Report a problem
- Report a factual error.
- Submit missing evidence.
- Point out a methodological concern.
Corrections & right to respond
Visible correction discipline.
VetAI Trust expects vendors to support their claims with evidence. The publication should hold itself to the same standard: factual errors should be correctable, new evidence should be reviewable, and important updates should not disappear into silent rewrites.
Respond and request review
- Provide a response for publication or context.
- Submit additional evidence and source documents.
- Request reassessment when material new evidence appears.
Override independence
- Buy a more favorable rating or benchmark framing.
- Require VetAI Trust to suppress unfavorable findings.
- Approve editorial conclusions before publication.
Update categories
Not every update means the same thing.
The site should distinguish whether a publication changed because of a simple factual fix, a bigger evidence update or a methodological revision affecting the underlying conclusion.
Concrete error fixed
A statement, citation, figure, label or date was wrong and is corrected without changing the overall method.
Context made clearer
Language is clarified to better reflect the existing evidence or scope without changing the core finding.
New evidence added
New studies, validations or product disclosures are incorporated into the record and may affect confidence or framing.
Evaluation basis changed
The assessment method, benchmark interpretation or comparison logic changed in a way that can alter the conclusion.
Status changed over time
New evidence, new testing or a newly discovered limitation changed the public status of a claim, paper or benchmark result.
Review process
How a correction request moves.
Receive the report
VetAI Trust logs the issue, the affected page or result, and the evidence supplied.
Check the basis
The publication team reviews whether the report is factual, evidentiary, methodological or primarily argumentative.
Seek supporting material
Additional source material may be requested from the reporter, a vendor or a cited source where needed.
Decide the update type
The site distinguishes between correction, clarification, added evidence, revision or no change.
Publish visibly
Material updates should preserve a visible change history rather than silently rewriting the record.
Unfavorable findings are not grounds for deletion by themselves. What matters is whether the published material is accurate, fairly framed and methodologically supportable.
Contact routes
Where to send a challenge.
Use the public contact route and label the subject clearly so the report can be triaged without ambiguity.