Editorial transparency
Corrections and source challenges
Every product claim can be challenged. A useful correction identifies the exact page and passage, a current primary source, and the requested change.
This is an editorial guide. It is not official Open Mercato documentation, a software vendor or implementation agency, or an independent audit or certification service.
What to include
- The full page URL and the exact passage being challenged.
- A primary-source link: code, documentation, license, release record, or official public document.
- The date on which the source was checked and a short explanation of the discrepancy.
- The proposed correction and whether it concerns a product fact, editorial assessment, or deployment-specific conclusion.
Public submission path
A public correction channel for this guide is not currently configured. This page documents the information needed for a useful correction but does not provide an actionable submission link.
Do not include confidential information, personal data, keys, tokens, or undisclosed security details. Product defects should follow the official product repository’s reporting policy; that repository does not contain this guide.
How corrections are assessed
Current code, licenses, and dated primary records take priority. Documentation can drift, so a discrepancy between documentation and code must be disclosed explicitly.
A material factual change should update the page review date. Editorial judgments and deployment conclusions must remain clearly separated from product facts.