Corrections policy

Corrections are a first-class part of running an editorial data platform. If we have something wrong, we want to fix it — fast, transparently, and with the original error acknowledged rather than quietly rewritten. This page describes exactly what we will do, and what you can expect from us, when you report an error.

The following kinds of correction fall within our workflow:

• Editorial errors. Mistakes in guides or blog posts — wrong section numbers, incorrect form names, misquoted regulations, factual errors in case examples. These we correct and annotate within two working days of a verified report.
• Data-rendering errors. Our layer renders MCA data incorrectly — for example, a director with a current cessation date shown as active, a city slug wrongly routed, a capital figure displayed with the wrong decimal separator. These we fix by auditing the rendering pipeline and pushing a patch.
• Identity-confusion cases. Two directors with identical names, where our disambiguation (based on DIN) has failed for a specific display. These require case-by-case review.
• Analytical narrative errors. Our insight cards (network strength, address cluster narrative, capital bracket) read the company wrong for a specific case. We review and either fix the underlying logic or adjust the specific case.

Some requests we cannot honour, even when we would like to:

• Accurate facts from public filings. If the MCA master record shows that a person is/was a director of a company, and our display of that fact is correct, we cannot remove it at request. The underlying data is public by statute and the public has a legitimate interest in being able to query it.
• "Please remove my company". Active Indian companies cannot be removed from the public register; their data is published by MCA. What we can do is verify that our rendering is accurate and up to date, and action any specific piece of personal information that does not derive from the public MCA feed.
• "Please remove mention of my old company that got struck off". Strike-off records are public historical data. We mark them clearly as struck off on the entity page.
• Retaliatory takedowns. If an editorial piece is critical but factually accurate, we will not remove it because the subject disagrees with the framing. We will correct any factual error you can substantiate.

Email corrections@corpintel.io with the following, in the body of the email:

• The full URL of the page in question.
• The specific field, claim, or sentence you are disputing. Quote it.
• What you believe the correct fact to be, and — critically — the primary source you are relying on. For MCA records, the relevant filing or master-data lookup. For editorial content, the primary document (section of the Companies Act, gazette notification, etc.).
• Your relationship to the record, if relevant (the named individual, a director of the company, a journalist citing the page, etc.).
• Your preferred response channel (email is default).

• Two working days — acknowledgement of your report with a case reference.
• Five working days — provisional outcome (either the correction is live, or we explain why the request is out of scope).
• Ten working days — final resolution for complex cases that require source-verification with MCA.

If your correction is time-sensitive — for example, an editorial piece going live with an error that will cause measurable harm — flag that in the subject line and we will prioritise.

When we correct an editorial piece, we do all four of the following:

• Fix the error in place with a clearly marked strike-through showing the original wording.
• Add a dated "Correction" note at the top of the piece describing what changed and why.
• Update the "reviewedOn" date on the article.
• Send a reply email confirming the fix with the live URL.

We do not silently edit. If we have changed a material claim in a piece that has been published, you will see evidence of the change and the reason for it.

If we decide your report is out of scope and you disagree, reply to the case email and request an appeal. Appeals are reviewed by the editor-in-chief personally within fifteen working days. If we still think the request is out of scope after appeal, we will say so and explain why, in writing.

We publish material corrections in a dated log — not within this page (to keep this policy stable) but on each affected editorial piece. Every guide and blog post shows its "reviewedOn" date, and a correction note where applicable.

Corrections are distinct from takedowns. For takedown workflow under the Terms of Service Section 11, please refer to that section. Corrections are also distinct from privacy data-subject requests — see our privacy policy for exercising data rights.