Corrections & Retractions Policy

1. Philosophy of Accuracy

WhichAIPick strives for 100% accuracy in our data and analysis. However, we are analyzing a chaotic, rapidly evolving industry. Errors—whether mathematical, typographical, or interpretive—can occur. We believe that the measure of a publication's integrity is not whether it makes mistakes, but how transparently it corrects them.

We do not "stealth edit." If we change a material fact in a story, we note the change. History is not mutable. This aligns with our commitment to Data Transparency.

2. The Three Tiers of Errors

We categorize errors into three distinct tiers, each with a specific protocol for remediation.

Tier 1: Minor/Cosmetic (No Log Required)

Examples: Spelling mistakes, broken links, formatting issues, minor grammar syntax.

Protocol: We fix these immediately upon discovery. No "Correction" note is appended to the article, as these errors do not materially affect the reader's understanding of the subject matter.

Tier 2: Factual/Substantive (Correction Note Required)

Examples: Getting a price wrong ($29 instead of $39), misstating a feature (claiming a tool has an API when it doesn't), misspelling a founder's name.

Protocol: We correct the text in the article. We append a "Correction" footer at the bottom of the article explicitly stating what was changed and when.

Example Footnote: "Correction (Feb 19): An earlier version of this review incorrectly stated that Tool X offers SSO. They do not. We have updated the score to reflect this."

Tier 3: Fundamental/Critical (Retraction Required)

Examples: A methodology failure that invalidates the entire review, falsely accusing a vendor of data misuse, complete misunderstanding of the tool's purpose.

Protocol: This is the nuclear option. If a review is fundamentally flawed, we do not simply patch it. We may issue a full Retraction in the headline and leave the original text with a strikethrough or remove it entirely, replacing it with a transparency statement explaining the failure.

3. The "Vendor Right of Reply"

We are fair. If a vendor feels they have been unfairly characterized in a review, they have the right to challenge our findings. This is not a guarantee that we will change the score, but it is a guarantee that we will hear the case.

The Protocol for Vendors:

• Email editorial@whichaipick.com with the subject line "Correction Request: [Tool Name]".
• Provide specific evidence of the error (e.g., screenshots of documentation, API logs).
• We will review the claim within 5 business days.

What We Do NOT Change: We do not change "Subjective" analysis. If our reviewer found the UI "cluttered and confusing," providing a screenshot showing that it is "actually complex and powerful" will not change our mind. That is an editorial opinion regarding UX.

4. What We Don't Do (Boundaries)

5. Community Reporting

Our readers are our best fact-checkers. We encourage our community to report errors. If you spot a discrepancy in pricing, features, or performance metrics, please use the "Report" link found in the footer of every page.

We maintain a "Hall of Fame" (internal) for users who help us catch significant errors, sometimes rewarding them with free access to our premium Academy Resources.

Related Resources

• Editorial Policy
• Review Methodology
• Contact Us
• Tool Directory