What counts as a correction?
Three things get confused with each other on pages like this, and keeping them apart is what makes a log worth reading. Only the first two belong here.
Correction
We published something factually wrong: a ratio, a fee, an expiry rule, a partner that does not exist, an offer term that was never the term. Anything a reader could have acted on and been worse off for.
What we doA dated correction notice is added to the page itself and stays there permanently. The original claim is quoted in the notice — we do not simply overwrite it — and the entry is added to the log below.
ClockAcknowledged within one business day; corrected within two of confirmation.
Clarification
Everything we published was true, and a reasonable reader could still have come away with the wrong impression — usually because a condition on a benefit was left out, or a claim was stated more broadly than the evidence supported.
What we doThe passage is rewritten and a clarification note is added to the page. It goes in the log below, marked as a clarification rather than a correction, because conflating the two makes the log less useful, not more honest.
ClockWithin five business days.
Update
The world changed after we published. An issuer raised a fee, a program dropped a partner, a chart was rewritten. We were right when we wrote it and the page is now out of date.
What we doThe page is updated and its modified date changes. This is not a correction and it does not go in the log — putting routine updates in a corrections log is how a log gets padded until nobody reads it. Material changes are noted in the relevant changelog instead.
ClockOn the review cadence, or within five business days of a change we are notified of.
How we correct an error
- We confirm it against a source document. Not against a competitor, not against a screenshot, and not on the strength of the report alone — against the issuer’s or the program’s own published terms. A report we cannot reproduce is recorded as unconfirmed and said so publicly, rather than dropped.
- We fix the underlying record, not the sentence. Because no card or program figure exists in prose anywhere on this site, a wrong number is wrong in exactly one place. One edit corrects every page that mentions it in the same build, which is why a correction here cannot leave a stale copy somewhere we forgot to look.
- We annotate the page. A dated correction notice is added, quoting the original claim. It stays permanently. A reader who arrives from a search result showing the old text needs to be able to see what happened.
- We log it here, with what we said, what is true, who found it, and what changed in our process so it does not recur.
- We change the process. This is the step that matters. Every entry below ends with a mechanism — a typed field, an automated diff, a rule about what may be published — and not with a promise to be more careful.
The correction log
Every correction and clarification we have issued, newest first. Entries are never removed, and the original claim stays quoted in each one — a log that only shows the corrected version is a marketing page.
- What we published
- Our partner table listed an airline partner as an available transfer destination for eleven days after the program had removed it.
- What is correct
- The partner had been withdrawn with no announcement. Points could not be transferred there during the period our table said they could.
- How it was found
- A reader, who tried the transfer, could not complete it, and emailed us the error message from the transfer page.
- What changed afterwards
- Partner lists are now diffed automatically against each bank’s own transfer page on a monthly cycle, and a partner that disappears from the source raises a build warning instead of waiting for a human to notice. Reader reports of a failed transfer now go straight to the top of the editorial queue.
- CorrectionSingapore Airlines KrisFlyer
- What we published
- We described KrisFlyer miles as expiring on an inactivity clock that resets when you earn or redeem.
- What is correct
- KrisFlyer miles expire on a fixed schedule measured from when each mile is earned, regardless of account activity. Earning or redeeming does not extend the life of miles already in the account.
- How it was found
- Our own quarterly re-read of program terms, before any reader reported it.
- What changed afterwards
- Expiration policy is now a typed field that forces a distinction between a hard expiry and an inactivity clock, so the two cannot be described interchangeably. Three programs carry a hard expiry and each is now flagged visually on its page.
- ClarificationChase Sapphire Preferred review
- What we published
- The review described the card’s rental car collision coverage as primary, without stating the conditions attached to it.
- What is correct
- The coverage is primary, and it applies only when you decline the rental company’s own waiver and pay for the rental with the card. A reader who accepted the rental company’s waiver would not have had the benefit we described.
- How it was found
- A reader who had accepted the rental counter’s waiver and then discovered the condition when they claimed.
- What changed afterwards
- Benefit records now carry a conditions field, and any benefit with a condition renders it alongside the benefit rather than in a footnote. The review template will not accept a protection claim without one.
- CorrectionPoint valuations
- What we published
- The quarter-over-quarter change indicator for one currency showed a rise when the published figure had in fact fallen.
- What is correct
- The figure itself was right; the arrow beside it was inverted. Readers comparing quarters would have read a devaluation as an improvement.
- How it was found
- Another publisher, who noticed the arrow disagreed with the two numbers printed either side of it and emailed us the screenshot.
- What changed afterwards
- The indicator is now derived from a single function with the comparison written once, and the valuations page renders the previous figure beside the current one so the arrow can always be checked against the numbers rather than trusted.
- CorrectionBusiness class sweet spots
- What we published
- We described a partner itinerary as bookable with a free stopover under the program’s routing rules.
- What is correct
- The program had withdrawn free stopovers on partner awards without updating its published rules page. The itinerary priced as two separate awards, which changed the economics of the redemption entirely.
- How it was found
- A reader who tried to book it, was told no by a phone agent, and sent us the agent’s explanation.
- What changed afterwards
- Every routing claim on this site must now be priced through to a payment screen in the current quarter before it can be published or re-published, and each redemption guide carries the date its itineraries were last priced. This is the most expensive process change we have made and it came from one reader’s email.
Requests we declined
Not every request to change a page is a correction. These are requests we received, considered and refused, recorded here because a corrections page that only shows the times we agreed tells you nothing about what we do when we disagree.
A card issuer asked us
To remove a paragraph describing an application restriction that causes a large share of declines for that product.
Declined. The restriction is published in the issuer’s own terms, it is the single most useful thing a reader can know before applying, and it stays in the review.
An affiliate network asked us
To drop a competing card from a comparison table on the grounds that it was not part of the network’s inventory.
Declined. A comparison that excludes cards we are not paid for is not a comparison. The card stayed, unpaid and labeled as such.
A loyalty program asked us
To revise a valuation downward — in this instance to describe their own currency as less valuable, to support a marketing claim about a promotion.
Declined, and worth recording because it went the direction people do not expect. The valuation is an output of a published model. It moves when the sample moves, not when anybody asks.
How to report an error
Email editors@awardrate.com with “Correction” in the subject line. It goes to the whole editorial team, it is read by a person, and it is the fastest route into anything on this site.
Report a correctionOther ways to reach us
Four things make a report fast to act on:
- The page address, so we are looking at the same thing you are — several of our pages describe the same program from different angles.
- What the page says and what is actually true, in your words. You do not need to be polite about it.
- Where the correct information comes from. A link to the issuer’s or program’s own page is ideal; a screenshot of a transfer screen, an error message or an agent’s response is often better, because it captures something the published terms do not admit.
- How you want to be credited, if at all. By name, by handle, or as “a reader”.
The freshness gate, live
Most errors on a site like this are not wrong statements — they are true statements that went stale. So alongside the corrections process there is an automatic gate, and its current state is rendered here at build time rather than described.
0
of 17 cards past the 90-day terms re-verification window
0
of 21 loyalty programs past their 120-day review window
most recent full reconciliation against issuer disclosures
A record that passes its window is flagged in the editorial queue and reported by the build. It does not quietly persist, and the count above is generated from the same verification dates that appear on every card and program page — so if we let something slip, this page says so before anyone has to ask.
Frequently asked questions
Do you edit pages without saying so?
We rewrite pages constantly for clarity, structure and freshness, and we do not annotate a rewritten sentence. What we never do is silently change a factual claim: if a claim was wrong, the corrected page carries a dated notice quoting what it used to say, and the entry appears on this log. The test is whether a reader could have acted on the old version.How quickly will you fix something I report?
Acknowledged within one business day, and material errors corrected within two business days of the point at which we can confirm them. Confirmation is the slow part: we verify against the issuer’s or program’s own document rather than taking a report at face value, and where a report cannot be reproduced we say so publicly rather than quietly dropping it.Will you credit me if I find an error?
Yes, by name, if you want it. Tell us how you would like to be credited and we will put it in the log entry. If you would rather not be named, the entry will say a reader found it — which is what most of them say, and is the single most useful thing on this page.What happens if an error touched a valuation?
The currency is re-sampled rather than adjusted. Nudging a published figure to make it right is indistinguishable from nudging it for any other reason, so a valuation error triggers a fresh sample against the frozen basket and a changelog entry explaining the move. The methodology page sets out what else forces an off-cycle revision.Why is your correction log so short?
Because it only contains corrections, not updates. Offers, fees, ratios and charts change constantly, and pages change with them — none of that belongs on a corrections log, and padding one with routine updates is how a log stops being read. What is here is what we got wrong: 4 corrections and 1 clarifications since November 4, 2025. 3 of them were found by readers rather than by us, which is the number we watch.