Corrections

Corrections Log

A publication that writes about opacity should be obvious about its own errors. Each entry below shows the original text, the correction, and the reason — on the public record, with the original date and the date of the correction.

Our policy in one paragraph

When we publish an error of fact, we correct it in public. The original text remains intact, marked [CORRECTED →]. The correction follows with the date and the editorial team's note. The piece's modified date is updated; the published date is not. The full process appears under §10 of the Editorial Guidelines.

3 entries · reverse-chronological.

Regulation Watch: What's Coming for Opaque AI

2026-05-18

Filed: /articles/06-regulation-watch-whats-coming-for-opaque-ai/

Reason: Editorial estimate published as if it were a regulatory citation. Standing rule §4 violation.

Original text

An earlier version of this piece referred to the EU AI Act's high-risk transparency provisions as taking effect in August 2026.

Correction

The relevant provisions take effect on the implementation date set in the published commencement notice; we have replaced the August 2026 reference with a link to the implementation register and a note that the date in the prior draft was the publication's own working estimate.

Reason

Editorial estimate published as if it were a regulatory citation. Standing rule §4 violation.

Ten Operators Building Auditable AI Systems

2026-05-09

Filed: /articles/03-ten-operators-building-auditable-ai-systems/

Reason: Implicit ranking that the publication had not actually argued for. Editorial framing correction; the entries themselves are unchanged.

Original text

An earlier version of the list ordered the publication's operator entries by the number of public audit reports each operator has published.

Correction

The ordering has been changed to chronological by the operator's first public audit publication, with the prior ordering described in a footnote. The original ordering implied a ranking the publication did not intend.

Reason

Implicit ranking that the publication had not actually argued for. Editorial framing correction; the entries themselves are unchanged.

The Interpretability Stack: A Practitioner's Toolkit

2026-04-30

Filed: /articles/04-the-interpretability-stack-a-practitioners-toolkit/

Reason: Use of a technical term ('open source') in a way that does not meet the term's standing definition. Style guide §4 violation.

Original text

An earlier version of the toolkit included a tool we described as 'open source.'

Correction

The tool in question is source-available under a non-commercial license. We have replaced 'open source' with 'source-available' and added a footnote describing the license. The substantive recommendation is unchanged.

Reason

Use of a technical term ('open source') in a way that does not meet the term's standing definition. Style guide §4 violation.

How to file a correction

Errors of fact go to corrections at blackboxnotes dot com. Quote the offending sentence, link to the source that contradicts it, and give us a contact we can verify you at. Response window: five business days.

Errors of framing are not corrections — they are letters to the editor. We publish substantive ones under a separate Letters column at the end of an issue.