Send the page URL, disputed field and the strongest primary source you have.
Submit a correction →Review and participation
Help make the
record stronger.
You do not need to endorse the initiative to identify a missing source, challenge an interpretation or review one defined piece of work.
LOW-FRICTION PATHS
One useful action
at a time
Choose one dataset, grouping rule or evidence brief. We display the exact review scope if you permit attribution.
Offer a review →Point us to a government record, official dataset or research publication that should change or expand the index.
Share a source →Support the public-evidence standard without endorsing every project page or policy position.
Discuss signing →WHAT WE PROMISE
A defined ask,
not a reputational blank check
Before publishing a name, we provide the exact wording, role, page and affiliation that would appear. Silence is never treated as consent.
A reviewer can correct a method without supporting an advocacy position. A signatory supports the Public Evidence Principles, not every record or future publication. Institutional logos require separate authorization.
If a material conflict exists, it should be disclosed with the contribution rather than hidden behind a title.
WHO CAN ADD VALUE
Academics and analysts
Air quality, public health, energy systems, water, computing infrastructure, law and regulatory policy.
Regulators and practitioners
Current or former permitting staff, engineers, lawyers and technical consultants who can clarify process and terminology.
Developers and utilities
Factual corrections and primary records are welcome; contributions and commercial interests will be labeled.
Journalists and stakeholders
Questions that reveal missing context, difficult agency navigation or records that deserve indexing.
Public review contact
Start a review conversation →[email protected]
For editorial materials and fact-checking: [email protected]. Error reports and correction requests: [email protected]. Technical messages: [email protected].