Corrections are part of the record.
AirIndex does not silently rewrite material analytical history. When evidence changes a facility record, identifier, score, methodology statement, or publication, the correction is reviewed and the resulting change is preserved next to what came before it.
Send the AirIndex URL or AIX-ID, the statement or field being challenged, and the best available primary source to hello@airindex.io.
A commercial relationship is never required to submit a correction or appeal.
1. What this policy covers
- Facility facts, locations, dimensions, attributes, and confidence or risk classifications.
- AIX identifiers, entity mappings, and linked-source records.
- Market scores, factor determinations, tier placements, and published score movement.
- Methodology language, research findings, charts, and editorial analysis.
2. Review standard
AirIndex evaluates challenges against the strongest available evidence. Primary government records, filed documents, facility-owner records, and directly verifiable observations generally carry more weight than secondary reporting or unsupported assertions. Conflicting sources remain visible when the conflict itself is material.
The person or organization submitting a challenge may provide context and sources, but does not control the disposition, wording, score effect, or publication timing.
3. How changes are recorded
- Material data or score change: append a dated corrective record, retain the prior state, cite the supporting source, and recalculate affected outputs under the applicable methodology version.
- Published analysis: add a visible correction or editor's note when the change affects meaning, interpretation, or a reported figure.
- Minor presentation error: typographical, formatting, or broken-link fixes that do not change meaning may be corrected in place.
- No change: retain the challenge and disposition internally when the cited evidence does not support a correction.
4. Appeals and reconsideration
A submitter may request one reconsideration by identifying overlooked evidence, a methodological inconsistency, or a material error in the disposition. Where practicable, the reconsideration is reviewed by someone other than the person responsible for the original analytical decision. Repetition without new evidence does not reopen a closed review.
5. Independence and conflicts
Customers, partners, issuers, facility owners, operators, and other interested parties are assessed under the same published methods. Payment, sponsorship, partnership status, or threatened withdrawal of business cannot purchase a score, suppress a correction, or alter an analytical conclusion. See the Analytical Independence Policy →
6. Policy changes
Material revisions to this policy will carry a new effective date. Changes to a scoring or classification methodology follow that methodology's own version history and audit process.