Publication dates, substantive updates, and human reviews describe different events. A new date is not proof of expert review.
Use the correction email link on the relevant guide. Include its URL, the exact statement, the proposed correction, and a primary source. Do not attach credit reports, passwords, account identifiers, or private financial documents.
The publisher must check the statement against the evidence, revise supported factual errors, and describe material changes in the article's update record. A report is not marked resolved simply because it was received. These update records describe edits already made; they do not imply every claim has been professionally reviewed.
A real reviewer should read the full current guide, open its cited primary sources, independently reproduce its numerical examples, check its worksheet and checklist, identify misleading statements, and resolve problems before a completed review is recorded. Reviewer names, roles, dates, and scope are shown only when the publisher records that work. No professional credential or independent review is invented.
The Admin Console records a review against the exact article content. Changing the article or its sources invalidates the active review status until that version is reviewed again. A publisher can withdraw a record. Automated checks do not create a human review.