Corrections Policy (Heartbeat.ai): Request Fixes, See Change Logs, and Track Last Reviewed

Last updated: August 31, 2026

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

Who this is for

If you’re questioning whether a Heartbeat.ai resource on provider mobile phone and email data is accurate or current, this page explains how to request a correction, how we review it, and how updates appear on the page — including our change log and last reviewed conventions. It’s also for anyone who just needs a fast, direct way to flag an issue.

Quick answer

Core answer

Send the page URL, the exact sentence in question, your proposed replacement, and a source through our contact method. We verify the claim, update the page, and document the change with a change log entry and a 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 the accuracy or freshness of a page on our site.

Compliance & safety

This corrections process is for legitimate editorial and outreach questions only. Always respect provider privacy, opt-out requests, and applicable data laws when using contact information sourced through Heartbeat.ai. Heartbeat does not provide medical advice or legal counsel.

This page covers editorial corrections and updates to our published content. The compliance note above reflects the broader healthcare data context our resources sit in.

Why we publish a corrections process

In healthcare outreach work, bad contact data or outdated guidance wastes time and can create compliance headaches. If a page on our site is wrong, we want it fixed — and we want the fix to be visible, not silent. Our standard: we fix mistakes, we show what changed, and we make it straightforward to report issues.

We treat corrections as a repeatable workflow rather than a one-off PR fix: clear intake, documented review, visible updates on the page itself. The trade-off is that a documented correction can take a little longer than a quiet edit, but you get a traceable record of what changed and why.

Step-by-step: how to request a correction

1) Identify the page and the exact issue

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• Label the issue type: factual error, outdated process, broken link, unclear wording, or missing context.

2) Provide a proposed correction

• Write the replacement sentence or paragraph you believe is correct — paste-ready if possible.
• Add a supporting source, ideally official documentation or a primary source.
• If it’s a freshness issue, note what changed (a regulatory update, a new industry guideline, a product change, and so on).

3) Send the request through our contact page

Use our contact page and select the option most relevant to editorial or trust questions. Start your message with “Correction request” and include the details from steps 1 and 2.

If you’re flagging something sensitive — a privacy concern, a security issue, or potential harm — say so in the first line so it gets routed appropriately.

4) What happens after you submit

• Intake triage: We confirm the scope — typo, factual claim, process guidance, or a broken link.
• Verification: We check the claim against sources and internal context. This step requires manual review and can’t be fully automated.
• Update: We revise the page, adjust citations where relevant, and check that 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’ll see on the page after a correction

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

6) How correction types are handled

• Minor edits (typos, formatting, broken links): fixed quickly; logged only if the fix affects meaning or references.
• Factual corrections: updated with supporting sources and logged with a short description of what changed.
• Process updates: revised when workflows, tools, or external requirements change, then re-reviewed for consistency with related pages.
• Ambiguity or clarity issues: rewritten for operational clarity — what to do next, what’s needed, and what to expect.

7) Handling disputed sources

• We favor primary sources: official documentation and direct statements from the responsible organization carry the most weight.
• When sources conflict: we may revise wording to reflect uncertainty, add context, or remove a claim that can’t be cleanly supported.
• Citations must match the claim: if the evidence doesn’t support a sentence as written, we change the sentence rather than stretch the source.

8) What we won’t do

• We won’t publish an unsourced factual change — a revised claim needs a source behind it.
• We won’t offer medical or legal advice; we can clarify what a page says, but we won’t weigh in on clinical or legal decisions.
• We won’t act on vague reports — “this seems wrong” without a URL and exact quote usually can’t be verified or routed.
• We won’t silently change substantive guidance without a change log entry and a refreshed last reviewed date.
• We won’t claim our pages are published without human review — every substantive update goes through a manual check.

Diagnostic table: classifying your report

Use this table to figure out what you’re reporting so it routes to the right review path.

Checklist: how we weigh a correction request

When we review a request, we informally score it for speed and risk. Use the same lens to submit a higher-signal request:

• Specificity: did you include the exact quote and its location (heading/paragraph)? This matters most — vague reports are the biggest bottleneck.
• Evidence quality: is the source primary or official, and directly relevant to the claim?
• Proposed replacement: did you provide corrected wording we can use with minimal editing?
• Impact: does the issue affect decisions, compliance, or day-to-day workflow?
• Scope clarity: is this one claim, or does it point to a broader rewrite?

We apply this thinking to both corrections and general content updates so we prioritize what matters operationally, not what’s loudest.

Templates you can copy

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

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 or 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 URL instead.
• No source attached: without a supporting reference, we can’t responsibly change a factual claim.
• Confusing preference with error: if you’d simply frame something differently, label it as editing feedback, not a factual correction.
• Assuming silent edits happen: we document meaningful changes through a change log so readers can track what moved.

How to get a faster response

1. Pinpoint the claim: quote it and name the heading it’s under.
2. Provide paste-ready replacement text: one clean paragraph beats a long explanation.
3. Use a primary source when possible: official documentation outweighs commentary.
4. State the impact: tell us what decision the error could affect — workflow, compliance, or outreach practice.
5. Ask for the right artifact: for substantive issues, request a change log entry and a refreshed last reviewed date.

Legal and ethical use

Heartbeat.ai resources are written for operational use around healthcare provider outreach and contact data. We don’t provide medical advice or legal advice. If your use of any guidance touches privacy, outreach consent, or data handling, consult your own counsel and follow applicable laws and platform policies.

For correction requests involving personal data, don’t include sensitive personal information in your message. Share only 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 Google’s guidance on 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.

On AI-assisted drafting: some pages may be drafted with AI assistance, but publication requires human review against a checklist covering clarity, sourcing, safety, and operational usefulness. Factual claims should be supported by a source link where feasible, and substantive updates refresh the change log and last reviewed date.

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 a 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’ll revise or remove it. If it’s a matter of interpretation, we may clarify the language and add context rather than delete it.

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 finding provider contact data, 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.