# 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. | Date | Where | What was wrong | What it says now | | ---------- | ------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | 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 | | 2026-09-20 | [[Daily Notes Template]] | Carried a `stakeholders:` field. Always empty in practice, but a standing invitation to put other people's names on a public page | Field removed from the template, the script, the documentation and every journal note; the linter now rejects it | To report an error: ** [email protected] ** ## Related - [[Disclaimer]] — what these notes are, and what "checked" means