# Corrections
> [!abstract] What this note is
> What has been wrong on this site, and what it says now. Newest first. Started on 20 September 2026 because a review found claims that outran the evidence; before that date nothing was recorded.
## 23 September 2026 — the site was reduced to two purposes
A critical audit of this site found that most of it had been written by an AI tool with too little of its owner in it, and that some of it could do harm: the tool's own instruction file and working report were published, a page described the private working vault, legal text nobody qualified had read was live, one page claimed safeguards that did not exist, and the journal had turned into a changelog of AI sessions complete with clock times.
The site now does two things: it is a journal, and it holds a small set of notes about using AI carefully. Everything else — a Markdown course, five quote pages, two hypermedia essays, seventeen book notes, a model profile, and the pages about the site's own machinery — has been unpublished and kept, not deleted. *(On 24 September the owner brought three of those back: the two hypermedia notes and the programmers' quotes page. A picture note was also restored, then paused again the same day. The rest stays unpublished.)* The journal keeps its days but drops the clock times and the session logs. Every AI note now ends with the same line saying how it was made. The [[Disclaimer]] keeps its legal clauses, aligned to the business terms, and says at the top that no lawyer has reviewed it yet.
What is in place now, and nothing more: every note in the vault declares whether it is public; a linter refuses public notes that lack that declaration, that contain comments, or that match a private deny-list when one is present; and a script compares the live site with the intended public set after each publish. What was previously claimed ("a deny-list scan and a linter that must pass before anything is published") was not true when it was written.
| Date | Where | What was wrong | What it says now |
| ---------- | ------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 2026-11-05 | [[Disclaimer]], [[2026-11-05 Thursday]] | The Disclaimer did not say who the site is for. It said that wherever a note carries the author's own words it says so and gives the date, which was not always true. Its "last changed" date still read 24 September after changes on 1 and 3 November. The 5 November journal note, as first written, linked a song that Spotify labels Explicit | A new section, "Who this site is for": a general audience, anyone old enough to use the internet, with the author's reason in his own words. Media labelled explicit is not linked or embedded. The voice reminder says he tries to mark his own words with block quotes or quotation marks, usually with his name and a date. The date reads 5 November. The journal note names the song without linking it, and ends with a note on content, linking, personal expression, voice and advice |
| 2026-11-03 | [[AI and Carbon]] | Said the physical cost of information networks is not the subject of Yuval Noah Harari's *Nexus*, called that "the gap this note sits in", and presented the point that every network had a body as the note's own. The point is Harari's, and the note claims nothing new | Credits the point to Harari, cites *Nexus*, and makes no claim about what the book leaves out |
| 2026-10-31 | [[2026-10-30 Friday]] | Attributed the quotation "It depends on your tolerance for risk" to Tiago Forte. The owner misremembered who said it in the video embedded above it | Attributed to Nick Milo |
| 2026-10-27 | [[When You Need a Human]], [[2026-10-27 Tuesday]] | The note said AI is good for a draft you rewrite and a summary you still read, without saying that most of this site is neither: tool-written prose approved rather than rewritten, and sources a person did not open. The 27 October journal note explained outside research with no line saying a tool wrote it | A section, "This site, by the same test", holds the site to the note's own standard. The 27 October note ends with a line saying how it was made and that nobody qualified checked it |
| 2026-10-13 | [[Exploit Database]] | Said that prompt injection and its relatives "have no catalogue like this one." MITRE ATLAS lists prompt injection as an adversary technique, direct and indirect, and the AI Incident Database records cases of harm. The sentence was published the same morning | Names both records, and says what they cannot hold: an entry per hole tied to a product version and closed by a patch. See [[Vulnerability Records]] |
| 2026-09-24 | [[How To Get Started]], [[Disclaimer]], [[Info]] | Three restorations and two additions in one day, recorded here so the 23 September account stays true: [[Hypermedia and the Line]], [[What is Hypermedia]] and [[Programmers Quotes]] returned to the site at the owner's request; the Disclaimer gained a reminder that most prose here is a tool's voice, not the author's; the Contact page names one client as a recommendation, with the relationship disclosed and a matching exception in the Disclaimer | The 23 September entry's count of what is unpublished is now smaller by three. Nothing else in it changed |
| 2026-09-23 | The whole site | Published far more than its owner had written or reviewed: operational files, the private vault's architecture, unreviewed legal text, false safeguard claims, and a journal of AI-session logs with clock times | See the note above. 28 pages unpublished and kept in the repository; the journal curated; every AI note labelled |
| 2026-09-21 | REPORT, 20 Sept entry | A reviewer reported that every page carries a machine-reader instruction telling AI crawlers to append `.md` for raw Markdown. The response recorded here was "could not confirm": none was found. **The reviewer was right.** The check had only requested pages as an ordinary browser. Requested as an AI crawler, every page carries the instruction, and the `.md` address returns the raw Markdown | The [[Disclaimer]] now describes the behaviour under Privacy. It is Obsidian Publish's default, not a setting of this site. The lesson is recorded too: a check that asks as one kind of visitor says nothing about what another kind is served |
| 2026-09-21 | [[Disclaimer]] | The Privacy section said nothing about analytics while Google Analytics 4 was running on the site. An earlier review had also praised the site for having none | Says plainly that Google Analytics 4 is on, what it records, that there is no consent banner, and how to opt out |
| 2026-09-21 | What is Hypermedia | The embedded video address carried a share-tracking token | Token removed |
| 2026-09-20 | Claude Fable 5 | Said the export-control explanation for the June 2026 access pause appeared only in third-party reporting. The official statement the note already cited says it directly | States the reason as Anthropic gives it, with the dates (suspended 12 June, controls lifted 30 June, restored 1 July) |
| 2026-09-20 | Claude Fable 5 | Said flagged requests fall back to "the default Opus model" | Biology-flagged requests re-run on Opus 5, cybersecurity-flagged on Opus 4.8 |
| 2026-09-20 | Claude Fable 5 | Described Project Glasswing as "initially ~50" organizations "in collaboration with the US government" | 11 launch partners plus more than 40 further organizations; government discussions described separately, as Anthropic does |
| 2026-09-20 | [[AI Supply Chain Risks]] | Gave the 341-of-2,857 malicious-skills figure without saying whose audit it was | Attributed to Koi Security's audit, as reported by Unit 42 |
| 2026-09-20 | [[AI Data Exposure]] | Cited an article for a figure (about 4,500 indexed chats) and a date that the article itself does not contain | Says the figure comes from wider coverage, and softens the date |
| 2026-09-20 | [[How To Get Started]] | Said every quotation on all four quotes pages was traced to a primary source. True of three pages; Programmers Quotes links to biographies and mostly gives no source | The claim is scoped to the pages that meet it, and each quotes page states its own standard |
| 2026-09-20 | Programmers Quotes | 31 of 33 quotations had no source, and the link on each name went to a biography. A sourcing pass found 21 documented, 3 whose wording differed from the record, 8 with no findable origin, and 1 misattributed (a Rob Pike remark filed under Dennis Ritchie). One entry had a name and no quotation | Every quotation now carries a source note. Untraceable lines were replaced with documented ones from the same person; the misattributed line was removed; one Hedy Lamarr line is marked **attributed**; the empty entry has a sourced quotation |
| 2026-09-20 | [[Disclaimer]] | Said notes were "reviewed by a human before publishing" without saying what that meant. It implied more human checking than happens | Says what happens: an AI tool drafts and checks sources, and a person decides what is published. No claim that a person opened each source |
| 2026-09-20 | [[Disclaimer]] | Did not say that it had not been reviewed by a lawyer, though the site's own working notes did | Says so, above the effective date |
| 2026-09-20 | Claude Fable 5, Claude Code Skills | Described their checking as agent counts and "zero claims refuted", which a reader cannot evaluate | Describe what one check consisted of, and that no person opened the sources |
| 2026-09-20 | [[AI Security for Users]] | "Primary or reputable source" was undefined, and three pages used three different sourcing phrases | One vocabulary, defined once in the [[Disclaimer]]: primary, reputable secondary, attributed |
To report an error: **
[email protected]**
## Related
- [[Disclaimer]] — what these notes are, and what "checked" means