The Lens · Radical Honesty

Corrections & Changed-Our-Mind Log

When we get something wrong, we say so — publicly, time-stamped, and we never quietly delete it. This is the running record.

Our promise. Most of finance markets only its winners and buries its misses — which is exactly why nobody fully trusts it. We do the opposite, on purpose. Every correction below is dated and stays visible forever: here is what we said, here is what changed, here is what we now think. Being right builds a track record. Being honest about being wrong builds trust — and trust is the thing worth earning.

A weather forecaster you can trust isn't the one who never misses. It's the one who tells you afterward, “I got yesterday wrong, and here's why.”

How this works

Two kinds of entries. Data / method — a correction to our data, numbers, or research process. Changed our mind — a view or call we have revised as new evidence came in. Newest first. We edit the log only to add entries or fix typos; we never remove or rewrite what an entry originally said.

The log

2026-08-13 · Data / method

We started keeping a visible “Updates” log on every article — and tracking how reliable each source proves to be

What we did: added a dated Updates to this piece box to the top of each deep-dive. When a figure changes, we show the old value struck through next to the new one, with the source — so a revision is never silent. First examples: we refreshed the nuclear-for-AI piece's uranium numbers to the latest 2025 data (the old figures were a year stale, not wrong), and updated the Musk piece after SpaceX agreed to remove the Colossus turbines by 2027.
The bigger idea: as we publish more, some sources will prove more reliable than others. We're starting to track that. A live example: we find AI chatbots useful for spotting themes but unreliable on dates and specifics — so we web-verify every hard fact against a primary source before it goes up, and we note when a source lets us down.
Why we're telling you: good research isn't never being wrong — it's having a system that catches and shows the changes, and that gets better at judging its sources over time. That system should be visible to you, not hidden.
2026-08 · Data / method

We found our historical gold price data was corrupted — and rebuilt it clean

What we found: a large share of the historical gold prices in our research database were at the wrong level (two different price series had been merged during an old import), which would have made some gold analysis look far better than reality.
What we did: rebuilt the entire gold history cleanly from the original per-contract source, verified it now matches real gold prices year by year, and added an automated price-plausibility check so this class of error gets caught the moment it appears, instead of hiding for months.
Why we're telling you: a bad data point is how a research shop fools itself first. Catching and disclosing it is the job — not something to bury.
2026-08 · Changed our mind

We downgraded a promising research idea after a cleaner re-test

What we said: an "overnight" market pattern looked like a real, repeatable edge in an early test.
What changed: a stricter, cleaner re-test on better data showed the effect was weaker and inconsistent in recent years — and part of the original signal was a data artifact.
Where we landed: downgraded it from "promising" to "marginal, not proven," and said so rather than quietly dropping it. We would rather kill our own idea than let a shaky one survive.
2026-06 · Data / method

We reconciled inconsistent track-record numbers to one audited source

What we found: our published track-record figures did not perfectly agree across every page of the site.
What we did: traced every number to a single audited source of truth, corrected the displays to match, and set a schedule to re-freeze and re-verify them on a regular cadence so they stay consistent.
Why we're telling you: if we ask you to trust a track record, the least we can do is make sure it says the same thing everywhere — and admit it when it didn't.

This log grows as we publish — and, inevitably, sometimes get things wrong. That's the point. See how we test and prove our claims in the first place:

How we prove our edge →

Educational research, not personalized investment advice. Dragonfly Lens is not a registered investment advisor. This log records corrections to our own data, methods, and views; it is maintained in good faith and updated as needed. Entries are added, never removed.