixing regardless of any request.

Frequently asked questions

Should I mention that an AI answer repeated the error?

You can, briefly, as context for how you found it. Do not lead with it. The case for a correction rests on the page being wrong, not on a complaint about how a tool summarised the article.

Who should I send the request to?

Send it to a named editor or the publication's corrections or editorial contact if the site lists one, and follow any stated process. If you cannot find one, the general contact address is a fallback. Keep the message to a single request so it can be forwarded as it is.

How long should I wait before following up?

Pick a date before you send and write it in the log. One to two weeks is a common-sense choice, but it is not a rule. When you follow up, reply on the same thread with the packet attached again, and stay factual.

What if the publisher wants to add a note instead of editing?

A visible correction or update note can resolve the factual problem for readers, and some publishers prefer it. Say in the email that either works. Check afterwards that the note is on the page and dated.

Can I ask several publishers at once?

Yes, if each page is wrong in its own right. Send each publisher its own message with its own packet rather than one bulk email, because each request needs the page address, the quoted sentence and the capture date.

Does DiscoveredBy send the correction request?

No. The product records the answer, the cited source and your notes and statuses; the message itself, and the publisher's decision, are outside it.

Next step

Start by writing down your approved facts and letting the checks find the answers that contradict them. Then take the first confirmed finding, open its cited page, and fill in the packet above before you write to anyone. Sign in or create a project to try Fact check on your own brand; availability depends on your plan, described on the plans and limits page.