Which part of the story needs a correction?
Correct a material error. For an unwelcome opinion, decide what new fact a response would add.
The question
At 09:15, six of Meridian’s 40 sites are affected, 22 are working and 12 are unchecked. A news story says all 40 sites are down and calls the response chaotic. The CEO wants both statements removed.
| Reason | posts | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reposts of one original claim | 60 | |
| Comments without a personal experience | 45 | |
| First-hand reports not yet verified | 15 | |
| Total | 120 |
These are posts, not unique people, confirmed incidents or audience reach.
“Choose the correction request and explain what would justify another public response.”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Correct the material fact
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Send the evidence for a precise scope correction.
The strong move. The checked working sites contradict the claim about all 40.
Deny that any service is affected.
Tempting, but it misses something. Six sites have confirmed disruption.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Ask the publisher to correct the all-sites claim. Provide the checked counts and acknowledge the six affected sites; keep the 12 unchecked sites visible.”
Why it works: The checked working sites contradict the claim about all 40.
Step 2: Read the monitoring unit
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Add 120 new incidents to the outage count.
Tempting, but it misses something. The record measures posts and includes repetition.
Separate post volume from verified impact.
The strong move. Repeated posts do not establish independent failures.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Half of the 120 posts are reposts. The 15 first-hand reports are 12.5% of posts, not a confirmed customer incident rate.”
Why it works: Repeated posts do not establish independent failures.
Step 3: Separate fact from opinion
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Keep the request focused on the false scope claim.
The strong move. A factual correction and a disagreement with tone require different evidence.
Demand a factual correction to every critical adjective.
Tempting, but it misses something. Dislike alone does not show that the description is false.
See how a strong candidate says it
“The negative description is not disproved merely because the CEO dislikes it. Explain what a second response would add to the record.”
Why it works: A factual correction and a disagreement with tone require different evidence.
Step 4: Set a trigger after the correction
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Stay silent regardless of new confirmed harm.
Tempting, but it misses something. The earlier correction does not settle future facts.
Name the next evidence check and response trigger.
The strong move. A weak news signal does not always need amplification; established harm still needs a response.
See how a strong candidate says it
“The publisher fixes the scope but keeps the criticism. Keep monitoring. Respond again if verified impact or a material new claim needs an answer.”
Why it works: A weak news signal does not always need amplification; established harm still needs a response.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Correct the false scope claim, acknowledge real impact and monitor for new facts.
- Because
- A useful response adds evidence rather than repeating the dispute.
- What would change it
- New verified harm or a material new error would warrant a fresh decision.
The scope is corrected but the critical description remains. What would make you respond again?
Common traps
- Counting posts as incidents.
- Using “do nothing” to ignore confirmed harm.
Check your answer
- I corrected the material fact.
- I named the monitoring unit.
- I separated opinion from error.
- I set a response trigger.
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026