Where we are told we are wrong.
Every challenge to a published figure, and every response from somebody this platform has named — including the ones we did not publish and the reason. Visibly fixing our own mistakes is the point, not an embarrassment.
Respond to a record that names you Tell us a figure is wrong
| Raised | Kind | Subject | Outcome | What we did |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26 Aug 2026 | Correction — a figure here is wrong | Our own claim that 88 of 105 pages of the Q2 2026 Budget Implementation Report had no extractable text A response from OpenDelta, Raised against ourselves during the document intelligence build |
Upheld — the figure was wrong | Upheld in full and retracted. Every occurrence has been replaced with a figure measured across the whole library in August 2026: 319 of 3,052 pages, 10.5%, across 32 documents. The finding the original claim was reaching for survives and is sharper stated correctly — the state publishes most of its fiscal documents readably, and the documents that carry legal force are scans. The 2025 Appropriation Law is 100% unreadable, the 2026 Appropriation Bill 100%, the 2024 Audited Accounts 95%; the FY2026 Budget Publication is 0.3%. Delta State was described less accurately than it deserved, and that is worth saying plainly rather than quietly amending. |
Why refusals are here too
We publish declined corrections too, with the reason, so the judgement can be argued
with.