Corrections

Tell us we are wrong

Every number on this site is a claim about a published record, and a claim can be wrong: the record can have moved, the source can say something else, or we can simply have read it badly. This page is how that gets fixed — and the log of every time it already has.

The editorial policyWhat changed

Same day, not next quarter

A factual correction with a source behind it is made the day it arrives, and the record’s updated date moves with it. Nothing waits for a release.

The score moves too

Rank is derived by sorting on the security score, so a correction that changes a field can change the score and reorder the register. There is no version of this where we quietly keep the old order.

And it is written down

Every change to a scored field is recorded with what it was, what it became and when — and published in the log. A site that scores others on transparency does not get to edit itself silently.

What we need before a number can move

The model scores the state of the published evidence, not our opinion of a provider. So a correction has to arrive in the same currency: a source we can read. “This is wrong” cannot enter the pipeline; “this is wrong, here is the page that says so” can be acted on the same day.

1A fact on a record is wrongA value, a source that does not say what we claim, something out of date, or a field we left unknown that is actually published. This is the one that moves scores.2You are the providerA right of reply on your own record, with a different evidence bar and a different route. We publish that you disputed it, and what came of it.3Something else is brokenA page that will not load, a translation that reads wrong, a chart that lies about its own axis. Anything that is not a claim about a provider.

1 · Correct a fact

One field, one record. If you arrived from a provider page the field is already filled in below and you can go straight to the evidence.

Carried from the page you came fromProvider Planet VPNField Reported numbers plausible for this scale P06_report_plausibilityPublished value unknownChecked 13 September 2026Methodology 3.7.0

What is wrong with it?

The value is wrongThe source is the right one, but it does not say what we recorded.It is out of dateIt was true when we checked it and something has since changed.The source does not support itThe page we cite has moved, changed, or never said this.We left it unknown, but it is publishedThe cheapest kind of correction to make and the most useful — an unknown field costs a provider points on the ignorance channel.

What should it say?The list is the field’s own vocabulary from the published model. A value outside it cannot be stored, so we do not offer one.

As of when? optionalThe date the source was published, if it carries one. Not the date you are writing.

Where does it say so?Required, and the whole point. We grade what a claim rests on: the artefact itself read in full counts for more than the same claim reported second-hand. A provider’s own page is fine — it is evidence, just weighted lower than an audit.

Anything else we should know? optional

Your email optionalOnly so we can tell you what we did with it, including if we decided not to act. Deleted once that is answered; it is never used for anything else.

You are not asked for a name, an account, or a reason for caring.

2 · Provider right of reply

If this is your service, you can dispute anything on its record. Two things worth knowing before you write, because they decide how far it gets.

What helps

+A published document anyone can open — an audit report, a policy page, a transparency report with numbers in it

+Telling us a field is out of date and pointing at what replaced it

+Filling a field we recorded as unknown, which is usually the fastest way to move a score upward

What does not

−An assurance sent to us privately. If it is not published, it cannot be scored — that is what the ignorance channel measures

−Disagreement with the methodology itself. That argument is welcome, but it belongs on the model, not on your record

−A request to remove a criticism, a label, or a competitor

3 · Something else

Not a claim about a provider — a problem with the site itself.

Reporting a security problem

If you have found a vulnerability in this site — not in a VPN we review — send it through the third form, Something else, with A security problem as its kind. Leave an address if you want to hear back, and we will confirm within two working days.

We do not run a bounty programme and will not pretend otherwise, but we will credit you on this page if you want the credit and will not chase anyone who reports in good faith.

If the vulnerability is in a provider’s service rather than ours, report it to them. If they have no route for that, tell us — the absence of one is itself a fact about that provider.

1 · Correct a fact

One field, one record. If you arrived from a provider page the field is already filled in below and you can go straight to the evidence.

What is wrong with it?

What should it say?The list is the field’s own vocabulary from the published model. A value outside it cannot be stored, so we do not offer one.

As of when? optionalThe date the source was published, if it carries one. Not the date you are writing.

Anything else we should know? optional

Your email optionalOnly so we can tell you what we did with it, including if we decided not to act. Deleted once that is answered; it is never used for anything else.

You are not asked for a name, an account, or a reason for caring.

2 · Provider right of reply

If this is your service, you can dispute anything on its record. Two things worth knowing before you write, because they decide how far it gets.

What helps

+A published document anyone can open — an audit report, a policy page, a transparency report with numbers in it

+Telling us a field is out of date and pointing at what replaced it

+Filling a field we recorded as unknown, which is usually the fastest way to move a score upward

What does not

−An assurance sent to us privately. If it is not published, it cannot be scored — that is what the ignorance channel measures

−Disagreement with the methodology itself. That argument is welcome, but it belongs on the model, not on your record

−A request to remove a criticism, a label, or a competitor

3 · Something else

Not a claim about a provider — a problem with the site itself.