# Disputes process

Resource pages with editorial context can have a Disputes and context panel. It is editorial: we describe each dispute about the resource, attribute each position, and take no side. Each panel is written by one editor and read by a second reader, and the sources behind it carry fetched dates. If you think a description is unfair, inaccurate or incomplete, this is the route. Disputes enter the staff request inbox; include an email if you want a written response.

## What can be disputed

- A description in the Disputes and context panel.
- The standing questions answered on a resource page.
- The Made by label, the tradition shown, or the funding line.
- An institutional position: its wording, its date, or its source.
- A comparison page's wording.
- A guide's wording where it describes a specific resource.

What cannot be disputed here: a review, a vote, a meter, a share, or where a listing sorts. Those come from the [counting rule](/trust/eligibility) and the [methodology](/trust/methodology), and no dispute changes them. A wrong fact on a spec sheet is a correction request, not a dispute; use "Request a correction" on the spec sheet. A review you think breaks the [moderation policy](/trust/moderation) is a report, not a dispute.

## Who can dispute

Anyone. You do not need to be the maker, and you do not need an account; the "Dispute this description" link on every panel opens the form. Say which sentence you dispute, what you say is wrong, and where we can read a source. We cannot act on "this is unfair" without a sentence and a reason.

## What happens next

1. The request is recorded in the staff inbox with its date and resource reference.
2. The editor who did not write the panel re-reads every source behind the disputed sentence and reads yours.
3. An editor records the outcome: changed, with the new wording; or unchanged, with the reason.
4. Request outcomes are counted in aggregate on Transparency. Private messages and contact details are not published as a case-by-case log.

A change to a description is itself editorial, so it goes through the same second reader as the original.

## Maker replies

A maker can submit a reply or a correction through the maker and request forms. Where an editorial reply is published, it is attributed to the maker. Submitting a form does not automatically publish or edit a public reply. A maker reply never changes the description itself; that is what the dispute route is for. Verification of a maker account is described on the [maker page](/makers/add).

## What a dispute cannot do

- Remove a dated, sourced position against a maker. Positions for and against are listed when they are public and dated.
- Add, edit, hide or remove a review or a vote.
- Change a meter, a share, or a sort.
- Delist a competitor, or object to one being listed.

## Our own app

REVA has no Disputes panel and no description, so there is nothing of ours to dispute about it. Concerns that a guide or description favors REVA are handled as conflict reports. REVA staff receive the request; authorized participating-company moderators can inspect relevant moderation activity. A separately commissioned outside review is credited only when its reviewer and completed work are identified on the [conflicts page](/trust/conflicts).

## The log

Dispute requests and their recorded outcomes are counted on [Transparency](/trust/transparency) under Requests; individual request messages and replies stay in the staff inbox. Corrections and suggestions are logged the same way, under their own headings, so that a reader can see how often we change our minds and how often we do not.