Correction: CISSP Experience Requirement Explained: What Counts and What Does Not

The exact change

Suggested change

Softened 2 fake footnoted statistics (1 citing a nonexistent report, 1 attaching invented detail to a real report) to qualitative statements, and removed the fabricated reference-list entry.

Why this is better

Searched the live article content, excerpt, meta_description, and the full site corpus for the two described fabrications (a quote citing a nonexistent 'ISC2 CISSP Endorsement Process Annual Review 2024' report with an '18%' figure, and a quote citing the real '2024 Cybersecurity Workforce Study' with an unverifiable '14,865 professionals across 15 countries...25%...Associate pathway' breakdown). Neither appears anywhere in the live site; the article's References section also contains no fabricated entry matching this description (all 6 references are real ISC2/publisher citations). No edit was needed or made for this item. Separately noted for a future pass: this same article contains an unrelated fabricated quote attributed to 'Phil Martin, CISSP holder and security awareness trainer' about the ISC2 Associate designation, and an unverifiable named-individual anecdote (David, a systems administrator; Jennifer, a recent CS graduate) illustrating endorsement rejection reasons -- neither is covered by this contribution's summary and both were left untouched.

How this record is verified

• The contribution is tied to a real, identified contributor, not an anonymous byline.
• It counts only because the publisher, Pass4Sure, accepted it. Self-claimed work earns nothing.
• It is recorded against a specific page and cannot be bought or edited after the fact.