A status tracker is only worth reading if you can trust it. That does not mean never being wrong. It means being visibly, datedly wrong, and correcting in a way a reader can audit. This site made three corrections in the first week of September, and this is how they happened.
The rule
Every claim on this site carries a source and a grade. When a better source arrives, the claim changes. When it changes, the old value stays visible, struck through, with a date. We do not silently rewrite, because a reader who saw a number last week needs to know it moved and why. The Forever verification hit list is the public record of this: it is a running document of what we thought, when, and what resolved it.
Three examples
The XP retraction (Sep 22). Wowhead published a table claiming Forever reduces XP requirements. Blizzard clarified that the required values match Classic, and Wowhead withdrew the claim. Our news post records the retraction and keeps the important caveat: matching required values do not establish identical leveling time, because quest weighting and mob density move the clock independently. The retracted table is not deleted. It is marked as retracted material.
The Krol'dok level range (Sep 14). A dungeon bracket first read as 40-55, then 35-40, then corrected by Blizzard to 40-45. The hub shows 40-45, and a footnote explains that one fan reference still carries the stale 40-55 because it predates the correction. That footnote is the point. A reader who lands on the hub and then follows a source link finds a different number, and the hub has already told them why.
The Skyborne names (Sep 22). For weeks the hub carried "Windshaper" and "High Order" as fan transcriptions of pre-release footage, explicitly labeled unofficial. When Blizzard published its own race article, the names became official with a first-party citation, and the hub was updated to say so. This one ran in the opposite direction from the others: a provisional label became a confirmed fact, and the change was recorded in the hit list as a resolution rather than a correction.
Why strike-through and not deletion
A tracker that quietly fixes its errors looks the same as a tracker that never had errors. The second is a better story but a worse product, because a reader cannot tell the difference between "we were right" and "we were wrong and hid it." Leaving the old claim visible costs a little visual mess and buys something bigger: a reader can check our work. Every correction on this site is dated, sourced, and linked to whatever superseded it.
What this costs and what it buys
It costs verbosity. The Forever hub is longer than it would be if we printed only the latest value for everything. It buys the thing a status tracker's entire value proposition rests on: a reader who finds an error knows exactly where to look for the correction, and knows the next one will be filed the same way.
If you find something wrong on this site, the contact page joke notwithstanding, the fastest path to a fix is the same one we use: find a better source, grade it, and change the claim with the old value still in view. We would rather be caught correcting than caught being confidently wrong.
SOURCES: internal correction record, Forever verification hit list; Krol'dok clarification; XP retraction; official racials resolution.