Correction: provenance misstatement on the primary read of a responder report
IN FORCE · DM ratified 2026-10-27
A record shown as PENDING has not been ratified by the publisher and publishes as pending. Do not render a pending correction as in force.
- id
- CHQ-CORR-2026-015
- class
- CORRECTION
- subtype
- provenance
- status
- IN FORCE
- authority
- DM ratified 2026-10-27
- effective
- 2026-10-27
- published
- 2026-10-27
- title
- Correction: provenance misstatement on the primary read of a responder report
- what was wrong
- Two held evidence rows admitted on 13 October 2026, and the catch-lag record closed alongside them, recorded that the primary source had been read that day. The run record for the same day states that retrieval of that source failed. A primary read on 13 October did not occur; both rows were admitted on secondary accounts at the lower evidence grade.
- what is true
- The first verified primary read of the source is 27 October 2026, 49 days after the source was published. That read confirms the substance of both rows exactly as recorded.
- what changed
- The primary-review provenance on both rows is corrected from 13 October to 27 October. The first-screened provenance of 13 October stands, because the rows were screened that day on secondary accounts. The withdrawn claim is marked as withdrawn in the rows themselves rather than only in an appended note. The catch-lag record keeps its closure and the latency it was scored on, which measured the secondary review, and its descriptor is corrected to distinguish the secondary review from the first verified primary review.
- what did not change
- No content, class, grade, count, rating or Outlook changed anywhere in the record. No counted claim rested on either row.
- control analysis
- The control that contained the error was the evidence-grade rule, which held both rows below counting grade. The provenance field itself is unchecked. A field-level check comparing the primary-review provenance against the run record for that source and date is recorded as a candidate, not an implemented control. A first pass at this correction changed the surrounding prose and left the dated field wrong; an external data review caught that, which is why the proposed check is specified against the field rather than the text around it.
- referred
- Whether the related catch-lag breach should be rescored on the longer primary latency rather than the latency it was scored on is referred to the Q4 criterion audit.
- error class
- PROVENANCE_MISSTATEMENT, declared 2026-10-27
- found by
- CHQ, while closing a source chase opened on an external review finding that the chase record mis-dated the source.