Corrections

Found a discrepancy?

Tell us precisely what's wrong and we will check it. If you're right, we'll fix it and say so in the open.

This is not a formality. Our reference study exists partly because someone caught an annual inflation rate being read as a monthly one — an error that overstated a real problem by more than tenfold. A number that exaggerates a genuine crisis doesn't help the people it describes; it hands ammunition to anyone who wants to dismiss them.

So: the same standard applies to us. Be specific, cite something, and we'll do the work.

Which study

Where in it — section, figure, or table

The more precisely you point, the faster we can check it.

Type of discrepancy

Presentation Sourcing Substantive

Presentation — typo, broken link, unclear wording. Sourcing — citation is wrong, missing, or misread. Substantive — the number, the method, or the conclusion is wrong.

The claim we made

Quote or paraphrase the specific thing you think is wrong.

What's wrong with it

What should it say instead, and why?

Source that supports you — optional, but it moves you to the front of the queue

Your email — optional

Only used to follow up on this correction. If you'd like credit in the corrections log, add your name below.

Name for the log — optional

Received.

Thank you — that's now in the queue. Every correction gets read by the seat responsible for that part of the study.

If it holds up, we'll amend the study and record it in the corrections log with the date and what changed. If it doesn't, and you left an email, we'll tell you why.

← Back to the library

What happens next

The correction goes to the seat that owns that section.
We check it against the underlying data, not against our preference.
If it stands, the study is amended and the change is logged publicly.
If it doesn't, we'll tell you why — assuming you left a way to reply.

What helps most

A source. "This seems too high" is a hunch. "Table 3 of the 2026 EIA release gives 4.1%, not 41%" is a correction.

A locator. Tell us the figure, the section, the sentence.

One issue at a time. Separate submissions are easier to adjudicate than a list.

Corrections log

14 Jul 2026 Presentation

The Uneven Month — masthead label

The study’s masthead kicker reads “Household Economics · Forecast · June 2026.” The word “Forecast” is wrong there. The report contains a probabilistic forecast in the narrow statistical sense — a predictive distribution for the magnitude, reported as two bands — but the study is an exposure-and-incidence analysis with explicitly conditional magnitudes, a distinction the report itself draws and our standing rules treat as non-negotiable (“not a forecast unless labeled one”). Labeling the whole study a forecast in its first line overclaims exactly the way we tell others not to.

Per our post-publication protocol, the study body is preserved as published — the kicker stands uncorrected on the page, and this entry is the correction of record. Any future edition will carry the accurate label: incidence study.

Caught by the site seat during publication integration; reported against ourselves.

14 Jul 2026 Sourcing

The Uneven Month — reproducibility materials

The published raw-draw sample (coupled_mc_sample.csv) was generated from a superseded run (crisis probability 0.15) and showed a 99th-percentile burden of $71.5B/month — disagreeing with the $68.7B carried by the report, the paper, the workbook, and the results file, all of which use the adopted 0.12. The report was never wrong; the sample file was the wrong vintage. The file has been regenerated at the adopted knobs and replaced, and the full 200,000 raw draws are now published alongside it.

Caught in a post-publication sweep by the Economics & Statistics Referee seat, which reported its own error.