What this site got wrong, and when it was fixed — kept deliberately public. A reader deciding how far to trust this site's legal content deserves to see its error record, not just its claims. Each entry is dated, states the error plainly, and where a correction touches the law's numbers, the corrected values render from the same evidence register as the rest of the site, with their sources.
The first two entries predate the site itself: they are the project's real pre-launch corrections, logged here because an error record that starts clean at launch isn't one.
Every legal claim on this page renders from the evidence register — its source passage, pinpoint citation and verification state included.
Corrected Type: editorial wordingPage: access journey → evidence bundle (page, downloadable PDF, and the branches walkthrough's link to it)Corrector: JKConclusion changed: Yes — the bundle is now described as an annotated specimen of the records a union should keep, not as documents assembled the way a CAC referral actually needs them
The evidence bundle: an annotated specimen, not an assembled case file
Original wording
This is what a well-run case file looks like: the specimen record ASDWS would have kept at every step of the recorded access case, assembled the way a referral to the Central Arbitration Committee actually needs it — a front sheet, a paginated documents index, the documents themselves in tab order, and a closing chronology.
Corrected wording
This annotated specimen shows the core records a union should retain during the statutory process, based on the legislation and Code currently laid. The CAC may prescribe an application form or require additional information and documents in an individual case.
Reason
The solicitor's 12 July 2026 legal-content review (finding 5) judged the previous wording too definite before the CAC's own forms and procedural requirements exist: the bundle's tabs hold narrative explanations, source quotations and data-posture commentary, not completed specimen documents, so describing it as documents "assembled the way a referral...actually needs it" overstated what the product contains. Replaced with the solicitor's own formulation, verbatim.
No statutory fact backs this correction — it is about the bundle’s self-description, not a
legal claim, so no evidence card carries a “Corrected” strip for it. The referral tab’s own
wording was also softened, from “in the form the Committee requires” to “in such form as the
CAC may require”, to track the Code’s own conditional wording rather than assert a settled
form. The full rebuild to an actual completed-document specimen — a clean, branch-sensitive
case file separate from this annotated walkthrough, with a deadline-calculation sheet and
completed synthetic facsimiles — is tracked as story SR-2, not yet started.
Corrected Type: legal interpretationPage: access journey → branches (the response fork and the refusal branch)Corrector: JKConclusion changed: Yes — a rejection given in time is now stated to open the negotiation period, not a direct route to the Central Arbitration Committee
The paragraph-43 fork: resolved by the statute, not left as two readings
Original wording
That sentence is rendered exactly as the laid Code words it. Its trigger — "if notice is received" — reads oddly against the surrounding design, which anchors the negotiation window on a response notice being given and elsewhere allows for no response at all. Whether it means a rejection notice opens a direct route to the Committee, or was drafted for the no-notice case, is a question this project has flagged for legal review rather than answered for itself.
Corrected wording
The most likely explanation is a drafting slip: the word "no" appears to be missing ("if [no] notice is received"), which is also the only reading consistent with this sentence's own reference to avoiding the negotiation period, and with paragraph 43's later phrase "if one was received". The quote stays exactly as laid; the statute, not this paragraph, is this page's authority on what actually happens next.
Reason
The solicitor's 12 July 2026 review (finding 1) read section 70ZE of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 directly: it creates exactly two routes to the Central Arbitration Committee, turning on whether a response notice was given at all, not on when a given notice is received. A rejection given in time is a response notice like any other — it opens the 25-working-day negotiation period; it does not open a shortcut past it. This is a resolution, not a correction of error: the site's both-readings treatment was a cautious, honest response to a genuinely odd sentence, signed off as worded pending legal review (facts access-cac-response-period-route, verified 11 July 2026). The review is that legal review landing, not proof the caution was wrong to hold.
Paragraph 43’s own quote (fact access-cac-response-period-route) is unchanged and unedited —
its notes carry an append-only update recording this resolution, exactly as the project’s
notes-are-append-only rule requires. The new authority is primary legislation: two new facts,
access-cac-determination-routes (the two routes under section 70ZE) and
access-request-response-notice-prescribed-requirements (the prescribed-form/information/manner
point behind preferring “given” over “received”), both sourced directly from the 1992 Act as
amended rather than from the Code — the first facts in the register of a new type,
act-provision. Both are verified: false, queued for JK’s sign-off like any newly extracted
fact.
Persists on every affected claim — these carry the red "Corrected" strip wherever they render:
Corrected 12 Jul 2026Conclusion changed: Yes — a rejection given in time is now stated to open the negotiation period, not a direct route to the Central Arbitration Committeeledger entry
The Code states that if notice is received before the end of the response period, the trade union can apply to the CAC without needing to go through the 25-day negotiation period.
Formal state
Laid — not yet in forceofficial text exists; not commenced
“If notice is received before the end of the response period, the trade union can apply to the CAC (without needing to go through the 25-day negotiation period).”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), para. 43 (first sentence). This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 11 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/access-cac-response-period-route
Corrected 12 Jul 2026Conclusion changed: Yes — a rejection given in time is now stated to open the negotiation period, not a direct route to the Central Arbitration Committeeledger entry
Section 70ZE of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (inserted by the Employment Rights Act 2025) creates two routes to a determination by the Central Arbitration Committee on an access request: where the employer has not given a response notice before the end of the response period, only the union may apply; where the employer has given a response notice before the end of the response period and the negotiation period has ended without the union and the employer agreeing terms in writing, either the union or the employer may apply.
Formal state
Laid — not yet in forceofficial text exists; not commenced
“(1) This section applies if a qualifying trade union has given an access request to an employer and either— (a) the employer has not given a response notice to the union before the end of the response period, or (b) the employer has given a response notice before the end of the response period and the negotiation period has ended without the union and the employer agreeing in writing terms on which officials of the union are to have access. (2) The Central Arbitration Committee may, on an application under this section, make a determination that officials of the union are or are not to have access. (3) If the Central Arbitration Committee makes a determination that officials of the union are to have access— (a) the determination must specify the terms on which officials of the union are to have access (including as to what (if any) assistance the employer must provide in relation to the access), and (b) an access agreement containing those terms (and no others) is treated as having been entered into between the union and the employer. (4) An application for a determination under this section may be made— (a) by the union, in the case referred to in subsection (1)(a); (b) by the union or the employer, in the case referred to in subsection (1)(b).”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, section 70ZE(1)-(4) (Chapter 5ZA, inserted by the Employment Rights Act 2025, s. 59(1)-(2)). This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 12 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/access-cac-determination-routes
Corrected Type: source/pinpointPage: docs/solicitor-pack.md, question 4 — a project record, not a rendered site page; the site's own fact never asserted non-locationCorrector: JKConclusion changed: Yes — the missing instrument has been identified (SI 2026/756); full vendoring and field-by-field verification against the site's specimens follows in a subsequent commit
The required-information regulations: located, not merely "not located"
Original wording
"No such instrument had been located in the official sources checked as at 10 July 2026." (docs/solicitor-pack.md, question 4, "The question")
Corrected wording
The instrument has been identified: the Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) (Required Information) Regulations 2026, SI 2026/756, laid 6 July 2026 under the made-negative procedure. It had been laid, but not yet identified in this project's vendored source set, as at 10 July 2026.
Reason
The solicitor's 12 July 2026 review (finding 4) located the source. This is a supersession, not a correction of error: the "not located" statement was an accurate, dated record of a genuine search as at 10 July 2026, not a mistaken claim — the same standard this project applies to its negative-search facts. Recorded here for the same reason the site's error record stays public: so a reader can see how the project's own knowledge changed, not just its current state.
Distinct from the still-unresolved duty-to-inform search (fact duty-to-inform-negative-search),
which remains genuinely unpublished and is untouched by this entry. Unlike the paragraph-43
resolution, this entry attaches to no evidence card: the “not located” wording lived only in
the solicitor-pack record of the open question, never in a statutory-fact claim rendered on
the site. Full extraction of SI 2026/756’s own content, and the field-by-field comparison
against the site’s specimen documents, is its own piece of work, tracked separately.
Corrected Type: legal interpretationPage: pre-launch research notes → access journey · transition mapCorrector: JKConclusion changed: Yes — every clock lengthened
The access clock figures: consultation proposals mistaken for the decided law
Original wording
An employer response period of 5 working days, a negotiation period of 15, and a referral window of 25 — described as the settled framework.
Corrected wording
The response, negotiation and referral periods as stated in the laid Code of Practice — each rendering below from the evidence register with its source.
Reason
The October 2025 consultation's proposals were treated as decided law; the government's April 2026 consultation response extended every one of them. Found on 6 July 2026, when the laid Code of Practice was read against the earlier notes.
The lesson — that a consultation proposal is not law, and neither is a government
response until an instrument is laid — is now baked into how every fact on this site
carries its formal state.
Persists on every affected claim — these carry the red "Corrected" strip wherever they render:
The employer's response period ends at the end of the 15th working day after the day on which the access request is given (measured from when the request is given, not when it reaches the right person internally).
Formal state
Laid — not yet in forceofficial text exists; not commenced
“Upon receipt of the application, the employer can take up to 15 working days from the day an access application is given (not when the request is passed on to the correct person or team within the employer) to respond to a request for access”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), para. 30. This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 10 July 2026 · How verification works
“The trade union and the employer have 25 working days following the day on which the response notice is given to negotiate the terms of an access agreement.”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), para. 36. This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 10 July 2026 · How verification works
The period for applying to the Central Arbitration Committee ends at the end of the 55th working day after the day the original request was given — an envelope over the whole process, not a third sequential window. The CAC may extend the period to 70 days where it considers it was not reasonably practicable to apply within the time limit.
Formal state
Laid — not yet in forceofficial text exists; not commenced
“Parties who are unable to reach agreement have 55 working days from the date the original access request was given to make an application to the CAC. It might be possible for the CAC to extend that to 70 days where it considers that it was not reasonably practicable for a party to apply for a determination under section 70ZE within the time limit.”
Quoted verbatim from the identified source · Code of Practice: Right of trade unions to access workplaces (July 2026), para. 44. This authored restatement is published exactly as recorded in the evidence register.
Pinned extract matched at build · External source checked 10 July 2026 · How verification works
fact/access-cac-referral-period
Corrected Type: market/landscape factPage: pre-launch landscape notesCorrector: JKConclusion changed: Yes — the stated gap does not exist
Membership retention tooling: not an empty market after all
Original wording
Tooling for refreshing and retaining member data: a gap nobody served.
Corrected wording
Join Together — the worker co-operative that builds joining infrastructure for unions — already offers a product, Update:Upgrade, covering member-data refreshing and retention.
Reason
This project's descriptions of what exists in the union technology landscape need to be as reliable as its descriptions of the law: stating that a gap exists where a movement-owned co-operative already works would have been unfair to them and misleading to readers.
The correction is recorded here exactly as it was made — this log states facts about
what exists; it does not score or compare anyone’s products, and will not.
How to submit a correction
Knowledgeable readers finding errors is this log working as intended. Email contact@rightsworkflow.com with:
the claim ID from the evidence card you're correcting — open its "Show supporting passage" disclosure and copy the fact/<id> line at the bottom;
what's wrong with it; and
a source for the correct position.
Every correction reported this way gets logged here exactly like the two seeded entries above: dated, stated plainly, with the superseded wording kept struck-through rather than deleted.
Superseded wording is kept struck-through, never deleted — the error record is the point.