The corrections, on a page, rather than in a quiet edit.
This build has been wrong about several things and will be wrong about more. A site that argues for honest failure and then fixes its own mistakes silently has not understood its own argument.
What has been corrected so far.
A drinks company was described under a name it had changed
A company on this estate changed its registered name, and an earlier draft carried the old one for weeks. Corrected, and the episode became a journal piece about how easy it is to hide a company by renaming it.
Described as in stock when four of the five were not
Four of the five named-beast plush toys are persistently unavailable. An early draft of the shop pages listed all five without qualification, which is exactly the sort of small dishonesty that this site is supposed to be against.
Given as 140 when the more recent figure was 146
A reported figure carried forward after a newer one existed. It is the single most common way a number on a website becomes wrong, and it happened here.
Described as a marketing promise before it was a planning condition
The sixteen-mile limit is a West Oxfordshire District Council planning condition attached to an enforcement appeal, not a brand decision. An early draft got that the wrong way round, which reversed the whole meaning of it.
Stated as forty-one before the fortieth had aired
A counting error, in the one system on this site that exists to count things properly.
Implied a two-sided marketplace where only one side is published
Over 1,300 farms is a supply figure. No demand-side number has been published at all, and an early draft wrote about the platform as though both halves were known.
Why this page exists rather than a changelog.
Because a changelog is a place mistakes go to be technically disclosed. Nobody reads one, which is precisely why they are popular.
The argument this whole estate makes is that an honest recall builds more trust than a flawless record, because a flawless record is not believable. A batch of cider on this farm was recalled with a statement beginning "we completely cocked up" and sales went up afterwards. Applying that to a website means the corrections get a page with a name on it.
It is also useful. Four of the six above are the same failure — a figure carried forward after a newer one existed — and seeing them next to each other is what produced the rule against it on the sourcing page.
The pattern, in the six.
| Failure mode | How many | The fix |
|---|---|---|
| A figure carried forward after a newer one existed | Three | A dated source on every number, and a rule against carrying |
| A constraint described as a choice | One | Name the instrument — a planning condition, not a promise |
| A counting error | One | The chapter ledger, with a named editor and nothing auto-published |
| Writing about half a system as though it were whole | One | Say which half is published and which is not |
The most instructive of the six is the sourcing radius, because getting it the wrong way round inverted the meaning entirely. A shop that chooses to buy within sixteen miles is making a promise. A shop that is required to is operating under an enforcement notice. Those are completely different stories and only one of them is true.
If something here is wrong, it will be corrected on the page
Not quietly, and not in a footnote. Bothering Us goes to a person, and a correction that matters ends up on this page with a date against it.
Corrections, questioned.
Typographical fixes, yes. Anything that changes what a page means or what a number says goes on this page.
If a reasonable reader would have believed something different before the change than after it, it belongs here.
A site that has never been wrong about anything is a site nobody believes. This estate has spent five years demonstrating that, commercially, in public.
The register of ideas behind all of this.
Where each numbered idea from the audit ended up, and which ones were rejected.
