Published Project Corrections and Updates

Published Project Corrections and Updates

Owned decision: keep changes to evidence interpretation and project claims traceable. Mandatory asset: Public Correction History Linked to Affected Studies.

1. Direct engineering answer

A published compressed-air project record must be corrected when credible new evidence shows that a material fact, calculation, comparison boundary, attribution or consent status is wrong or misleading. Preserve the prior public claim, record the correction and its reason, identify affected studies, show the new wording and evidence, and timestamp approval. A silent edit does not provide an adequate audit trail for substantive technical changes.

2. Controlled scope and separation

Link to these pages instead of duplicating their substantive methods.

3. What counts as a correction

A correction repairs an error in a previously published statement or presentation. Examples: wrong flow reference, transposed pressure value, incorrect unit conversion, misleading savings denominator, missing qualification, misidentified equipment or an unsupported customer quote. The correction should be visible when the error could affect reader decisions.

4. What counts as an update

An update adds newly available evidence or changes current status without necessarily making the original publication false. Examples: follow-up operating hours, a new test at a different load, a changed customer permission or closure of an open commissioning item. Distinguish “new data” from “original data corrected”.

5. What counts as a retraction

Retraction is appropriate when a project claim cannot be defended, source evidence is fabricated or irretrievably unreliable, consent is withdrawn in a way that requires removal, or safety-critical advice is materially wrong. Retain an appropriate public notice where lawful and safe, rather than continuing to display a misleading case study.

6. Materiality triage

Classify each issue as editorial (typo without altered meaning), technical-minor (non-decisive clarification), technical-material (could change selection, performance or savings interpretation), safety-critical, consent/privacy or authenticity. Assign review priority and publication action by severity, not by how embarrassing the error appears.

7. Detection routes

Potential triggers include customer complaint, engineer review, revised instrument calibration, corrected logger export, supplier information, internal audit, independent peer review, public feedback or newly discovered consent restrictions. Log the trigger, evidence receipt time and initial owner. Avoid treating unverified allegations as established facts.

8. Preserve the original claim

Keep a restricted immutable record where appropriate. The public correction can summarise prior wording without republishing sensitive customer details.

9. Claim-to-source traceability

Each affected claim needs a unique identifier, original evidence file, source owner, measurement period, equipment boundary, calculation version, reviewer and consent state. A new chart without an accessible source record is not a sufficient correction.

10. Reconstruct the error

Determine whether the issue arose in measurement, reference conditions, data transfer, calculation, normalisation, technical interpretation, copyediting, design, structured data or later external change. Record the mechanism separately from who first detected it. Avoid speculative blame.

11. Measurement correction

If a pressure transducer was offset, document calibration or field comparison evidence, dates of affected readings, uncertainty, correction equation and whether the instrument remained within its valid operating range. A calibration adjustment cannot automatically rescue all historical data.

12. Unit and reference correction

Check kPa versus bar, gauge versus absolute pressure, m³/min versus m³/h, actual versus referenced volumetric flow, temperature basis and electrical kW versus kWh. Correct both numerical display and the explanatory conclusion if the unit error changes the interpretation.

13. Boundary correction

A compressor-only power figure cannot be represented as station power when dryers, cooling fans or additional compressors are outside the meter. The revised claim must define the corrected boundary and explain whether historical before/after comparisons remain valid.

14. Normalisation correction

Preserve raw before/after values, disclose adjustment method and model validity, and withdraw any causal or annualised claim that the corrected comparison cannot support.

15. Uncertainty correction

If the reported effect is smaller than measurement uncertainty, replace certainty language with a bounded observation or inconclusive result. Recalculate uncertainty using suitable error sources and covariance where relevant. Do not conceal an inconclusive outcome by rounding.

16. Attribution correction

A customer may report reduced stoppages while the project records support only improved pressure stability. State each outcome at its own evidence level. Do not attribute plant-wide production gains, fuel reductions or payback to a compressor intervention without defensible boundaries and counterfactuals.

17. Testimonial correction

When a customer clarifies a quote, preserve the original authorised statement and the approved revision, including dates and permissions. Never turn paraphrased marketing copy into a direct customer quotation.

18. Photo and video correction

An image caption may identify the wrong compressor, site or project stage. Correct metadata, captions, alt text and structured data; retain the source image and editing log. A photograph alone does not prove performance, continuity or commissioning acceptance.

19. Safety-critical correction

If published guidance could encourage unsafe pressure, electrical or maintenance work, restrict or remove the affected material promptly, refer to competent technical review and provide a clear safety notice where justified. Do not leave hazardous guidance accessible solely to preserve SEO rankings.

20. Privacy and permission changes

Customer permission may be limited, revised or withdrawn. Record the authorised scope, legal/privacy review and which assets must be removed or anonymised. Public correction notices should avoid reproducing confidential details or revealing the identity behind an anonymised project.

21. Technical review chain

The originating editor logs the issue; a technical owner validates engineering substance; the source/consent owner checks permissions; an independent reviewer checks material claims where appropriate; the publisher executes the change and QA records the released version.

22. Decision states

OPEN → TRIAGED → EVIDENCE REQUESTED → TECHNICAL REVIEW → APPROVED / REJECTED / RETRACT → STAGED → PUBLISHED → VERIFIED → CLOSED. Every transition needs a timestamp, actor, rationale and open-item disposition. A rejected correction request retains its evidence and decision.

23. Public notice design

Use a dated “Correction” or “Update” notice near the affected claim and a persistent change-history section. Explain what changed, why, and what remains uncertain in plain language. For major retractions, display a prominent status on the original page and any linked case-study index.

24. Visibility proportional to impact

Minor spelling corrections need not dominate a page. A materially revised savings percentage, compressor capacity, safety statement or verified-project status should be clearly visible, including to users who arrive from search or shared links.

25. Cross-page propagation

Identify affected category pages, project cards, FAQs, downloadable PDFs, charts, videos, schema, social previews, email collateral and AI-search answer blocks. Maintain a dependency list so the correction does not leave contradictory claims across the site.

26. Structured data correction

Update or remove structured data when the visible content changes. Do not leave old numerical claims, dates, review snippets or invented ratings in JSON-LD. Keep dateModified truthful and aligned with the actual content update.

27. Search and indexing

Keep the canonical URL stable for a corrected project when appropriate. Use a clear update notice and accurate last-modified metadata. For withdrawn claims, choose a lawful, user-respectful removal or retraction approach; do not redirect to unrelated promotional content to conceal the issue.

28. AI-search and GEO integrity

Write concise, unambiguous corrected answers with explicit boundaries, dates, units and citations to records where publication rights permit. Avoid competing answer snippets containing the old claim. Provide machine-readable factual consistency without suggesting that schema alone guarantees AI inclusion.

29. Archive and evidence retention

Retain original and revised copy, raw datasets, calculation workbooks, measurement certificates, review comments, approvals, consent records and published screenshots in controlled storage. Define retention and access by legal, contractual and privacy requirements rather than inventing a universal retention period.

30. Version numbering

Distinguish document authoring version from individual public project versions. Every correction entry references the exact affected version and the version that resolved it.

31. Correction chronology

Capture discovery, initial containment, evidence verification, approval, staging, public release, external propagation and closure. When timestamps are uncertain, mark them estimated or unknown; do not fabricate a neat timeline.

32. Customer notification

Determine whether affected customers, contractors, distributors or other recipients need direct notification. Record recipients and method only with appropriate permissions. A public notice may be insufficient when the erroneous content influenced a specific procurement or safety decision.

33. Analytics and affected reach

Where reliable data exist, assess exposure through page views, downloads or syndication to prioritise correction propagation. Do not claim that every viewer saw the correction or that search indexes immediately refreshed.

34. Multiple simultaneous corrections

Group related corrections under one case ID but maintain separate claim IDs. An updated instrument factor may affect pressure, flow, specific power and annualised savings differently. Recompute each affected conclusion and show its own disposition.

35. Partial evidence recovery

When original logger files are unavailable but summary tables remain, state the limitation and restrict claims accordingly. A plausible reconstruction is not a verified measurement. Preserve unresolved status until source recovery or retest.

36. External OEM information

If a later OEM bulletin changes an operating recommendation, identify model, serial scope, bulletin revision and effective date. Do not assume applicability across all compressors or imply OEM approval without documentation.

37. Corrections versus evolving operating conditions

A compressor can perform as documented during commissioning and later deteriorate due to maintenance or changed demand. A later condition is an update, not necessarily proof the earlier claim was false. Maintain time-specific validity boundaries.

38. Repeated correction pattern

If several errors share a root mechanism—such as wrong flow reference or uncontrolled spreadsheet formulas—record systemic corrective action: template validation, unit checks, peer review and automated cross-link QA. Close only when prevention is tested.

39. Quantitative impact threshold

A change from 12% to 9% measured savings is material if the public case study used 12% for an investment decision. A 0.01-bar rounding correction may be editorial when below uncertainty and not affecting the conclusion. Use decision impact and claim meaning, not a fixed arbitrary percentage.

40. Correction integrity rules

Never silently erase a material correction, backdate approval, fabricate a customer request, overwrite raw evidence, replace a verified case with a hypothetical scenario without relabelling, or remove safety limitations to improve marketing impact.

41. Publication hold gate

42. Editorial tone

Use precise neutral language: “The earlier chart used a compressor-only electrical boundary; the revised chart uses station input.” Avoid evasive language (“updated for clarity”) when a substantive error occurred. State residual uncertainty without exaggerating fault.