We want The Planet Brief to be useful, accurate and clear. This page explains how to request a correction.
Last updated: May 2026
How to report an issue
If you spot a factual error, outdated source, broken link, unclear explanation or missing context, email hello@theplanetbrief.com with the article URL and a short description of the issue.
What we correct
We correct material factual errors, misleading wording, broken source links, outdated regulatory references and mistakes that could reasonably affect a reader's understanding of the topic.
This can include incorrect dates, inaccurate policy descriptions, mislabelled carbon standards, broken product links, stale price references, unclear financial-risk wording, and missing context that changes the meaning of a claim.
How updates are handled
Small fixes such as spelling, grammar or formatting may be corrected silently. Material corrections or meaningful article updates may be noted in the article where appropriate.
Where a topic changes over time, such as carbon credit eligibility, sustainability reporting thresholds, energy prices or financial product rules, we may update an article to reflect the newer position. Updates are not always errors. When the change is substantial, the article should make the timing clear.
Right of reply
If an article discusses a company, scheme, standard or product and you believe important context is missing, contact us. We do not guarantee publication of every response, but we will consider relevant evidence and corrections in good faith.
Evidence
Correction requests are easier to review when they include a source, document, screenshot, official notice or clear explanation of the issue. If the point concerns legal, regulatory, scientific or financial information, please include the publication date of the source where possible.
Review process
We review correction requests against the article text, the sources cited in the article, and any new evidence provided. If the issue is straightforward, such as a broken link or incorrect date, it may be fixed quickly. If the issue involves interpretation, market context or a disputed claim, we may need to check primary documents or compare multiple sources before updating the article.
Some requests may lead to a clarification rather than a replacement sentence. For example, a regulatory threshold, carbon market rule or financial product claim may be technically correct but need better timing, jurisdiction or risk context. In those cases, the goal is to make the article clearer for readers rather than simply change wording.
What is outside the correction process
We do not remove accurate criticism, rewrite articles to match marketing language, or alter editorial conclusions only because a company, product or scheme disagrees with them. Evidence-led corrections are welcome. Promotional rewrites, unsupported claims and requests that would make an article less clear are not.