Independent analysis · Unofficial

Corrections and review

Challenge the record, with a source.

Choose the path that matches what you found. Both forms create a public GitHub issue so the evidence, discussion, and resolution remain inspectable.

Correction 01

Choose the kind of contribution.

Source-backed correction

Correct content or data

Use this when a source transcription, public-evidence record, context-watchlist item, analytical claim, relationship, research finding, or export should change.

  • Identify the record or page.
  • Quote the current and proposed content.
  • Provide a public source and exact locator.

Suggest a correction

Observed review finding

Share review feedback

Use this when navigation, wording, accessibility, a research boundary, or a data-reuse flow was unclear but you do not yet have a complete correction packet.

  • Name the page and task.
  • Describe what happened without a general rating.
  • Propose the smallest change that would have helped.

Share review feedback

Correction 02

Keep public issues safe and reviewable.

Before you submit

Do not include private agency records, passenger-level data, personal information, credentials, or security details. Use the repository security policy for a vulnerability report.

Source, evidence, watchlist, and analytical changes remain separate even when one correction affects more than one layer. A submitted issue is a review request—not proof that the current Atlas is wrong or that the proposed replacement is accepted.

Correction 03

What happens next.

  1. The report is classified as source, evidence, watchlist, analysis, relationship, research, or interface feedback.
  2. The cited public source and locator are checked against the current record.
  3. Accepted changes are tested, recorded in the changelog, and released through the normal review path.