Corrections + retractions

605Buzz treats corrections as first-class content. Every correction we issue carries the same signed-cassette discipline as the original article: a new cryptographic receipt is minted, the correction chain links back to the underlying original, and every downstream channel (RSS reader, newsletter subscriber, agent-native API caller) gets the corrected version pushed as a signed update.

Our correction workflow

Every correction is coordinated with retained media-law counsel where the underlying matter warrants it. Statutory windows and remedies vary by jurisdiction and by publisher class, so specific timing is determined case-by-case with counsel. Our default operational cadence is prompt review and republication:

1. Written notice arrives (email, letter, court filing, counsel demand). We stamp errorFirstKnownAt + errorNoticeChannel on the correction record so the notice-to-response gap is auditable.
2. Prompt review: we draft the correction and retain counsel review for any defamation-risk-adjacent matter, as promptly as practical.
3. Republication: we publish the correction as promptly as practical after review completes. The Sizl-broadcast fanout signs a fresh receipt and pushes to every downstream channel.
4. Follow-through: every downstream channel confirms receipt via the response's warnings array. Any reconciliation gap gets logged and manually cleared.
5. Corrections record: we maintain an internal corrections record for every issued correction (article slug, reason code, signed-cassette receipt hash). A subject or auditor may request the record for a specific correction by writing to corrections@605buzz.com. We aim to acknowledge such requests promptly; production of the specific record depends on request scope + counsel review. A public, automated corrections log is a stated goal for a future release.

Cross-jurisdiction handling

For articles reaching subjects outside South Dakota, we coordinate with retained counsel to honor the statutory framework of the jurisdiction where the subject resides. Statutory windows and remedies vary by jurisdiction and publisher class; specific timing is determined case-by-case with counsel rather than promised as a fixed cadence on this page.

Every correction cassette carries a jurisdictions array of ISO 3166-2 codes, so cross-jurisdictional retractions can be queried by locale for internal audit and downstream propagation.

Reason codes

We classify every correction with a specific reason code. Nine of the 13 codes are elevated — they require tier-3+ approval, a public correction URL, and cryptographic evidence (approval.evidence) that the approval gate actually fired. The elevated set:

• retraction — full retraction, non-legal driver
• subject-demand-retraction — subject demanded via written notice
• counsel-instructed-retraction — counsel instructed after review
• court-ordered-retraction — court order, retrospective
• court-ordered-injunction — court order, prospective
• settlement-triggered-retraction — settlement-obligated
• regulatory-order-retraction — FTC / SEC / FCC / OFCOM
• dsa-notice-retraction — EU DSA Article 16
• child-safety-triggered-retraction — COPPA / NCMEC / EU DSA Art. 28
• defamation-risk-retraction — counsel-flagged

Full editorial process documentation ships alongside the first vertical launch.

How to request a correction

Send a written correction request to corrections@605buzz.com. Include the article URL, the specific claim you're correcting, and (if applicable) documentation of the correct facts. We aim to acknowledge every request promptly and respond (with either the correction or an explanation of why we're declining) as promptly as practical after review; specific timing depends on jurisdiction, publisher-class, and counsel review.