What counts as a correction
A correction can involve arithmetic, validation, field labels, calculator-to-page mismatch, stale or mis-scoped rules, broken first-party links, inaccurate wording, metadata, internal links, keyboard or screen-reader access, responsive layout, or a worked example that does not reconcile.
A preference for different wording is not automatically a factual correction, but unclear language should be revised when it can cause a student to choose the wrong input, scope, or action.
Evidence needed for review
A calculator report should provide the canonical route, non-sensitive reproducible inputs, expected result, actual result, and the date and browser context observed. A rule report should identify the first-party document, exact section, effective date, and applicable programme, cohort, examination session, or recruitment notice.
Reports should omit names, roll numbers, application numbers, complete marksheets, identity documents, credentials, and other private student data. Redacted sample values are normally sufficient.
Assessment and correction steps
A responsible review reproduces the issue, separates code defects from input or rule-scope errors, identifies every affected route, compares first-party evidence where required, updates the engine or content, and reruns focused and release-level checks.
- Correct unsafe calculations and misleading rule claims before cosmetic defects.
- Update the affected rule version and review date after a material change.
- Retest linked examples and related pages, not only the originally reported route.
- Do not silently replace unresolved evidence with a guessed rule.
Current publication and reporting limits
The current pages expose a rule version and review date but do not provide a complete public revision history, incident archive, or per-change reviewer identity. The project also does not yet publish a verified contact form or email address, so this workflow is not currently actionable through the site.
No acknowledgement or correction timeframe is promised. A future reporting channel should define receipt, triage, status, privacy, and material-change disclosure before the site claims a complete correction service.
Frequently asked questions
What evidence is most useful for a calculator correction?
Provide the exact route, redacted sample inputs, expected and actual results, date observed, and enough browser context to reproduce the issue.
Can I report a correction through Acadnix now?
The current release has no verified public email or contact form. Keep non-sensitive evidence for when an official channel is published, and do not send records to unofficial accounts.
Does Acadnix publish a complete change history?
Not currently. Pages expose a rule version and review date, but no public per-change history or named reviewer record is available yet.