Keep a claim connected to its source
A source card separates three acts that are easy to blur: recording exact words, paraphrasing their meaning and explaining their relevance. Quotation marks require exact wording. A paraphrase requires faithful meaning and attribution, even when none of the original phrasing remains.
For the desk log, record the counts and their unit. The limitation is not simply “may be biased”: the log does not identify unique people, cover other days or record actual attendance. For the committee note, distinguish receipt of a proposal from approval. Specific limitations tell you which claims must change.
The published post contains errors, not merely outdated information. “Thirty-six different students” exceeds the log, and “approved” contradicts the committee note. A notice saying “details have changed” could falsely imply the first version was accurate when published.
Preserve the earlier wording in your editorial record, correct the current version and explain the material changes. In an actual publication, consider how readers of the earlier version would encounter the correction. Updating a page that nobody revisits may not reach the people who received the original message. This exercise uses a private draft; no external posting is required.
A final check should compare every consequential assertion against its source, not merely check spelling. Read quotations with the surrounding sentence, verify numbers and units, confirm current status and check that captions retain qualifications. You can change your recommendation without a factual correction, but explain that shift separately from repairing an erroneous statement.
