Corrections

This is wrong.

Thirty-nine reviewed groups and seventy-four cues, drawn and written by people who are not standing in your river. Some of it will be wrong, and the drawings are the most likely place — they are authored illustrations, not photographs of your water.

There is no server behind this page, so this form does not submit anything. It assembles a report you can copy, save, or hand to your own mail client. That is deliberate: the alternative is a feedback endpoint, and an application that promises nothing leaves your device should not quietly grow one.

What kind of error is it?

A statement is factually wrongA size range, a life stage, a water type, a behaviour that does not match the animal.
Something important is missingA structure, a stage, a group, or a caveat that should be here and is not.
A drawing does not match the animalThe plates are authored, not photographed, so this is the most likely kind of error.
The wording is confusing or overclaimsAnything that reads as a promise about what is hatching right now.
Something is brokenA link, a layout, a control that does nothing.
Something is unusable for meContrast, focus order, a target too small, a label a screen reader does not read.

Which entry

The statement you are disputing

Overview

The second difference is shape. Shad and alewife are deep and flattened side to side. A cisco is elongate and nearly round in cross section — you can feel it in the hand before you have looked at a single fin.

This statement has no claim-level citation yet; the entry as a whole cites MNFI-CISCO, ILDNR-CISCO, USFWS-CISCO, MNFI-CISCO-ABSTRACT, MNDNR-CISCO-WHITEFISH-ID, USGS-CISCO-CULTURE-MANUAL, DFO-BAITFISH-PRIMER, MANITOBA-BAITFISH-GUIDE. The report names this statement exactly, so nobody has to find it again.

What is wrong with itWhat it should sayOn what authorityA correction with no source is still worth sending. It will be checked before anything changes either way.

The whole report, exactly as it would travel

HATCH MATCH — CORRECTION REPORT

Application: HTH-HM-001
Build: 0.19.1 · f244e24
Carrier schema: 11
Reference reviewed: 2026-09-25
Reported: 2026-11-06

Kind: not stated
Subject: Cisco / lake herring
Record id: hm-cisco-forage-v1
Claim: guide.overview.1
Page: /guide/cisco

WHAT THE REFERENCE SAYS NOW
The second difference is shape. Shad and alewife are deep and flattened side to side. A cisco is elongate and nearly round in cross section — you can feel it in the hand before you have looked at a single fin.
Cited sources: MNFI-CISCO, ILDNR-CISCO, USFWS-CISCO, MNFI-CISCO-ABSTRACT, MNDNR-CISCO-WHITEFISH-ID, USGS-CISCO-CULTURE-MANUAL, DFO-BAITFISH-PRIMER, MANITOBA-BAITFISH-GUIDE

WHAT IS WRONG
(not stated)

WHAT IT SHOULD SAY
(not stated)

SOURCE
(none given)

Written locally. It contains only what the reporter typed — nothing was gathered automatically.

Pick a kind and write at least a sentence, and the report becomes worth sending.

Copying and saving work with no signal, and what you type is kept on this device until you send it or discard it. The support desk is a website and needs a connection.

What happens to it

Checked, or not used.

A correction changes the reference set only after it has been checked against a source. Where a claim cannot be supported either way, the entry loses the claim rather than gaining a hedge — an unsupported sentence removed is a better reference than an unsupported sentence qualified.

Back to the field guide →