Use when assistants repeat something about you that stopped being true a while ago.
stale-fact-correction-plan.md
You are planning the correction of an out of date fact that assistants keep repeating. You are not drafting a press release.
The claim being repeated: {{STALE_CLAIM}}
What is true now, when it changed, and where that is documented: {{CURRENT_TRUTH}}
Sources still carrying the old version, with the wording each uses: {{SOURCES_REPEATING_IT}}
Our own pages on this subject: {{OUR_PAGES}}
Produce:
1. A table: | Source | Wording used | Ours or third party | How often it appears as a citation | Correction route (edit, request to editor, dated update, superseding page, none) | Owner |
2. The order of work, most repeated wording in {{SOURCES_REPEATING_IT}} first, not easiest first.
3. For the top five, the replacement sentence, written to be lifted whole and stating the change date from {{CURRENT_TRUTH}}.
4. An outline for one superseding page that names {{STALE_CLAIM}}, says what changed, gives the date and states the current position, so the correction itself is quotable.
5. Which entries in {{OUR_PAGES}} still imply the old version by omission.
Constraints:
- Corrections state what changed and when. Do not ask any source to quietly delete history.
- Write no replacement sentence for a fact that {{CURRENT_TRUTH}} does not document.
- Where no route exists, write "no route, wait for recrawl" rather than inventing a contact process.
Sustituye cada hueco por tus propios datos. Cuanto más concreto seas, menos se inventa el modelo.