Every correction to a page this site has published: dated, permanent, and quoting the original
wording in full. There are 4. Nothing here is silently edited — where a sentence was
wrong, the wrong version stays visible next to the right one.
The home page told readers how many of its eight questions had a page of their own, and the number was one short
The relocation register on the home page, at /#faq — the row a reader following an old citation to the FAQ lands on. It was live: verified against the deployed HTML of bestprobioticformen.com on 13 August 2026 before this entry was written.
What it said
“Six of the eight questions now have a page of their own, and each one keeps the id it was published under here — so /answers/#faq-testosterone still lands on the question it names. The two that do not have a page say why on that hub rather than disappearing.”
What is true
Seven of the eight had pages, and one was declined rather than two. The second declined question on the answers hub — “Do probiotics work?” — never came from that FAQ block at all, so counting it against the eight was double-counting a question the eight never contained. The sentence is no longer written by hand: it is assembled from the three registers that decide it — the approved FAQ array, the live answer register and the merged register — so the figures move when the site does. As of today it reads four with pages of their own, three answered on the evidence page they used to duplicate, and one declined.
Why it happened
A count of a collection, typed as a literal beside the collection it counted. It was true when it was written and nothing recomputed it, so the pages that shipped afterwards moved the number and left the sentence behind. This site has logged that exact shape before — a stale denominator in approved copy, research/verification-record.md#c-2026-026 — and the fix then was the fix now: derive it.
What changed
The note is derived, and the three registers behind it are the same ones the routing itself uses, so there is no arrangement of those files that leaves it false. The three questions whose pages were folded into their evidence spokes on the same day keep their published ids on the answers hub, in a register of their own, because a merged question that moved into the declined list would have dropped three fragments in silence.
Caught by
The duplicate-pair merge of 13 August 2026 (research/intent-pages/06-duplicate-pairs.md §4.4), which flagged the sentence as one that would go false when three answer pages were merged — and, on counting the eight to update it, found it had been wrong before the merge as well.
A third page still listed the site’s named legal entity as something it does not have — one click from the correction that said otherwise
The “Open gaps, published rather than filled in” list on /methodology/, under “Things this site wants and does not have”. It was live, and it survived the correction logged at c-2026-050 the same day.
What it said
“The named legal entity and jurisdiction behind this site.”
What is true
The item is deleted. There is no gap: the responsible party is Roman Sydorenko, autónomo, registered in Spain, and that is published in the footer of every page on this site, on /about/ under “Who runs it”, and on /disclosures/ under “Who is responsible, in law”. Autónomo is Spain’s legal form for a registered self-employed trader — a business form with a registration behind it, not the absence of one.
Why it happened
c-2026-050 fixed the two pages that stated the error in prose and did not sweep for the same claim stated as a list item. The wording here was different enough to miss and identical in what a reader takes from it: rather than denying the entity outright, as the two withdrawn passages quoted in c-2026-050 did, it filed the entity under what this site wants and does not have. A reader ends up believing the same untrue thing either way.
What changed
The three surviving copies of one false claim are now zero. The cost of the miss is worth stating plainly, because it is the reason this entry exists rather than a silent deletion: a reader who found c-2026-050 and then found this list would reasonably conclude the correction had been cosmetic. A correction that leaves its own subject standing one click away is not a correction. The comment left in place of the deleted line names the log entry and the rule, because on this site defects regenerate from documentation.
Caught by
The reading-order pass of 4 August 2026, checking whether anything reordered on /about/, /funding/ and /methodology/ still contradicted what the site had corrected earlier the same day.
We promised on 168 pages never to accept payment, and headed a section of the funding page with a permanent refusal — promises about all future time that no site can keep and this one does not need
COSTLY_CONSTRAINT in lib/site.ts, rendered in the trust block of /about/, /funding/ and all 166 product pages; the section heading and two passages beneath it on /funding/, plus that page’s meta description and the sixth point of its monetisation commitment.
What it said
“We never accept product, samples, early access, review units or payment from any manufacturer or retailer.” (168 pages) · “What is refused, permanently” (heading, /funding/) · “This one is refused permanently rather than disclosed, because disclosure does not fix it.” (/funding/) · “Anything the FTC treats as incurable stays refused. Paid placement, sponsored rankings, brand partnerships, an own-brand product and a seller-paid certification seal are not disclosure problems. They are not on the table at any price.” (/funding/) · “This site makes no money. No affiliate links, no sponsorships, no brand partnerships, no free samples. What pays for it, and what is refused permanently.” (meta description, /funding/)
What is true
What is true today, and what gets disclosed if it changes. This site takes no product, samples, early access, review units or payment from any manufacturer or retailer, and none has ever been accepted; there is no revenue of any kind today; and if any of that changes it is dated in the corrections log before it takes effect, the footer line changes first, and the funding page names who pays, for what, and on which pages. One thing genuinely does not turn on disclosure, and it is now stated as what it is rather than as a vow: selling position in a ranking is deceptive under 16 CFR §255.4(c) whatever it is labelled, so it is a legal boundary rather than an editorial preference. The six-point monetisation commitment is unchanged in substance and is what actually governs everything else.
Why it happened
A present-tense editorial rule was written as a promise about all future revenue. The rule is real and the site keeps it; the tense was wrong, and the wrong tense is the expensive part. A reader has no way to check a claim about all future time, so it buys nothing today, and it converts an ordinary future decision — take a subscription, take referral income — into a broken promise, which makes the honest disclosure of that decision harder rather than easier. The site had already written the correct version of this three screens further down the same page, in six numbered points about what happens if it is ever monetised, and did not notice that the heading above them contradicted it.
What changed
The permanent-refusal wording is gone from the string that renders on 168 pages, from the funding page’s heading, body, meta description and sixth commitment, and from the site description emitted in the structured data of every page. The comment above COSTLY_CONSTRAINT now says in the imperative that a “never” or a “permanently” may not be restored to it. What replaces the promise is the disclosure route, stated in the same sentence: a site that cannot promise never to earn revenue can promise that a reader finds out before it does, and that one is checkable — against this log.
Caught by
The disclosure and tone review of 4 August 2026, which read the funding page top to bottom in one sitting and found a heading refusing money permanently three screens above a six-point commitment describing exactly how money would be disclosed.
Two pages described a registered legal form as the absence of one, and told readers no company stood behind this site
The “Who runs it” section of /about/, and the “Not yet published” list on /funding/. Both were live.
What it said
“There is no company behind this site and none is implied: it is one named individual, under one named legal system, and that is who a correction, a complaint or a dispute goes to.” (/about/) — and, on /funding/, “A registered company. There is none, and this line exists so that absence is stated rather than glossed. The site is operated by Roman Sydorenko, autónomo (self-employed individual), Spain — a named individual under a named legal system, which is who a reader or a brand raises a dispute with.”
What is true
The operator is registered. Autónomo is Spain’s legal form for a registered self-employed trader: a business form, with a tax identity and a registration behind it, not the absence of one. The accurate statement — the one both pages now carry — is that the responsible party is Roman Sydorenko, autónomo, registered in Spain. The /funding/ item is deleted rather than reworded, because a thing that exists does not belong on a list of things this site does not yet have; the legal-form statement is on /disclosures/ under “Who is responsible, in law”, on /about/, and in the footer of every page as LEGAL.short.
Why it happened
The sentence was written to pre-empt a suspicion rather than to state a fact. The suspicion is a real one and the site was right to answer it — that a plausible-looking company name had been invented to look substantial — but it was answered with the wrong fact, by treating “not a limited company” as “no company at all”. Autónomo and sociedad limitada are two legal forms; only one of them was ever on the table here, and the site published the absence of the other as though it were the absence of both.
What changed
Both wordings are withdrawn and the accurate one is stated in three places instead of two. The source comments above LEGAL in lib/site.ts and above the entity paragraph in /about/ now carry the rule in the imperative — never write that there is “no company”, that the operator is unregistered, or that a legal entity is “missing” — because this is a defect that regenerates from documentation: the next editor reads the comment, not the log. The original point the comment was making survives and is worth keeping: inventing a company name that does not exist would be the same class of failure as a “medically reviewed by” line with nobody behind it.
Caught by
The disclosure and tone review of 4 August 2026, which read every self-description on this site against what the owner had actually confirmed on 3 August 2026 — a self-employed trader registered in Spain — and found the site describing that registration as an absence on two pages.
The standard this page holds itself to
A correction quotes the original wording verbatim, then what is actually
true, then the cause, then what changed as a result.
A correction is dated and permanent. Entries are append-only and keep their
anchor forever. If a correction is itself later found to be wrong, a new entry corrects it;
the old one stays.
The page a correction affects links to it. A correction nobody can find from the claim it
fixes is not a correction.
Corrections from anyone — including a brand whose product is audited here — are published on
identical terms, and corrections that weaken this site’s own criticism are published at the
same weight as those that strengthen it.
Absence statements — “zero”, “never”, “no trial exists” — are the most
perishable claims on this site. They are re-run at every verification date, and when one
breaks it is corrected here, not quietly deleted.
How to report an error
The useful message names the page, quotes the sentence, and gives the identifier that
contradicts it — a PMID, a DOI, a trial registration, a label-database record, or a certifier’s
register entry. That is the same standard this site holds itself to, and a correction that
meets it will be published whether or not we agree with the conclusion drawn from it.
Send it to roman@seobro.com. The address
belongs to the operator's consultancy, which is disclosed on the
author page as a relevant interest — routing corrections through it
makes that connection visible rather than hiding it behind a neutral alias. It is monitored;
an unread inbox here would be the same failure as a fabricated one.
What is not in this log
A brand disagreeing with a grade. A grade is an assessment against published
criteria, and the criteria are on the methodology page so the disagreement can be argued in
public. A correction is a factual error: a wrong number, a misquotation, a misattribution, a
record that says something other than what we said it says. Those get fixed here, with a date,
permanently.
This log is short because this site is new, and it is not padded to look otherwise. It grows
when something published here turns out to be wrong.