Errata

Corrections are part of the method

This catalog makes checkable claims: attributions, citations, classifications, definitions. Checkable claims sometimes turn out to be wrong, and a reference work earns trust by how it handles that, not by pretending it never happens. The methodology describes the gates entries pass before publication; this page covers what happens after, when something slipped through.

What to report

Anything that makes the catalog less true:

• A misattributed example: wrong brand, agency, writer, or year.
• A quote that is not verbatim, or that cannot be found in the claimed source.
• A citation that does not support the claim it is attached to.
• An entry classified under the wrong role or family, or two entries that are the same technique under different names.
• A definition that has drifted from what the technique actually does.
• A factual error in the essays.

Disagreements about the framework itself, whether nine roles is the right cut, whether a technique deserves to exist, are welcome too, and may take longer to act on. Argument is part of how a working taxonomy improves.

How to report

Email taxonomy@coppica.com with:

1. The page URL or the entry's PT-ID.
2. What you believe is wrong.
3. The evidence: a source, a link, a scan, a page number. The stronger the source, the faster the fix.

What happens next

Every report is read by the author. There is no promised turnaround, but there is a promise of disposition: a report either results in a fix, a clarifying note, or a reasoned decision to leave the entry as it stands.

Material corrections, anything that changes what a published page claims, are recorded in the changelog rather than silently patched. The catalog's own history is part of the record.

Rights holders

If your concern is about quoted material you hold rights in, rather than an error, the use policy describes the fair-use posture and the takedown process. The same address handles both.