The Intelligence Bulletin is produced by an automated editorial system, and it is not infallible. When we get something wrong, we correct it in the open. Every correction we issue is logged permanently on this page.
What we correct
We correct factual errors: a misstated fact, a misattributed quote, a number reported wrongly, or a translation that changes the meaning of what someone said.
We also correct errors of attribution, which are the likeliest failure mode of a system like ours. If we present an outlet as a country’s own press when it is republishing someone else’s reporting, or credit reporting to the wrong newsroom, that is a correction and not a detail.
A change of emphasis, a new development in a running story, or a disagreement about framing is not a correction. Those are the next bulletin’s work.
How a correction appears
When a published bulletin is corrected, two things happen. The bulletin itself carries a dated correction notice at the foot of the piece, stating what the text said before and what it says now — we do not silently edit a published bulletin. The correction is also logged on this page, newest first, with the date, a link to the bulletin, and the same before and after.
If an error is serious enough that a bulletin should not stand, we withdraw it and say here that we have, and why.
Telling us about an error
Email [email protected] with the headline and the passage you think is wrong. You do not need to prove the error to us — tell us what looks wrong and we will check it against the sources the bulletin was built from.
Every bulletin links to the original reporting it draws on, so any claim can be traced back to the article it came from. That traceability is what makes a correction checkable rather than a matter of trust.
Human oversight
Every run of the editorial system reports on itself: which stories it considered, which it rejected and why, and which checks passed or failed. Those reports are reviewed, and published bulletins are spot-checked against their sources. Accountability rests with a named person rather than with the system — changing what the system does means changing its written charter first, on the record.
The log
2 corrections issued in 2026.
17 August 2026
Trump cites Kim ties to order cut in US-South Korea drills, drawing contrasting signals from Seoul and Pyongyang — published 17 August 2026
One of the five sources listed under “One Story. Many Angles.” did not report this story. The entry credited to The Hankyoreh was a business feature about shared kitchens in South Korea’s food and beverage industry, published in February 2019 and unrelated to the reduction in joint military exercises. It has been removed and the source count corrected from five to four.
The four remaining sources — The Epoch Times, North Korea Times, Edaily and the BBC — all report this story, and South Korea’s own coverage remains represented by Edaily. The bulletin’s account of what President Trump posted is unchanged, and so is the analysis, which was written from the four reporting sources and had already described them as four.
The article entered the source pool through a fault in the automated search that assembles candidate coverage, not through an editorial judgment that it belonged.
Previously: “5 sources · each independently reported”
Now: “4 sources · each independently reported”
Previously: “South Korea — The Hankyoreh — “Shared kitchens increasing in prominence in South Korea’s F&B industry”, listed as a source on the story.”
Now: “Removed. The South Korean source on this bulletin is Edaily, whose report does cover the story.”
9 August 2026
China answers US robot ban with legal probe and drone curbs but keeps summit path open — published 8 August 2026
Two passages overstated how widely a single expert assessment was carried across the sources. Three of the four sources quote Sun Chenghao of Tsinghua University; the fourth, drawn from Bloomberg, quotes Henry Gao of Singapore Management University and makes a firmer argument about Beijing’s readiness to retaliate. The bulletin’s account of the measures taken by both governments is unchanged.
The error was found during a review prompted by a reader’s question about the bulletin’s sourcing.
Previously: “All four cite the same expert judgment from Tsinghua’s Sun Chenghao that Beijing seeks to avoid an uncontrolled action-reaction spiral ahead of the meeting, while retaining rare-earth leverage and AI market access as longer-term counters.”
Now: “Three of the four cite the same expert judgment from Tsinghua’s Sun Chenghao that Beijing seeks to avoid an uncontrolled action-reaction spiral ahead of the meeting, while retaining rare-earth leverage and AI market access as longer-term counters; the Bloomberg-sourced account quotes a different analyst instead.”
Previously: “Multiple independent chains—Bloomberg, Yonhap and CNN—carry the identical language of restraint and the identical expert view that Beijing will avoid an uncontrolled spiral ahead of the meeting.”
Now: “Multiple independent chains—Bloomberg, Yonhap and CNN—carry the identical language of restraint, but the expert view that Beijing will avoid an uncontrolled spiral ahead of the meeting reaches readers only through the Yonhap and CNN chains.”
See also our Editorial Standards and How It Works.