WigLab Corrections & Source-Update Policy
Updated: Aug 29
Direct answer
WigLab corrects information at the level where the evidence changed. The source record is updated first, then the canonical guides that depend on that record are reviewed. A correction is not a reason to silently rewrite unrelated material, erase useful disagreement history, or assign a fresh verification date to claims that were not actually rechecked.
What can trigger a correction
Triggers include: a manufacturer materially changing current care instructions; a source URL moving or becoming unavailable; a statement being attributed to the wrong brand, fiber, model, construction, product system, or audience; a WigLab sentence overstating what its source supports; a medical claim crossing beyond patient-education evidence; a duplicate guide creating competing answers; or a routing/accessibility problem causing readers to reach the wrong guidance.
Correction level 1: wording or scope
If the underlying evidence is still valid but the WigLab wording is too broad, the fix is to narrow the statement to the source’s actual scope. Example: a manufacturer-specific wash method should be labeled as that manufacturer’s method rather than rewritten as “the correct way to wash synthetic wigs.” The evidence record remains active, but dependent wording is reviewed.
Correction level 2: source update
If a primary source changes its instruction, WigLab records the new source state, marks the old record superseded when appropriate, and reviews the pages that rely on that claim. The new verification date belongs to the newly checked record only. A source update for washing does not automatically re-verify that brand’s heat, construction, or lifespan guidance.
Correction level 3: material factual error
If WigLab published an incorrect attribution, unsupported technical statement, invented certainty, or materially misleading medical/product claim, the affected guidance should be corrected promptly and its dependent routes reviewed. The goal is not to preserve pride in an old draft; it is to restore an accurate answer and make the evidence state clear.
How dependent pages are found
The Evidence Ledger connects a material claim to the canonical guides that use it. When a source changes, review starts with that dependency set: direct comparison pages, decision guides that rely on the instruction, hubs that summarize it, and any professional or medical-boundary page that repeats the claim. This is why source records need scope and connected-page fields instead of living as loose links in article footers.
How disagreement history is handled
When two current credible sources disagree, the current conflict remains visible. If one source later changes and the disagreement disappears, current guidance is updated. Older conflict context may still be retained when it explains instructions that readers continue to encounter in old retailer pages, saved screenshots, packaging, or search results. Historical context must be labeled historical; it cannot masquerade as current guidance.
When a source disappears
A broken or removed source does not automatically make the old claim false, but it does change the verification state. WigLab should attempt to locate the manufacturer’s current replacement instruction or another primary record. Until current scope can be verified, the record is marked source unavailable or verification pending as appropriate. The old verification date is not recycled as a new one.
Duplicate and canonical corrections
If two deep guides compete for the same user intent, WigLab consolidates toward one canonical answer. Unique decision value is preserved; repeated generic material is not kept merely to protect page count. A short hub may remain when its purpose is routing rather than answering the full question.
Medical and safety corrections
Medical/patient authority and manufacturer wig-care authority remain separate during corrections. A change in a wig manufacturer’s technical instructions does not create a medical conclusion. A patient-education update does not automatically change a fiber or heat rule. Unsupported terms such as hypoallergenic, clinically proven, treatment-safe, chemo-friendly, or sensitive-scalp superior are removed unless evidence specific to the claim supports them.
Product and commerce corrections
A future WigLab product claim is corrected independently from the educational diagnosis. If a cleanser or leave-in use case changes, the product bridge and product instructions must change; the noncommercial explanation of buildup, friction, heat damage, or another condition should not be distorted to preserve a sale. WigLab does not claim original testing until real testing has actually occurred and been recorded.
What a correction will never fake
No invented URL. No invented verification date. No fabricated manufacturer quote. No reconstructed study finding. No fake expert review. No retroactive “WigLab testing.” No claim that an inaccessible source was rechecked when it was not. A visible pending state is preferable to false completion.
Current policy example
The current Jon Renau / HairUWear wash-method disagreement is stored as two separate manufacturer records rather than one averaged rule. Jon Renau Fiber Love Shampoo: https://jonrenau.com/new-jon-renau-wig-shampoo-8-5-oz. HairUWear Raquel Welch Colors & Care: https://www.hairuwear.com/raquel-welch/colors-and-care/. Both exact records were verified August 14, 2026. If either manufacturer changes its page, only the affected record and dependent guidance receive a new verification after re-checking.
Related authority pages
Use Editorial Standards & Methodology for how claims enter the system, Source Library & Evidence Ledger for how claims are traced, Source Map for the current landscape, and Manufacturer Says vs. WigLab Guidance for how source boundaries appear in reader-facing pages.
