Corrections Policy
When we get something wrong, we fix it in place and date the fix, so the page shows what changed rather than quietly reading as if it had always been right.
Errors are fixed in place, with a date
An error is corrected on the page where it appeared, with a dated note saying what was wrong and what it now says. We do not delete the page and republish it clean, because a reader who quoted the old version deserves to see the change.
The date on the note is the date of the correction, not the date of the original publication. That way the page carries both facts: when it was written and when it was last put right.
Each correction carries the date we found it and the date we fixed it
A correction is recorded with two dates: the date the error was identified and the date the fix went live. Both are shown next to the corrected sentence, not buried in a changelog. The entry names what was wrong, what it now says, and the source that settled it. If the error was reported by a reader, the entry says so without naming them. The point is that a reader arriving months later can see the page changed and see exactly what moved, rather than trusting an undated block of text.
The date we use is the East Africa Time date on which the change was published, because our readers are in Kenya and a correction dated in another timezone creates avoidable confusion. The original publication date stays on the page and is never overwritten. Where a correction affects a number, the old number is shown struck through in the log entry and the new number sits beside it. We do not silently swap a figure and leave the page looking as if it always said the new thing. That would defeat the purpose of keeping a log at all.
Recording happens at the moment of the fix, not at the end of the month. The editor who makes the change writes the entry, because they are the person who knows what was wrong and why. A correction that sits in a queue waiting for a monthly round-up is not recorded in any useful sense. If the fix is urgent, the entry goes up with the fix in the same publish action. If the entry cannot be written immediately, the fix waits. A corrected page without its log entry is treated as an incomplete change.
The log stays public because an unverifiable claim is not worth much
The log is public because a correction that only the publisher can see is indistinguishable from no correction at all. Trading content is high-risk, and a reader deciding whether to trust a margin figure on gold needs to know how often we get such figures wrong and how quickly we fix them. Hiding the log would let us present a clean page that has quietly been rewritten. Keeping it visible means our error rate is open to inspection, including by people who disagree with us. That is the point.
Public does not mean permanent in the sense of never changing. The log itself can be corrected if an entry misdescribes what happened, and that correction is itself logged. What cannot happen is deletion of an entry because it is embarrassing. A reader who finds a correction dated two years ago should still find it today, with the same wording unless a later entry explains a change. The log is a record, and a record that can be edited without trace is not a record. We treat our own log entries under the same rule as the pages they describe.
The log is also public because it is useful. A reader who wants to know whether a given number has been stable can check the history rather than guess. A reader comparing two pages can see which one has been corrected more often and weigh that. None of this requires the reader to trust a claim about our process; they can inspect the process itself. That is a higher standard than most trading sites meet, and it is the standard we set for ourselves when we decided to publish a corrections page at all.
An error is a factual claim we cannot stand behind
An error worth logging is any factual statement on this site that is wrong, misleading or unsupported by the source we relied on. That covers a mistyped price, a formula that produces the wrong margin, a regulator named incorrectly, or a funding route listed for Kenya that the broker does not actually support. It does not cover a reader disagreeing with our emphasis or a market moving after publication. The test is simple: could we point to the source and defend the sentence as written? If not, it belongs in the log.
Errors are judged against what was knowable when the page was published, not against what happened later. A gold reference price of 4275.0 that looked right on the day is not an error because XAU/USD moved the next morning. A statement that one pip on gold is 0.01 is an error if we wrote 0.1, because the instrument definition did not change. We log the second and not the first. This distinction keeps the log about accuracy rather than about hindsight, and it stops market movement from being dressed up as a correction.
Anything that could cost a reader money gets logged even if it looks small. A wrong lot size, a margin figure that does not follow from the stated leverage cap, or a regulator caveat that omits the CMA gets the same treatment as a broken link. The worked example on this site, where a 0.10-lot gold position needs about $85.50 margin at the applicable cap, is exactly the kind of number we check line by line. If the arithmetic does not reproduce, the sentence is an error and it is logged with the date we found it.
A changed condition is not an error
If a broker changes a term, a platform, or a funding route after we checked it, the page was right when written and is now out of date. That is a re-check, not a correction, and it is handled by reading the broker's documents again and updating the page with a fresh date.
The distinction matters because it tells you how much to trust a figure. A dated figure tells you when it was true; a re-check tells you it has been looked at again. Neither is a promise about what the broker will do tomorrow.
The editor on duty decides, and publishes within one working day
The decision to log a change rests with the editor on duty for the page, not with a committee. That person has the authority to mark an error, publish the correction and write the entry without waiting for approval, because a correction held for approval is a correction delayed. The limit on that authority is that the entry must name the source that settled the question. If no source can be named, the change is not published as a correction; it is held and escalated. The editor decides, but the decision has to be defensible on the page itself.
The time limit is one working day from the moment the error is confirmed. Confirmation means we have checked the source and reproduced the problem, not that someone has complained. A reader report that turns out to be a misunderstanding is answered but not logged. A report that turns out to be right is logged the same working day where possible. The one-day limit is a target we hold ourselves to publicly so that a reader can judge whether we meet it. Missing it is itself recorded in the entry, with the reason.
Escalation happens when the change touches the regulator caveat, the leverage cap or the margin arithmetic. Those three areas are the ones where a mistake costs a reader money or exposes them to a regulator we have misdescribed, so they get a second pair of eyes before publication. The second reviewer does not have a veto over whether the error is logged; they check the wording and the source. The editor on duty still owns the entry. This keeps the process fast for ordinary fixes and careful for the ones that matter most to a Kenyan reader funding an account through M-Pesa.
A correction fixes a mistake; an update reflects a change in the world
A correction says we were wrong when we published. An update says the facts moved after we published and the page now reflects the new position. If the CMA had licensed FxPro on the day we said it had not, that would be an update, because our sentence was accurate when written. If we had simply misread the regulator list, that is a correction. The two are marked differently because they tell the reader different things about our reliability. Mixing them flatters us and misleads the reader, so the distinction is enforced rather than left to taste.
The test is whether the original sentence was defensible against the source available at publication. A leverage cap that changes because the entity serving Kenya changes is an update. A leverage cap we stated wrongly in the first place is a correction. A gold contract size of 100 oz per standard lot does not change, so any variation on that is always a correction. Where a source has been revised and we cannot tell whether we misread it or it changed, we mark the entry as an update and say plainly that the earlier position is no longer current.
Updates do not carry the same weight as corrections in the log, and they are not counted as errors. They are still dated and still visible, because a reader needs to know that the page they read last year said something different. The log therefore has two streams: corrections, which are admissions, and updates, which are maintenance. A page with many updates and no corrections is not necessarily more accurate than one with several corrections. It may simply be older, or it may cover a topic where the underlying facts move often.
Error, update and clarification are marked differently on the page
The three kinds of change are marked with distinct labels so a reader can tell them apart without reading the entry. An error is marked as a correction and carries the old and new wording. An update is marked as an update and states what changed in the world. A clarification is marked as a clarification and states that the original sentence was accurate but could be read two ways. The label appears next to the changed sentence and in the log, so the two views agree. A reader should never have to infer which kind of change they are looking at.
A clarification is the narrowest of the three. It is used when the original sentence was true but a reasonable reader could have taken it to mean something we did not intend. An example would be a sentence about margin that did not make clear it referred to a 0.10-lot position rather than a full lot. The fact was right; the phrasing was ambiguous. We do not use clarification to soften a correction. If the sentence was wrong, it is marked as an error even if the fix is small, because calling an error a clarification would understate what happened.
The marking is consistent across the site so that a reader who has seen one correction knows how to read the next. The same label, the same placement, the same two dates. Consistency is not cosmetic here; it is what makes the log scannable. A reader who wants only the errors can filter to corrections. A reader who wants to know whether a page has been maintained can look at updates and clarifications together. If the labels drifted between pages, none of that would work, so the labelling rule is written down and applied rather than decided case by case.
How to report a mistake
Send the page address, the sentence you believe is wrong, and the broker document or source that shows the correct position to editor@nakuruspreadke.com. A specific pointer is far more useful than a general complaint, and it lets us check the source rather than guess.
We look at every report. If the point holds, the page is corrected and dated; if it does not, we will explain why in the reply. Either way the reader who raised it hears back from the desk.