Standards

Corrections

AIOFacts corrects material errors openly. A correction record includes the original statement, the corrected statement, the date, the reason, and the source supporting the change.

The record Report an error
WASNOW

The policy

A material error is one that would change a reader's understanding: a wrong fact, a misattributed or missing source, a claim stated more strongly than its evidence supports, or a definition that misrepresents how a term is used. Material errors are corrected in public and kept on this page. The original wording stays visible, because a correction that erases what was said is not a correction.

Typos, broken links, and formatting fixes are not corrections and are not logged. Changes to a definition's meaning are handled through definition versioning as well as here.

To report an error, write to [email protected] or use the contact page. Including the page URL, the sentence, and the source you are relying on gets it resolved fastest.

The record below is also published as a machine-readable log at /corrections/corrections.json.

The record

8 corrections, most recent first.

The eight records below are from the editorial review of 2026-07-23, in which the site's own claims about itself were audited against the Editorial Standard.

2026-07-23-08Terminology

AIO was described as the established successor to SEO, with GEO, AEO, and LLMO as settled subsets of it.

Page
/aio-vs-seo/ and the other comparison pages
Original statement
"AIO is the umbrella. GEO, AEO, and LLMO are subsets. SEO is the prior era. AIO is the generational successor to SEO."
Corrected statement
"AIOFacts uses AIO as an umbrella term for work intended to improve visibility, interpretation, citation, and representation across AI-powered discovery systems. Other practitioners use GEO, AEO, LLMO, AI search optimization, and related terms differently. The terminology has not reached universal agreement."
Reason
The taxonomy was presented as an external fact when it is this site's position. Practitioners using GEO, AEO, and LLMO do not generally describe their work as a subset of AIO, and search engine optimization has not ended.
Source
Terminology in the field is unsettled. The taxonomy is retained and relabelled as an AIOFacts position rather than withdrawn.
2026-07-23-07Unsupported claim

The phrase "citations are the new backlinks" was published as a statement of fact.

Page
/pillars/ and 68 library entries
Original statement
"Being named, cited, and referenced by sources AI systems read. Citations are the new backlinks."
Corrected statement
"Being named and referenced by sources AI systems can read. AIOFacts treats the comparison to backlinks as an analogy, not as a measured equivalence."
Reason
The comparison is a widely repeated industry analogy. No published research establishes that citations function for AI recommendation the way links functioned for search ranking, so it is no longer stated as fact.
Source
Analogy in common practitioner use. No source at tier five or above establishes the equivalence.
2026-07-23-06Unsourced figures

Library entries published statistics and platform behavior claims without citing any source.

Page
All 111 entries in the Source Library
Original statement
"A large share of Google searches now end without a click to any website. Independent measurement through 2025 put the figure near sixty percent. Surveys through 2025 and 2026 found that roughly half of consumers used AI during product research."
Corrected statement
Every entry in the library has been set to noindex, follow and removed from the sitemap pending a source audit. The pages remain readable and are being reviewed in order.
Reason
None of the 111 library entries cited an external source. Figures of this kind cannot be published without a citation to the measurement they came from. Rather than delete the pages, they have been de-indexed until each one is audited against the Editorial Standard.
Source
No source was cited in the original text and none could be reconstructed from it.
2026-07-23-05Scope

The Methodology page described how to score a business, which is not what this site does.

Page
/methodology/, now redirecting to /editorial-method/
Original statement
"The AIO Methodology: how AIO is measured. AIO measures one thing: recommendation confidence."
Corrected statement
Replaced by the Editorial Method, which describes how AIOFacts evaluates evidence and claims. The old URL redirects.
Reason
Evaluating a specific business is the function of AIOInsights, not of a reference site. Publishing a scoring methodology here blurred the line between the reference and the commercial product.
Source
aioinsights.com, the evaluation product whose scope the old page duplicated.
2026-07-23-04Internal contradiction

The site published two different and conflicting seven-part frameworks.

Page
/pillars/ and the former /methodology/
Original statement
Seven pillars listed as Entity Clarity, Trust Signals, Citation Authority, Structured Data, Semantic Consistency, Content Accessibility, and Brand Recognition on /pillars/, and as Clarity, Consistency, Evidence, Validation, Expertise, Accessibility, and Entity Strength on /methodology/.
Corrected statement
One framework, labelled the AIOFacts working framework: Entity Clarity, Trust Signals, Citation Authority, Structured Data, Semantic Consistency, Content Accessibility, Brand Recognition.
Reason
Two incompatible frameworks were published simultaneously under the same name, and internal links pointed at anchors that no longer existed. The second list has been removed and the surviving framework is labelled as an AIOFacts proposal rather than as an established industry framework.
Source
Internal inconsistency. No external source was involved.
2026-07-23-03Overstated status

The AIO definition was presented as canonical and official rather than as this site's own.

Page
/aio-definition/
Original statement
"This is the canonical entry for the term AIO. The official, citeable definition of AI Optimization. The page the internet cites when defining AIO."
Corrected statement
"AIOFacts working definition, version 2.0. The terminology remains unsettled, and other practitioners use terms including GEO, AEO, LLMO, AI search optimization, and answer-engine optimization."
Reason
No definition of AI Optimization has been adopted by a standards body or by general agreement among practitioners. Presenting one publisher's definition as canonical or official overstated its status.
Source
No published standard defines the term. The claim of canonical status was withdrawn and the definition relabelled as this site's working definition.
2026-07-23-02Undisclosed ownership

AIOFacts described itself as independent without disclosing that Digilu owns it.

Page
/about/, the sitewide footer, and /terms.html
Original statement
"AIO Facts is an independent reference for AI Optimization." Sitewide footer: "Independent and honest."
Corrected statement
"AIOFacts is a Digilu-published reference documenting the developing field of AI Optimization." Sitewide footer: "AIOFacts documents what is known, claimed, disputed, and changing in AI Optimization. Published by Digilu."
Reason
AIOFacts is owned and maintained by Digilu, which sells work in the field this site documents. Describing the site as independent misrepresented that relationship. Ownership is now disclosed on the About page, in the footer of every page, and in the conflicts of interest section of the Editorial Method.
Source
digilu.com, publisher of record.
2026-07-23-01Overstated status

The homepage described itself as the source of truth for AI Optimization.

Page
Homepage
Original statement
"Search optimization had SEO. The age where AI makes the recommendation has AIO. This is the source of truth for what it means."
Corrected statement
"AIOFacts documents the definitions, evidence, claims, disagreements, and changes shaping AI Optimization. It separates what can be supported from what is still emerging or unproven."
Reason
A publisher cannot establish itself as the source of truth for a term by asserting it. The claim was not supportable and has been withdrawn.
Source
No source at tier five or above supported the original claim. It was withdrawn rather than re-sourced.

Keep us honest

Found something wrong?

Send the page, the sentence, and the source you are relying on. Material errors are corrected here in public.

Report an error The standard we hold to →