Fact-Checking & Corrections

Report a factual error

If a MileShift Report page contains a factual error, an unsupported claim or a source that does not support the text, request an editorial correction. A precise report is more useful than a general statement that an entire brand or article is wrong. You do not need professional credentials to point out a problem or supply better evidence.

This page explains the review standard and the information needed to investigate an issue. It does not promise a particular conclusion, a fixed response time or that every older page has already been fact-checked. The site is undergoing an individual page review.

What to include in your report

• The URL of the MileShift Report page and the heading or passage concerned.
• The specific statement you believe is wrong, incomplete, outdated or misleading.
• The correction you propose and a short explanation of why it changes the meaning.
• The strongest available source, preferably the original document or organization responsible for the information.
• Relevant model year, market, powertrain, production date or part identifier when the issue concerns a particular vehicle or component.
• The source’s publication date, document identifier or page reference if those details help locate the evidence.

Use the form’s Page URL field for the article and the Message field for the explanation and source links. Do not send identity documents, payment information or unredacted customer records. If sensitive records might be relevant, describe what they establish without uploading or copying private details into a general inquiry.

How a factual claim should be checked

The review should begin with the exact claim and its source, not with an assumed conclusion. Does the document actually say what the article says? Does it cover the same market, model year, engine, production range or component? Is it current for the point being made, or is the article presenting a dated announcement as a completed event?

Quantitative claims need the population, method and limitations necessary to interpret them. A complaint count is not automatically a failure rate. An individual repair invoice does not establish a national average, and a projected factory capacity is not measured output. A proposed correction should preserve those distinctions rather than replacing one unsupported generalization with another.

Where sources disagree, the article should explain the disagreement or narrow its conclusion. If the evidence is insufficient, an unsupported assertion may need to be removed or qualified. Our Editorial Policy sets the wider sourcing and disclosure standards.

Corrections, updates and withdrawals

A material correction changes an important fact or conclusion. Our standard is to add an understandable note saying what changed and why, with the correction date and supporting source where appropriate. Replacing an unsupported numerical claim with a supported explanation should not be disguised as a routine spelling edit.

An update adds later information that was not available at the original publication date. It should distinguish the new information from what the earlier version said. Minor spelling, formatting or broken-link repairs may not require a separate correction note, but they should not be represented as new reporting or fresh vehicle testing.

If a central premise cannot be supported, withdrawing or substantially replacing the material may be more appropriate than leaving it in place behind a vague disclaimer. A visible explanation should identify the problem. These are editorial standards, not a promise of a public version archive or a formal appeals tribunal.

An example from the current review

The About MileShift Report page now states that unsupported personnel profiles, credentials, laboratory relationships, audience figures and proprietary-research claims were removed from its earlier version. Those earlier statements should not be treated as facts about the publication.

That note is one concrete example of a disclosed correction, not a complete log of every revision on the site. It also does not certify other pages that are still awaiting review. A publication-information update and a source review for a particular automotive article have different scopes.

Authorship, uncertainty and safety limits

The collective editorial byline does not mean that a named mechanic or licensed engineer has approved an article. AI assistance has been used in revised content; it does not turn generated text into evidence. See Authors & Reviewers for the limits of authorship and review labels.

Do not wait for a publication response to resolve an urgent vehicle safety issue. Confirm safety-critical information with the relevant regulator, manufacturer or qualified professional for the vehicle. A correction to a web article is not a diagnosis, repair authorization, recall-clearance decision or warranty determination.

Submit evidence, not a request to buy a conclusion

Corrections should follow evidence regardless of who reports them. An advertiser, contributor or vehicle owner can identify an error, but a commercial relationship must not determine whether a substantiated fact is retained. Disagreement with an opinion alone is different from showing that its factual basis is wrong.

When you have the relevant passage and source, send a correction request. The contact form is the publication’s inquiry route; a submission is not a guarantee of immediate review, acceptance of the proposed change or a particular outcome.