Corrections log

Every published-or-publishable claim later found wrong gets an entry: what we said, what was true, how the error entered, how it was caught, and what changed. Entries are dated and append-only — never deleted; this log is part of the trust architecture. To report an error, use the submission form.

#1 — Nebraska LB867 scope claim — RETRACTED (pre-launch)

2026-07-16

Claimed	ne.json (batch 3, secondary-sourced): LB867 (2026, operative ~July 18) extends background-checks-at-renewal to body-art licensees.
True	Slip-law read (nebraskalegislature.gov): LB867’s amended §38-131 enumerates only specific health professions; the bill touches no §38-10xx (Body Art Practice Act) section. Body art is NOT included.
How it entered	A committee-summary / secondary characterization was accepted for an operative-scope claim without reading the enacted enumeration.
Caught by	An owner-ordered, time-boxed primary-text check before batch 4.
Fix	ne.json corrected the same session (v1.7 corrected) and pushed immediately.
Lesson (standing)	Operative-scope claims are read against enacted enumerated text, never committee summaries.

#2 — Missouri microblading characterization — CORRECTED (attorney-review catch, pre-launch)

2026-07-17

Claimed	mo.json (through the v1.4 cohort): that the Office of Tattooing “has not been given specific statutory authority to regulate this practice,” and that microblading-as-practice “is not subject to the statutes and regulations enforceable through this Office.”
True	SB 70 (merged with SB 157, eff. 2023-08-28) amended §324.520.1(5)(a) to cover marks made “with the aid of needles or blades using hand-held or machine-powered instruments,” plus (5)(b) cosmetic-purposes marks — microblading-class work is squarely licensed. The current pr.mo.gov page is headed “Microblading Licensure Law” and requires practitioner + establishment licenses. The quoted disclaimer language appears nowhere on the current page.
How it entered	Probable roots: a stale pre-SB70 page version; the office’s routine no-legal-determinations disclaimer misread as an authority disclaimer; and/or conflation with 20 CSR 2267-2.010(2)(c), which excludes microblading/powder-brows/machine-brows only from the apprenticeship procedure count — a training-pathway technicality, not a practice exclusion.
Caught by	The owner’s attorney review (B10 legal markup, 2026-07-17) — the entry’s agency-statement claim contradicted the SB 70 statute cited in the same entry.
Fix	mo.json v1.13 — corrected coverage note with both sources quoted verbatim; the apprenticeship nuance preserved as a training note; consumer notes rewritten; the “current gap” watch line retired.
Lesson (standing)	Intra-entry contradiction check: every agency-statement claim is tested against the statutes/rules cited in the same entry before publishing; tension triggers an “unresolved” label and a mandatory primary re-fetch. Facts resolve before wording does.