What You May Submit
Factual Corrections
A claim that is inaccurate, outdated, incomplete or attributed incorrectly.
Additional Evidence
A public document, dataset, filing, board record, performance report or other credible source that materially strengthens or challenges an existing assessment.
Institutional Clarification
Context that helps explain a published fact, decision, result or development.
Source Updates
A newer or more authoritative source that replaces or materially improves an existing reference.
Material Developments
A leadership change, regulatory action, financial result, project milestone, service disruption or other development that may affect the institution’s profile or assessment.
Formal Institutional Responses
A documented response to a published profile, report, finding or score.
What a Submission Should Include
Please provide:
- the institution concerned
- the specific statement, score or section at issue
- the proposed correction, clarification or response
- supporting documentation
- the source title and publication date
- a direct link, when available
- the name and role of the submitting party
- contact information for follow-up
Submissions should identify the exact issue under review.
General disagreement, unsupported opinion or reputational concern is not sufficient to support revision.
Evidence Standards
Preference is given to:
- audited financial statements
- regulatory filings
- public budgets
- board materials
- government datasets
- official performance reports
- rating-agency materials
- credible independent reporting
- peer-reviewed or authoritative research
Press releases, speeches, interviews, social media posts and informal commentary may provide context, but they are not normally sufficient on their own to support a material correction or assessment change.
Do not submit confidential, privileged or nonpublic information unless you have the legal authority to provide it and Sac Institutional has agreed in advance to receive it.
Review Process
Each submission is reviewed for:
- relevance
- source authority
- accuracy
- currency
- specificity
- materiality
- consistency with other available evidence
Sac Institutional may request additional documentation or clarification before reaching a decision.
Where evidence conflicts, the platform may retain the existing assessment, revise it, qualify it or identify the matter as unresolved.
Abusive, defamatory, irrelevant or duplicative submissions may be disregarded.
Possible Outcomes
No Change
The existing statement or assessment remains supported by the available evidence.
Clarification
The language is revised to improve precision, attribution or context without changing the underlying assessment.
Factual Correction
A verified error is corrected.
Source Revision
A source is replaced, updated or supplemented.
Assessment Revision
The interpretation, performance anchor, evidence-confidence level or score is changed.
A score changes only when new evidence materially alters the underlying assessment.
Further Review
The matter remains under review because the evidence is incomplete, conflicting or newly developing.
Institutional Responses
Institutions may submit a formal response to a published profile or report.
A response should address specific findings and include supporting evidence wherever possible.
Sac Institutional may summarize, reference or publish a material institutional response when doing so improves the public record. Publication remains an editorial decision and does not imply agreement with the institution’s position.
Corrections and Transparency
Verified material errors are corrected promptly.
Significant corrections should include an updated review date and a record of the change.
Minor typographical, formatting or non-substantive corrections may be made without formal notice.
Sac Institutional does not remove accurate information solely because it is unfavorable, disputed or inconvenient.
Privacy
Contact information is used only to review the submission, verify documentation and communicate with the sender.
Personal information will not be published without permission, except where disclosure is required by law or the identity of the source is already part of the public record.
Anonymous submissions may be reviewed, but the inability to verify the source may limit their evidentiary value.
Submission Standard
A useful submission is specific, documented and material.
The central question is not whether a person or institution disagrees with the assessment.
The central question is whether stronger evidence changes the public record.
How to Submit
Send all evidence, corrections, clarifications and institutional responses to:
Use a subject line that identifies the institution and the purpose of the submission.