dev.idiolect.correction

A signed record of a post-translation edit. Corrections are the primary signal an observer uses to detect lens quality issues; the reason taxonomy decouples "lens was wrong" from "the world is complicated".

Source: lexicons/dev/idiolect/correction.json · Rust: idiolect_records::Correction · TS: @idiolect-dev/schema/correction · Fixture: idiolect_records::examples::correction

Shape

Field	Type	Required	Notes
`encounter`	`encounterRef`	yes	The encounter whose output was edited.
`path`	string (≤1024)	yes	JSON Pointer or equivalent into the produced output.
`originalValue`	unknown	no	Value prior to correction. May be elided for visibility reasons.
`correctedValue`	unknown	no	Value after correction.
`reason`	open enum	yes	`lens-error` / `domain-difference` / `source-error` / `downstream-idiosyncrasy` / `user-mistake` / `retrospective`.
`reasonVocab`	`vocabRef`	no	Vocab the reason slug resolves against.
`rationale`	string (≤2000 graphemes)	no	Human-readable justification.
`holder`	did	no	Party the correction is attributed to.
`basis`	`basis`	no	Structured grounding for third-party attribution.
`visibility`	`visibility`	yes	Visibility scope.
`occurredAt`	datetime	yes	When the correction was made.

Field details

Why a `reason` taxonomy

Aggregating corrections naively gives the wrong signal: a lens that produces correct output for half its inputs and domain-different output for the other half is not a buggy lens. The reason taxonomy distinguishes:

Slug	What it means	Implication for the lens
`lens-error`	The lens produced wrong output for the input.	Bug in the lens.
`domain-difference`	The lens output is correct under one set of conventions; the consumer wants a different set.	Not a bug; a different community translation.
`source-error`	The source record was wrong; the lens propagated the error faithfully.	Not a bug; upstream issue.
`downstream-idiosyncrasy`	The downstream consumer has an unusual requirement the lens does not target.	Not a bug; consumer-specific.
`user-mistake`	The user invoked the wrong lens.	Not a bug; routing issue.
`retrospective`	A delayed finding caused by something other than the above; usually escalates to a `dev.idiolect.retrospection`.	Possibly a bug; investigation pending.

Observers fold corrections by reason. A high lens-error rate is signal; a high domain-difference rate is a community disagreement. Conflating them is the failure mode the taxonomy exists to prevent.

`path`

JSON Pointer (RFC 6901) into the produced output. A path of /body/text identifies the text field under body. Multi-part paths are supported up to 1024 bytes. Consumers replaying corrections apply the edit at the named path.

`originalValue` may be elided

When the encounter's visibility restricts publishing source data, the correction may carry only correctedValue and a narrative rationale. A consumer that trusts the corrector can use the corrected value verbatim; one that wants to verify the correction needs to fetch the source separately.

Holder versus the repo owner

Most corrections are first-party: the consumer that received the output is the same as the consumer that edited it. Some are third-party: a reviewer transcribing an off-network correction. holder plus basis carry the third-party attribution machinery, identical to encounter and belief.

Example

{
  "$type": "dev.idiolect.correction",
  "encounter": {
    "uri": "at://did:plc:user/dev.idiolect.encounter/3l5",
    "cid": "bafy..."
  },
  "path": "/body/text",
  "originalValue": "the quick brown foxes",
  "correctedValue": "the quick brown fox",
  "reason": "lens-error",
  "rationale": "Lens incorrectly pluralised the singular noun.",
  "visibility": "public-detailed",
  "occurredAt": "2026-04-19T00:00:00.000Z"
}

How corrections feed observation

flowchart LR
    ENC[encounter] -->|downstreamResult: corrected| COR[correction]
    COR -->|fold by reason| OBS[observation]
    OBS -.consumed by.-> CON[consumer]
    CON -->|decides| INVOKE[whether to invoke]

A high lens-error count in observations is a signal. A high domain-difference count is just a record of community disagreement. Consumers reading observations make routing decisions on the former, not the latter; observers therefore must publish the breakdown by reason, not just a flat correction count.