Correction: The Ladder of Abstraction: Understanding Communication Gaps
Corrected by Emir Baycan · Full-Stack Developer, Mobile App Builder and Web Platform Founder with expertise in SEO, automation, SaaS, AI visibility, DevOps and scalable digital products
Emir Baycan found something wrong, outdated, or unsupported on this page and proposed a fix. The publisher accepted the correction.
- Role
- Correction
- Publisher
- When Notes Fly
- Topic
- Concepts
- Status
- Accepted
- Date
- 28 July 2026
The exact change
The article cited a 2007 Trope-Liberman meta-analysis (34% reduction), an Eagly-Chaiken one-week counterargument result, a Pinker corpus analysis (50 paragraphs, 84% vs 31%), an NZ Plain Language Act requiring concrete examples with EQC surveys rising 34% to 67%, a Google Project Aristotle 23% decision-quality effect after controls, and an implied CAIB conclusion that concrete framing might have changed the Columbia outcome.
Removed the fabricated statistics and coding schemes, corrected the mis-citations and the legal characterization, and qualified the counterfactual, while retaining the genuinely documented material (Construal Level Theory, Pinker's Sense of Style as a style guide, Project Aristotle's five team dynamics, and the CAIB's multiple contributing factors).
Suggested change
See before/after.
Why this is better
These studies and statistics could not be located in the cited sources and carry the signature of fabricated citations. Policy is to remove invented specifics and correct mischaracterizations rather than substitute new unverified sources.
How this record is verified
- The contribution is tied to a real, identified contributor, not an anonymous byline.
- It counts only because the publisher, When Notes Fly, accepted it. Self-claimed work earns nothing.
- It is recorded against a specific page and cannot be bought or edited after the fact.