Corrections Policy
How we process factual inaccuracies, handle legacy technology changes, and maintain engineering truth across our technical literature.
While we strive for absolute technical accuracy, human error is inevitable, and technology stacks evolve rapidly. This policy governs exactly how AI Dev Planner manages out-of-date data, processes external reports, and issues factual corrections publicly.
1. Reporting Factual Errors
We invite scrutiny from the engineering community. If you encounter a hallucinated performance statistic, a broken implementation pattern, or a materially inaccurate architectural claim across any of our published guides or case studies, please report it immediately.
Contact: Send a detailed email to support@aidevplanner.com. Please include the URL containing the error alongside a brief technical explanation of the discrepancy.
2. Internal Review Procedures
Because all technical content on this platform is authored directly by our engineering leadership, correction requests bypass generic customer service channels.
All reports are routed directly to our Lead Engineer, Obaid Tariq. Upon receipt, the claim is evaluated against the relevant vendor documentation, current stack constraints, and local benchmark reproductions. We aim to process and evaluate all factual discrepancies within three (3) business days of submission.
3. Handling Material Corrections
If an error is deemed material—meaning it alters the core logic, security footprint, or architectural premise of a guide—we do not quietly overwrite history.
- Editorial Notes: We will append an explicit "Correction" or "Update" note at the footer of the affected article. This note will transparently explain what was altered and why.
- Code Logic Refactors: If a code block is proven insecure or deprecated, it will be updated natively, and the amendment will be noted structurally within the document.
- Minor Fixes: For minor typographical errors or formatting adjustments that do not impact engineering truth, we update the file without issuing a formal public notice.
4. Managing Outdated Information
Engineering content decays as software releases iterate.
When a technical guide relies on a stack version that has since been deprecated (e.g., legacy React patterns prior to Server Components), we do not treat this as a factual error, but rather as legacy documentation. In these environments, we handle revisions as follows:
- Timestamps: When a piece of documentation is actively refreshed or comprehensively brought up to modern standards, the "Last Modified" timestamp located at the root of the article will be updated to reflect the new validation date.
- Archival Headers: If a piece of content is maintained strictly for legacy compatibility, we may inject a disclaimer clarifying the specific software versions the guide was benchmarked against, explicitly cautioning against using the logic in modern architectures.