Corrections policy

Ben Argeband, Founder & CEO of Heartbeat.ai — Short and direct.

Who this is for

If you’re questioning whether a Heartbeat.ai resource is accurate or current, this page shows exactly how to request a correction, how we review it, and how updates appear (including change log and last reviewed conventions). It’s also for anyone who needs a clear contact method to flag issues fast.

Quick Answer

Core Answer

Send the page URL, the exact sentence, your proposed replacement, and a source via our contact method. We verify, update, and document changes with a change log and last reviewed date.

Key Insight

Corrections move fastest when you provide paste-ready replacement text plus a primary source that directly supports the revised claim.

Best For

Anyone questioning accuracy/freshness

Compliance & Safety

This method is for legitimate recruiting outreach only. Always respect candidate privacy, opt-out requests, and local data laws. Heartbeat does not provide medical advice or legal counsel.

This page covers editorial corrections and updates; the compliance note reflects Heartbeat.ai’s broader recruiting context.

Framework: “We fix mistakes”: transparency signal

In recruiting ops, trust is operational. If a page is wrong, it wastes time and creates downstream workflow noise. Our standard is simple: we fix mistakes, we show what changed, and we make it easy to report issues.

We treat corrections as a product workflow, not a PR workflow: clear intake, documented review, visible updates, and a repeatable checklist. The trade-off is… we may be slower than a silent edit, but you get a traceable record of what changed and why.

In our recruiting operations, we’ve also ranked mobile numbers by answer probability to reduce wasted dials; we apply the same transparency mindset to editorial corrections.

Step-by-step method

1) Identify the page and the exact issue

• Copy the page URL.
• Quote the exact sentence/section that’s incorrect.
• Label the issue type: factual error, outdated process, broken link, unclear wording, or missing context.

2) Provide a proposed correction (make it easy to apply)

• Write the replacement sentence/paragraph you believe is correct (paste-ready).
• Add a supporting source (official documentation or primary source when possible).
• If it’s a freshness issue, specify what changed (policy update, new guidance, product change, etc.).

3) Send the request using the published contact method

Use our contact page and choose the most relevant option for editorial/trust questions. Use the subject line “Correction request” (or start your message with that phrase) and paste the details from steps 1–2.

If you’re reporting a sensitive issue (privacy, security, or potential harm), say so in the first line so it can be routed appropriately.

4) What happens after you submit

• Intake triage: We confirm scope (typo vs. factual claim vs. process guidance vs. link rot).
• Verification: We check the claim against sources and internal context. This requires manual verification.
• Update: We revise the page, add or adjust citations where relevant, and ensure the change doesn’t introduce new ambiguity.
• Documentation: We update the change log and last reviewed date when the change is substantive.

5) What you can expect to see on the page after a correction

• Change log entry (when substantive): A dated note describing what changed (for example: corrected a factual statement, updated a process step, replaced a broken reference).
• Last reviewed: The most recent date a human reviewed the page for accuracy and currency, even if no edits were required.
• Citation updates: If a factual claim changes, we add, replace, or remove citations so the page matches the evidence.

6) How we handle different correction types

• Minor edits (typos, formatting, broken links): Fixed quickly; logged when it affects meaning or references.
• Factual corrections: Updated with supporting sources; logged with a short description of what changed.
• Process updates: Updated when workflows, tools, or external requirements change; logged and re-reviewed for downstream consistency.
• Ambiguity/clarity issues: Rewritten for operational clarity (what to do next, what inputs are needed, what to expect).

7) Disputed sources

• We prefer primary sources: Official documentation, original publications, and direct statements from the responsible organization carry the most weight.
• If sources conflict: We may revise wording to reflect uncertainty, add context, or remove a claim that can’t be supported cleanly.
• Citations must match the claim: If the evidence doesn’t support the sentence as written, we change the sentence (not the reader’s expectations).

8) What we won’t do

• We won’t publish unsourced factual changes: If a claim changes, we need a source that supports the revised wording.
• We won’t provide medical advice or legal advice: We can clarify what a page says, but we won’t advise on clinical or legal decisions.
• We won’t act on vague reports: “This seems wrong” without the URL and exact quote usually can’t be routed or verified.
• We won’t silently change substantive guidance: If meaning changes, we document it in the change log and refresh last reviewed.
• We won’t claim pages are fully automated: Publication requires human review and citation rules.

Diagnostic Table:

Use this table to classify what you’re reporting so it routes correctly.

Required visual notes (implementation guidance): Add a simple “Review checklist” visual note near the trust notes section, and include an “AI-assistance disclosure” callout note when applicable.

Weighted Checklist:

When we review a correction request, we score it for speed and risk. Use the same checklist to submit higher-signal requests.

• 40% — Specificity: Did you include the exact quote and location (heading/paragraph)?
• 25% — Evidence quality: Is the source primary/official and directly relevant?
• 15% — Proposed replacement: Did you provide corrected wording we can paste with minimal edits?
• 10% — Impact: Does the issue affect decisions, compliance, or workflow outcomes?
• 10% — Scope clarity: Is it one claim, or does it require a broader rewrite?

We apply this to corrections and updates so we can prioritize what matters operationally, not what’s loudest.

Outreach Templates:

Copy/paste templates for submitting corrections.

Template 1: Factual correction

Subject: Correction request — [Page URL]

Message: I’m requesting a correction on this page: [URL]. The sentence “[quote]” appears under [heading]. Proposed replacement: “[replacement]”. Source: [link]. Reason: [1–2 lines]. If this is substantive, please update the change log and last reviewed date.

Template 2: Outdated process update

Subject: Update request — process changed — [Page URL]

Message: This section looks outdated: [URL + heading]. What changed: [describe]. Effective date (if known): [date]. Supporting reference: [link]. Suggested new steps: [bullets].

Template 3: AI-assistance disclosure clarification (transparency hook)

Subject: Trust note clarification — AI-assisted drafting disclosure — [Page URL]

Message: On [URL], can you confirm whether AI-assisted drafting was used and whether a human review checklist was applied? If yes, please add/confirm the disclosure and citation rules in the trust notes.

Common pitfalls

• Vague reports: “This seems wrong” without the exact quote slows everything down.
• Screenshots without text: Images are hard to verify and copy. Paste the exact sentence and the URL so we can act quickly.
• No source: If there’s no supporting reference, we can’t responsibly change factual claims.
• Conflating preference with error: If you want different framing, label it as clarity/editing feedback, not a factual correction.
• Assuming silent edits: We aim to document meaningful changes via a change log so readers can track what moved.

How to improve results

If you want your correction handled quickly, optimize for reviewer time:

1. Pinpoint the claim: Quote it and name the heading.
2. Provide paste-ready replacement text: One clean paragraph beats a long explanation.
3. Use a primary source when possible: Official docs beat commentary.
4. State the impact: Tell us what decision the error could affect (workflow, compliance, or operational guidance).
5. Ask for the right artifact: If it’s substantive, request an updated change log entry and last reviewed update.

Legal and ethical use

Heartbeat.ai resources are written for operational recruiting use. We do not provide medical advice or legal advice. If you’re using any guidance that touches privacy, outreach consent, or data handling, consult your counsel and follow applicable laws and platform policies.

For correction requests involving personal data, do not include sensitive personal information in your message. Provide the minimum detail needed to identify the page and the issue.

Evidence and trust notes

This page is part of our trust methodology cluster. For the broader standards behind how we write, review, and maintain resources, see Heartbeat.ai trust methodology.

We align our editorial intent with guidance on creating helpful, people-first content. Reference: Google Search Central: Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content.

Definition used on this page: A “substantive” change is any edit that changes meaning, guidance, or a factual claim (not just formatting).

Transparency hook (AI-assisted drafting + human review): Some pages may be drafted with AI assistance, but publication requires human review using a checklist (clarity, sourcing, safety, and operational usefulness). We apply citation rules: factual claims should be supported by a source link when feasible, and substantive updates should refresh the change log and last reviewed convention.

FAQs

Where do I send a correction request?

Use the Heartbeat.ai contact page. Include the page URL, the exact quote, your proposed replacement, and a supporting source.

Do you keep a change log?

Yes. When an update is substantive (meaning it changes guidance, facts, or interpretation), we document it in a change log so readers can see what changed.

What does “last reviewed” mean?

Last reviewed indicates the most recent date a human reviewed the page for accuracy, clarity, and relevance—even if no edits were required.

How fast are corrections applied?

Timing depends on complexity and verification needs. Minor fixes can be quick; factual or process changes may require source checks and broader consistency review across related pages.

Will you remove content if it’s disputed?

If a claim can’t be supported or is materially misleading, we will revise or remove it. If it’s a matter of interpretation, we may clarify language and add context rather than delete.

Next steps

• Submit a correction using the editorial contact method with the exact quote, replacement text, and source.
• Review our broader standards in the trust methodology hub.
• If you want to evaluate Heartbeat’s workflow for recruiting operations, start here: create a Heartbeat.ai account.

About the Author

Ben Argeband is the Founder and CEO of Swordfish.ai and Heartbeat.ai. With deep expertise in data and SaaS, he has built two successful platforms trusted by over 50,000 sales and recruitment professionals. Ben’s mission is to help teams find direct contact information for hard-to-reach professionals and decision-makers, providing the shortest route to their next win. Connect with Ben on LinkedIn.