Source Corrections: Replace, Republish, and Track Copies
A wrong or stale public source should be handled at the source first, but correction, republication, retained originals, syndicated copies, federal records, and face-search law follow different rules. Updating one surface does not remove the need to check the others.
Not legal advice. This page is research, not compliance guidance.
Should a wrong public source be corrected or republished?
Correction and republication are distinct responses: in the cited Federal Register workflow, editors evaluate the scope and nature of the error and determine whether to publish a correction or republish the document.
The federal workflow treats correction and republication as different choices rather than interchangeable labels. Editors assess the scope and nature of the error before deciding which response fits the document.
For a document already filed for public inspection, the Office of the Federal Register says that, when it can make a correction, it re-posts the document with an editorial note and retains both the original document and the correction letter. In that workflow, correcting the public-inspection copy preserves the earlier version and the correction provenance.
This is a source-specific federal process, not a universal correction right for every website or public surface. For search-engine removal requests and takedown of republication, see Hard to Google.
Related AI-discoverability pages cover How Private Pierce Makes Sources AI-Citable and Canonical Source Readiness by Artifact.
- Correction: one possible response after editors evaluate the error.
- Republication: a distinct response in the cited federal workflow.
- Public-inspection correction: the document can be re-posted with an editorial note.
- Retained provenance: the original document and correction letter remain in the cited workflow.
How can a public source be monitored for stale content?
USAGov documents a rolling six-month review of each site section, supplemented by analytics, search data, customer comments, user testing, agency updates, and more frequent handling of urgent changes or broken links.
USAGov's practice combines a scheduled review cycle with several inputs for content decisions. Its content team uses analytic and search data, customer comments, user testing, and agency updates when deciding on changes.
The team also makes more frequent updates for timely changes, broken links, and other urgent needs.
This six-month cycle describes one agency's management of its own site. It is not a universal monitoring standard for publishers, search indexes, syndicated copies, or other third-party surfaces.
- Scheduled review: each site section on a rolling six-month calendar.
- Decision inputs: analytic and search data, customer comments, user testing, and agency updates.
- Faster changes: timely updates, broken links, and other urgent needs.
- Scope: USAGov's own content-management practice, not a universal cadence.
What should happen when a public source lists the wrong role?
For a wrong role in a Federal Register document, the Office of the Federal Register's guidance says that, generally, the party making the error is responsible for correcting it; that is not a correction rule for other public sources.
The Office of the Federal Register's guidance on correcting Federal Register documents supplies a responsibility rule for that system, not the correct role for a particular record. It says that, generally, the party making the error has responsibility to correct it. The guidance does not establish a correction rule for other public sources. The role itself must be checked against the source that defines or records it.
Business-filing visibility has separate layers. A filing may be public by statute while portal access affects how searchable it is. What Makes a Business Filing a Public Record? explains that distinction, while Public Filing Fields by State tracks how public fields vary by state.
Organizer and member are distinct roles. What Is an LLC Organizer? covers the role distinction and organizer-name visibility rule. Correcting a mislabeled source begins with the actual filing role rather than an assumed title.
- Responsibility: generally, the party that made the error corrects it.
- Role: verify the actual filing role rather than inferring it from a label.
- Publicity: a filing's statutory public status differs from its portal searchability.
- State variation: the public filing fields differ by state.
- Role distinction: organizer and member are not the same role.
How does the federal Privacy Act amendment route work?
For an in-scope record in a federal agency system of records, 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(2) permits an amendment request and requires written acknowledgment within 10 days after receipt, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays.
The mechanism applies to records under federal agency control that are retrieved by an individual's name or by an identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to that individual. After acknowledging the request, the agency must promptly either correct information the individual believes is inaccurate, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete, or explain its refusal and the review procedure.
An agency may refuse an amendment, but it must provide the reason and the procedure for review by the agency head or a designee. After an upheld refusal, the individual may file a concise statement of disagreement. Access is withheld for information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding, and qualifying systems may be exempted from subsection (d) by rule under the conditions in subsections (j) or (k).
Correction notice to a prior recipient is conditional. Except for disclosures under subsections (b)(1) or (b)(2), the maintaining agency must keep a disclosure accounting. If an accounting was made, subsection (c)(4) requires the agency to inform that person or other agency of a correction or notation of dispute.
This mechanism governs the in-scope federal system of records. Non-federal repositories and other web copies sit outside that amendment route.
- Request boundary: a record in a federal agency system of records retrieved by name or an assigned identifier.
- Acknowledgment: within 10 days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays.
- Agency response: promptly correct the challenged information or explain the refusal and review procedure.
- After an upheld refusal: the individual may file a concise statement of disagreement.
- Conditional propagation: when a disclosure accounting was made, the recorded person or agency must be informed of a correction or notation of dispute.
- Limits: the civil-action access limit and rule-based subsection (j) and (k) exemptions can apply.
How can feeds and APIs spread copies of a source?
Federal structured-content guidance describes the same information being published through a news feed or aggregated with related information through an API, creating presentation surfaces beyond the source page.
Structured information can appear in more than one presentation. The cited guidance gives examples of the same event information displayed in a calendar, published through a news feed, or aggregated with related events through an API.
A correction at the source page and the version presented through a feed or API are separate surfaces to check. The structured-content example describes redistribution, so a downstream copy must be checked directly for a later correction.
Check the source first, then inspect the specific feed, API presentation, or republication carrying the information. Hard to Google covers search-engine removal requests and takedown of republication.
- Correct the source that carries the wrong or stale information.
- Identify the news-feed, API, calendar, or republication surfaces that present the same information.
- Check each surface directly rather than assuming it has received the correction.
- Use the separate removal route when correction at the source does not address a republication.
What legal boundaries apply to face-search systems?
Facial-recognition systems can match faces to identify anonymous people in images; for covered biometric data, Illinois BIPA section 15(b) requires written notice of collection or storage and its specific purpose and term, plus a written release, before collection or acquisition.
The Federal Trade Commission describes facial-recognition systems as matching faces to identify anonymous people in images and separately identifies privacy concerns about identifying anonymous people in public. That describes the identification concern, not a consumer removal process.
Under Illinois BIPA section 15(b), a covered private entity must first inform the subject or legally authorized representative in writing that covered biometric identifiers or information are being collected or stored. It must also provide written notice of the specific purpose and length of term for collection, storage, and use, then receive a written release from the subject or representative.
BIPA has express limits. It does not apply to a financial institution or affiliate subject to Title V of the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, or to a contractor, subcontractor, or agent of a state agency or local unit of government when working for that agency or unit. These Illinois provisions are not a nationwide face-search rule.
Section 15(d) restricts a covered private entity's disclosure, redisclosure, or dissemination of covered biometric data to four listed paths: consent; completion of a financial transaction requested or authorized by the subject or representative; a requirement of state or federal law or municipal ordinance; or a valid warrant or subpoena from a court of competent jurisdiction. For copies in a private entity's possession, section 15(a) requires a public written retention schedule and permanent-destruction guidelines tied to satisfaction of the initial purpose or three years after the individual's last interaction, whichever occurs first. Absent a valid warrant or subpoena, the entity must comply with that schedule and those guidelines.
- Identification concern: matching faces to identify anonymous people in images.
- Illinois collection prerequisites: written collection or storage notice, written purpose and term notice, and a written release.
- Express exclusions: specified financial institutions and specified government contractors, subcontractors, or agents.
- Illinois disclosure paths: consent, an authorized financial transaction, a legal requirement, or a valid warrant or subpoena.
- Geographic limit: BIPA is an Illinois statute, not a nationwide face-search removal process.