1. Correction requests should stay easy to send
That is why the more sensitive pages now carry a visible “Report a correction” path. Readers should not have to hunt for a hidden route just to flag a problem.
Updated
IRCC data verified through June 1, 2026, including the latest French-Language proficiency round #418. No newer IRCC round had been published by that review date.
Corrections policy
How a flagged mistake becomes a visible correction
The site prefers a simple path: return to the official source, verify the flagged detail, correct the affected page, and reduce how long wrong information stays live.
Intake
Direct contact or correction link
Standard
Return to the official source
Expected outcome
A readable, honest correction
2. A credible correction starts by going back to the source
When a detail is flagged, the first job is not to patch the page in a rush. The first job is to return to the official text, table, PDF, or authority page and verify what is actually wrong, ambiguous, or outdated.
3. The site should correct faster than it defends itself
If a page is clearly wrong, the right behavior is not to protect the old wording. The right behavior is to correct it, clarify it if needed, and reflect the new review honestly.
4. Not every request leads to a page change
Some messages will be editorial disagreement, profile-specific edge cases, or questions about routes that still depend on individual facts. In those cases, the site may answer or clarify without changing the page if the current wording still holds up.
5. The goal is not theatrical perfection. It is shorter exposure to bad information.
On a YMYL site, the useful standard is simple: reduce how long a misleading detail stays live, especially on draw pages, route pages, study guides, work guides, and comparison surfaces.