Correction: Communication Clarity Checklist
Corrected by Selen Ikbal Uslu · Content Quality Analyst and English Language Specialist
Selen Ikbal Uslu found something wrong, outdated, or unsupported on this page and proposed a fix. The publisher accepted the correction.
- Role
- Correction
- Publisher
- When Notes Fly
- Status
- Accepted
- Date
- 29 July 2026
The exact change
Article relabeled real Economist Intelligence Unit survey categories (swapping which percentage applied to which outcome) and added a fabricated '2.4 million' cost figure with no real source. It described Kristin Byron's real 2008 Academy of Management Review paper as an empirical 'comprehensive review' with a '50 percent' finding, when it is actually a theoretical model paper with no such statistic. It misdated Robin Dunbar's real 1997 Human Nature paper as 1998 and added a fabricated 'across 38 different cultures' detail to a study that was actually based on eavesdropping in English-speaking public spaces. It reversed the author order of Kruger, Epley, Parker & Ng's real 2005 study and incorrectly stated both lead authors were at the University of Chicago (Kruger was at NYU Stern). It misdated Haig, Sutton & Whittington's real SBAR paper from 2006 to 2010 and added an unverifiable '67 percent' statistic. It fabricated specific Kaiser Permanente adoption details (37 hospitals in 2004, specific callback/error-rate figures) that don't match the real history of SBAR's development within Kaiser Permanente Colorado. It fabricated an entire Lockheed Martin F-35 case study with invented GAO-attributed figures that don't appear in any real GAO report. And it attributed a fabricated '34 percent fewer follow-up meetings' statistic to a nonexistent 2019 Tom Eisenmann Harvard Business Review article about Amazon's real narrative-memo practice.
EIU passage corrected to accurately reflect the real survey's category labels without the fabricated cost figure. Byron passage corrected to accurately describe her paper as a theoretical model, not an empirical review with an invented statistic. Dunbar passage corrected to the real 1997 year and the real observational methodology. Epley/Kruger passage corrected to the real author order and removed the incorrect shared-affiliation claim. Haig et al. passage corrected to the real 2006 year without the unverifiable statistic. Kaiser Permanente passage rewritten to describe the real history of SBAR's development within Kaiser Permanente Colorado rather than fabricated adoption figures. The entire fabricated Lockheed Martin/GAO case study was removed. The Amazon/Eisenmann fabricated statistic was replaced with an accurate general statement about the real narrative-memo practice's purpose.
Suggested change
See before/after.
Why this is better
This was one of the most heavily fabricated tail sections found in this batch - 8 of 10 checked claims needed correction, ranging from wrong years and author ordering on otherwise-real papers to two entirely fabricated case studies (Lockheed Martin/GAO, Amazon/Eisenmann) and one set of fabricated adoption statistics grafted onto a real institution's real practice (Kaiser Permanente/SBAR). By contrast, the Joint Commission's 80% communication-failure statistic, the Alan Mulally/Ford anecdote, and Gawande's real 36%/47% surgical checklist figures (spot-checked separately) were all verified fully accurate.
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.