Accuracy is the core of what we offer. Film Permits Nepal is an independent, privately operated production-support service based in Kathmandu. We are not a government office and we do not issue permits. What we do is help international productions understand, prepare, and organise the documentation that a filming project in Nepal typically requires, and we publish planning guidance to make that process clearer. Because regulatory details can change, because official requirements are confirmed against current sources during each engagement, and because no written guide can anticipate every location or activity, errors and outdated statements are always possible. This Corrections Policy explains, in plain terms, how we handle them.
This page sets out how anyone can report a mistake to us, how we assess what has been reported, how quickly we act depending on the seriousness of the issue, and how we record what was changed and when. It applies to the guidance published across this website and, where relevant, to the written summaries and checklists we prepare for clients. Our aim is simple: to make it easy for readers, clients, and members of the public to flag something that looks wrong, and to make our response predictable and transparent.
We treat every correction request seriously, whether it comes from a producer who used our service, a location owner, a fellow coordinator, or a casual visitor to the site. We do not need you to prove that something is wrong before we look into it. A clear, reasoned concern is enough for us to review. Throughout this policy you will also find honest limits on what we can and cannot promise, because a corrections process only builds trust if it is realistic about its own boundaries.
Why we maintain a corrections policy
A corrections policy exists for one reason: the information we publish and prepare influences real decisions about time, money, and travel. When a production reads our guidance and plans a shoot around it, or when a client relies on a checklist we assembled, the accuracy of that material matters. If something is wrong, outdated, or unclear, we want to know quickly and fix it in a way that is visible and honest.
We also publish a great deal of general guidance about filming preparation in Nepal. Guidance of this kind is useful precisely because it is specific, but specificity carries risk. A statement that was accurate when written can drift out of date as procedures, responsible offices, or local practices evolve. A sentence that reads clearly to us may be genuinely ambiguous to a first-time reader working in a second language. A generalisation that holds for most productions may be misleading for an unusual one. None of these problems disappear on their own, so we treat structured feedback as an essential part of keeping our content trustworthy.
There is a second, quieter reason. As an independent private service, our reputation rests entirely on being straight with people. We are not a regulator, we cannot guarantee outcomes, and we never claim official authority. What we can offer is diligence and honesty. A published, working corrections process is one of the clearest ways to demonstrate both. It signals that we would rather be told we were wrong and fix it than leave a comfortable-looking error in place.
Finally, a corrections policy protects readers from over-relying on any single page. By being open about the fact that content can contain mistakes, and by showing how we handle them, we encourage the healthy habit of confirming critical regulatory details against current official sources before acting. That habit is something we build into our own work as well, and this policy is an extension of it. The sections that follow describe exactly how the process runs, from the moment you notice something questionable to the moment a correction is recorded.
What this policy covers and what it does not
This policy covers factual and material errors in the content we control. In practice that means three categories. The first is the published guidance on this website: the explanatory pages, planning articles, checklists, and illustrative examples that describe how filming preparation in Nepal typically works. The second is the written material we prepare directly for clients during an engagement, such as document summaries, readiness notes, and preparation checklists. The third is structural or descriptive content about our own service, including statements about what we do, what we do not do, and how we operate.
Within those categories, the kinds of issues we treat as corrections include factual inaccuracies, statements that have become outdated, broken or misdirected references, misleading phrasing, incorrect names or contact details, and errors in examples or tables that could cause a reader to plan incorrectly. Typos and small grammatical slips are also welcome reports, although we handle them with less urgency than substantive errors.
Some things fall outside this policy, and it is fairer to say so plainly. This policy does not cover the underlying regulatory reality itself. If an official requirement changes, that is not an error on our part, although updating our content to reflect the change certainly is within scope. We also cannot correct or take responsibility for information published on other websites, including sites that may link to us or that we may reference for context. Requests to change opinions, editorial framing, or the general scope of a topic are considered as feedback rather than corrections, and we may or may not act on them.
This policy is also not a channel for permit outcomes, complaints about third parties, or disputes with any authority. If you believe an official body has made an error, that is a matter for that body, not for us, and we would not be in a position to correct it. Similarly, this policy does not change the limits described in our terms of service. We never guarantee approval, timing, access, or clearance, and reporting a correction does not create any such guarantee. What this policy does promise is a clear, good-faith process for fixing the things that are genuinely ours to fix.
Types of errors we correct
It helps to be concrete about what we mean by an error, because the word covers a wide range of issues that we handle in different ways. Grouping them makes both reporting and prioritisation clearer.
Factual errors are statements that are simply incorrect. An example would be describing a document as required in a situation where it is not, or attributing a responsibility to the wrong party. These are the most important errors to catch, because they can lead a reader to prepare the wrong things.
Outdated statements are claims that were accurate when written but no longer reflect current practice. Because we deliberately avoid asserting fixed fees, fixed timelines, or a single named issuing authority as permanent fact, most of our content is written to reduce this risk. Even so, general descriptions of process can age, and we treat a credible report that something has changed as a priority to review.
Ambiguity and clarity errors are cases where a statement is not exactly wrong but is easy to misread. For an international audience often working in a second language, clarity is a form of accuracy. If a sentence reliably causes confusion, rewriting it is a legitimate correction.
Attribution and reference errors involve incorrect names, mislabelled sources, broken links, or pointers that lead somewhere other than intended. We also include here any place where we may have implied official status that we do not hold, which we regard as a serious matter to fix immediately.
Structural errors sit in tables, checklists, and examples, where a wrong row, a mislabelled column, or an inconsistent figure can quietly mislead. Because readers often scan these elements quickly, we take mistakes in them seriously.
Finally, presentation errors include typographical mistakes, formatting problems, and small inconsistencies. These rarely change meaning, but they affect readability and trust, so we still fix them. When you report an issue, you do not need to know which category it falls into. We assign the category ourselves during review. Naming the categories here simply helps you understand how we think about the range of things that can go wrong and how our response scales with the seriousness of each.
How to report an error
Reporting an error to us is intentionally simple, because a process that is hard to use does not get used. You do not need an account, a prior relationship with us, or any special standing. If you have read something on our site or in a document we prepared and it looks wrong, outdated, or misleading, we would like to hear about it.
The most reliable way to report is by email to our corrections contact, which is listed on our contact page and referenced again at the end of this policy. Email works well because it creates a written record that we can track, timestamp, and follow up on. If you are an existing client working with a specific coordinator, you may also raise a correction directly through your usual point of contact, and it will be routed into the same process.
When you write, the single most useful thing you can do is point precisely to what you are questioning. Tell us which page or document it is, quote or describe the exact statement, and explain briefly why you think it is wrong or unclear. You do not need to prove your case or cite an official source, although if you happen to have one, sharing it helps us verify faster. A short, specific message is far more useful to us than a long, general one.
We accept reports about anything within the scope described earlier, from a serious factual mistake to a simple typo. There is no such thing as a report that is too small. If you are unsure whether something is genuinely an error or you have simply misunderstood, send it anyway. In many cases the fastest way to resolve a doubt is to let us look at the specific wording and respond.
Please avoid sending confidential production materials, personal identification, or sensitive documents as part of a correction report. Corrections are about the accuracy of our published or delivered content, and they do not require your private files. If a correction does relate to client-specific material, describe the item rather than attaching the underlying documents, and we will handle it through your secure engagement channel instead. The next sections explain what happens once your report reaches us.
What to include in a useful report
The quality of a correction report shapes how quickly we can act on it. We can work with very little, but a few details make the difference between a same-day fix and a longer exchange of clarifying questions. None of the following is mandatory, and you should never delay a report because you lack one of these items. They are simply what helps most.
Start with the location of the issue. If it is a web page, the page title or address is ideal. If it is a document we prepared for you, name the document and, where possible, the section or line. Precise pointing saves us from guessing which of several similar passages you mean.
Next, identify the specific statement. Quoting the exact sentence or figure you are questioning is the most valuable thing you can provide. When people describe a problem in general terms, we often have to write back to confirm which statement they meant, which slows everything down. A direct quote removes that step.
Then, explain the problem in a sentence or two. Tell us whether you believe the statement is factually wrong, out of date, unclear, or simply mistyped, and why. Your reasoning matters more than your certainty. Even a tentative I think this may have changed is useful, because it tells us what to check.
If you have a source, include it, but do not feel obliged to. We verify claims ourselves against current official sources as part of our review, so a report without a citation is still perfectly actionable. A source you provide is a helpful starting point, not a requirement, and we always confirm independently rather than simply accepting an external reference at face value.
Finally, let us know if and how you would like a reply. Some people want to be told the outcome; others are content to flag the issue and move on. We are glad to confirm what we changed if you ask. If you prefer to remain anonymous, that is entirely fine, and it does not reduce the weight we give your report. What we assess is the substance of the concern, not the identity of the person raising it. A concise report built around a precise quote and a clear reason is, in almost every case, all we need to begin.
How we acknowledge and track reports
Once a correction report reaches us, the first thing we do is acknowledge it. If you reported by email and asked for a reply, we confirm that we have received your message and that it has entered our review process. This acknowledgement is not a judgement on whether the correction will be made; it simply tells you that your report has not vanished into an inbox. We aim to acknowledge reports promptly during our normal working hours, recognising that Nepal operates in a time zone that may differ significantly from yours, so there can be a natural gap between when you write and when you hear back.
Every report is logged internally with a small set of details: what was reported, which page or document it concerns, when it arrived, and who is handling it. This internal record is how we make sure nothing is quietly dropped and how we keep the process accountable to itself. It also lets us spot patterns, such as several readers raising the same passage, which is a strong signal that a rewrite is needed even if no single report is decisive.
Assignment is straightforward. A member of our team takes responsibility for each report and sees it through review to resolution. For matters that touch regulatory substance, the report is directed to someone equipped to check it properly rather than being handled superficially. For presentation issues such as typos, the path is shorter and quicker. In all cases there is a named owner, so the report does not stall between people.
We keep the tracking deliberately lightweight. The purpose is reliability, not bureaucracy. We are a focused private service, not a large institution, and our commitment is that reports are recorded, owned, reviewed, and resolved in a consistent way rather than depending on who happened to open the message.
If a report requires more information from you before we can act, we will reach out with a specific question. This usually happens when we cannot identify the exact statement being questioned or when the concern depends on facts only you can supply, such as the particular circumstances of a shoot. Where a report is complete and clear, we move straight to review. Either way, the tracking record follows the report from arrival to closure, and where you have asked to be kept informed, we tell you the outcome once the review concludes.
The review process
Review is where a report becomes either a correction or a reasoned explanation of why no change is needed. We approach every report the same way regardless of who sent it, because the merit of a correction has nothing to do with the standing of the person raising it.
The first step is to reproduce and understand the issue. We locate the exact statement in the exact page or document, read it in context, and confirm what it actually says as opposed to what a report may have paraphrased. Context matters, because a sentence that looks wrong in isolation is sometimes correct within the surrounding qualifications, and vice versa.
The second step is assessment. We decide what kind of issue we are dealing with, using the categories described earlier, and we form a view on whether the current wording is inaccurate, outdated, unclear, or simply imperfect. For anything touching regulatory substance, this is not a matter of opinion. We check the claim against current official sources rather than relying on memory, prior drafts, or the reporter's assertion. Our standing practice is that specific regulatory facts are confirmed against current official sources, and a correction review applies exactly that discipline to the point in question.
The third step is deciding on the action. There are three broad outcomes. We may correct the content, changing the wording to make it accurate, current, or clearer. We may decline to change it, when our review shows the existing statement is correct, in which case we explain our reasoning to the reporter if they asked for a reply. Or we may reframe rather than simply correct, when the underlying issue is ambiguity: here we rewrite so the point is harder to misread, even though the original was not strictly false.
Throughout, we hold to a firm rule inherited from how we write everything: we do not resolve a doubt by inventing a confident-sounding specific. If the honest position is that a detail depends on the production's particular locations and activities, or that an exact figure or authority must be confirmed against current official sources during an engagement, then the corrected text says so in plain language. Replacing a questionable specific with a fabricated certainty would not be a correction; it would be a new error. Where a change is warranted, we make it and then record it, which is the subject of the update log described further on.
How we verify a reported claim
Verification is the heart of any correction that touches substance, so it is worth describing how we go about it. The guiding principle is that we confirm rather than assume. A report gives us a hypothesis that something is wrong; verification tests that hypothesis against the best sources available to us at the time of review.
We give the greatest weight to current official sources. Where a claim concerns a requirement, a responsible office, a process step, or any regulatory detail, we look to confirm it against those sources as they stand on the date of review rather than relying on what was true in the past or on second-hand summaries. We treat externally supplied citations, including any a reporter provides, as leads to check rather than conclusions to accept. If an external reference and an official source disagree, the official source governs, and if the position is genuinely unclear, we say that plainly rather than choosing a convenient answer.
We are also careful about the difference between a general planning statement and a specific regulatory assertion. Much of our content describes typical preparation workflows, the categories of documents productions usually assemble, and considerations by production type or location. These general descriptions are grounded in how the process ordinarily works and are less volatile than specific fees, exact durations, or the precise identity of an issuing authority for a given activity. When a report challenges a general statement, we test it against our broad understanding and practical experience. When a report challenges a specific regulatory detail, we hold ourselves to the higher standard of confirming against current official sources, and where we cannot confirm, we revise the text toward honest conditional wording.
Verification has an honest ceiling, and we prefer to name it. Official positions can be complex, situation-dependent, and subject to interpretation that only the relevant office can give definitively. Our review can establish what current sources indicate and can remove statements we can no longer support, but it cannot turn our content into an official ruling. This is exactly why our guidance is written to encourage confirmation against current official sources during a live engagement, and why a correction, once made, still carries that same conditional character where the underlying reality is genuinely conditional.
When verification is complete, we translate the result into the clearest accurate wording we can. If the reported claim was wrong, we fix it. If it was right, we keep it and explain why. If the truth is that it depends, we make the text say so. The outcome is then logged so that the change, and the reasoning behind it, is part of the record.
Correction priority levels
Not every correction deserves the same urgency, and pretending otherwise would slow down the fixes that matter most. We sort corrections into priority levels so that the response time matches the potential for harm. The level is assigned during review, based on how likely the error is to cause a reader or client to make a costly or risky decision.
The highest priority is reserved for errors that could mislead a production into a materially wrong action or that touch the integrity of who we are. This includes any statement that could be read as claiming official or government status, any promise of a guaranteed outcome, and any factual error that could cause someone to skip a genuinely needed preparation or to proceed on a false assumption about permission, access, or safety. Errors at this level are treated as serious and handled with the rapid response described in a later section. Where necessary, we will remove or neutralise the problematic statement immediately while the fuller correction is prepared, because leaving a seriously misleading claim visible while we deliberate is not acceptable.
The middle priority covers substantive errors that are important but not dangerous. A factual inaccuracy in a general description, an outdated process statement, or a misleading table entry usually sits here. These are corrected promptly, but they do not warrant emergency handling. We review, verify, and fix them in the normal course, and we record the change in the update log.
The lowest priority covers minor issues that affect polish rather than meaning: typos, formatting inconsistencies, small clarity improvements, and cosmetic fixes. We are grateful for these reports and we do act on them, but they are batched and handled as capacity allows rather than interrupting more important work.
Two points keep this system honest. First, the reporter does not set the priority; we do, based on potential impact rather than on how strongly the report was worded. A calmly reported claim of official status is still high priority, and an urgently worded typo is still low. Second, we err upward when unsure. If we cannot immediately tell whether an error is merely cosmetic or genuinely misleading, we treat it as the more serious of the two until review clarifies it. This priority framework is not a promise of a specific number of hours or days, because our capacity and the complexity of verification vary. It is a promise that the seriousness of an error, not the volume of the complaint, determines how fast we move.
How corrections appear in the content
When we correct something, we want the change to be genuine and, where it matters, visible. How a correction shows up depends on its significance, and we try to match transparency to the weight of the change rather than applying one rigid style to everything.
For minor corrections such as typos, formatting fixes, and small clarity edits, we simply make the change. Annotating every cosmetic tweak would clutter the content without informing anyone, so these are folded in quietly. They are still captured in our internal record, but they do not carry a visible note on the page.
For substantive corrections that change the meaning of a statement, we update the content and reflect the change in our update log so there is a record that the page was revised and, in general terms, why. Our goal is that a reader who relied on the earlier version and comes back later can understand that something material changed, rather than finding the text silently different with no acknowledgement.
For serious corrections, particularly those involving a claim that could have misled on a matter of official status, guaranteed outcomes, or a critical preparation step, we favour clear acknowledgement. Where the correction is significant enough that earlier readers may have acted on the wrong information, we make the fact of the correction evident rather than burying it. We would rather visibly own a serious mistake than quietly paper over it.
We also take care that a correction does not introduce a new problem. A rushed fix can trade one error for another, so a corrected passage goes through the same standard we apply to original writing: it must be accurate, appropriately conditional where the underlying reality is conditional, and free of invented specifics. If correcting one sentence exposes a related weakness nearby, we address that too rather than leaving an inconsistency.
One thing we will never do in the name of a correction is manufacture false precision. If the accurate position is that a requirement depends on the specific locations and activities of a production, or that a fee or timeline must be confirmed against current official sources at the time of the work, the corrected text will say exactly that. Transparency about corrections is meaningless if the corrected content itself overstates certainty. Our commitment is that what replaces an error is at least as honest about its own limits as the rest of our content.
The update log and version history
The update log is how a correction becomes part of the record rather than a private edit. We keep a log of substantive changes to our content so that the history of a page is not lost the moment it is overwritten. This matters because people plan around what they read, and a plan made against an earlier version deserves the courtesy of a visible trail when that version changes.
Our logging focuses on changes that carry meaning. Substantive corrections, material updates prompted by a change in the underlying process, and serious fixes are recorded with enough detail to understand what was changed and, in general terms, why. We do not clutter the log with every cosmetic edit, because a log drowned in typo fixes stops being useful. The intent is a readable history of the changes that could actually affect a reader's decisions.
A log entry is written to be understood without inside knowledge. It identifies the content that changed and describes the nature of the change in plain language, such as a statement being updated to reflect current practice, a misleading passage being rewritten for clarity, or an incorrect detail being removed. We avoid framing that would overstate what we knew or when, and we do not present a correction as a routine update when it was in fact a fix to a genuine error. Honesty in the log is as important as honesty in the content it describes.
The update log connects directly to our broader review discipline. Beyond corrections prompted by outside reports, we periodically review higher-risk content on our own initiative, and material changes from those reviews are recorded in the same way. From a reader's perspective the two streams look similar: content that is kept current, with a visible acknowledgement when something meaningful changes. This combination of reactive corrections and proactive review is what keeps a body of guidance trustworthy over time.
There are practical limits worth naming. We are a focused private service, and our log is a record of changes to our own content, not a comprehensive regulatory changelog for Nepal. It tells you when and how we revised what we published; it does not and cannot track every movement in official requirements. For that reason the log complements, rather than replaces, the confirmation of current details against official sources during an active engagement. Used together, the log and that confirmation give a production both a sense of how our guidance has evolved and a reliable path to the current position.
Serious-error and rapid-response handling
Some errors cannot wait for the normal queue, and we handle them differently. A serious error is one that could cause real harm if left in place: a statement that could be read as claiming we are an official or government body, a suggestion of a guaranteed approval, timing, access, or clearance, or a factual mistake that could lead a production to skip a genuinely necessary preparation or to proceed on a false belief about permission or safety. When something like this is reported or discovered, we move immediately.
The first action is containment. If a statement is seriously misleading, we would rather remove or neutralise it at once than leave it visible while we craft the perfect replacement. Taking a problematic sentence down, or replacing it with a plainly conditional holding statement, limits the chance that another reader relies on it in the interval before the full correction is ready. We accept a temporary gap in the content over a persistent risk in it.
The second action is expedited review and verification, following the same standards described earlier but with priority over routine work. For anything touching regulatory substance, we confirm against current official sources rather than rushing to a guess, because replacing a serious error with a confident but unverified claim would compound the harm rather than resolve it. Where the honest answer is that the point depends on the production's specifics or must be confirmed at the time of the work, the corrected text says so.
The third action is visible acknowledgement. Because serious errors are, by definition, the ones most likely to have affected someone's decisions, we do not fold their correction in silently. We make the fact of the correction clear so that a reader who saw the earlier version understands that a meaningful change occurred, and we record it in the update log with appropriate candour.
If you believe you have found a serious error, please say so explicitly when you report it. Flagging urgency helps us triage, although we assess seriousness ourselves and will escalate a report even if it arrives calmly worded. We would always rather be alerted to a suspected serious problem that turns out to be minor than miss a genuine one because it was raised gently. This rapid-response path reflects a simple priority: on the matters where being wrong costs the most, speed and honesty come before everything else, including our own comfort in admitting a mistake.
Corrections to client work versus published guidance
There is an important distinction between correcting the guidance we publish on this website and correcting the material we prepare directly for a client. Both are covered by this policy, but they run through different channels because they carry different confidentiality and impact considerations.
Published guidance is public. When we correct it, the fix benefits everyone who reads the page, and the correction is recorded in our update log where appropriate. Anyone may report an issue with published guidance, and the process described throughout this policy applies directly. There is nothing confidential about a correction to a public page, so we can be straightforward and open about it.
Client-specific material is different. The document summaries, readiness notes, and preparation checklists we prepare during an engagement are tied to a particular production's confidential information. If an error is found in that material, it is corrected privately, through the secure channel and named coordinator handling that engagement, not through public logs or general acknowledgements. The priority levels and verification standards still apply, but the visibility does not: we do not expose a client's project in an update log, and we do not discuss their materials with anyone outside the engagement.
Errors in client work are often more time-sensitive, because the client may be actively planning around the material. When a client raises a correction, we treat the potential impact on their live preparation as a strong factor in prioritisation, and we make sure the corrected version reaches them clearly so there is no confusion about which version is current. Where an error in client-specific material reveals a related weakness in our public guidance, we correct the public guidance too, but we do so without disclosing anything about the client that surfaced it.
If you are a client, the simplest path is to raise any correction with your usual coordinator, who will route it into the same review and verification process while keeping it inside your confidential channel. If you are a member of the public, you will naturally be reporting on published content, and the standard corrections contact is the right route. This separation is not bureaucracy; it is how we keep the openness that public corrections deserve without ever compromising the confidentiality that client work requires. The security and handling of client materials is governed further by our confidentiality and document security commitments, and corrections operate within those same protections.
Confidentiality when you report an error
We want people to report errors freely, and that means being clear about how we treat the person and the information involved. Reporting a correction should never feel risky, and it should never require you to expose more about yourself or your production than the correction actually needs.
First, you may report anonymously. We assess the substance of a concern, not the identity of the person raising it, so a report signed with a name and a report sent without one are weighed the same way. If you would prefer we not retain your contact details beyond what is needed to reply, tell us, and we will respect that. If you do not want a reply at all, simply flagging the issue is enough.
Second, we do not need your private materials to process a correction. Corrections concern the accuracy of our published or delivered content, which we already hold. Please do not attach confidential production documents, personal identification, or sensitive files to a correction report. If a correction genuinely relates to client-specific material, describe the item in general terms and we will handle the detail through your secure engagement channel rather than through open correspondence.
Third, we keep the internal record of a correction limited to what the process requires: what was reported, where, when, and how it was resolved. We do not use a correction report as an occasion to build a profile of the person who sent it, and we do not repurpose the contact information you provide for marketing or unrelated outreach. A correction is a correction, not a lead.
Fourth, we are mindful that some corrections touch sensitive ground, for example when a report concerns a location, a community, or a person mentioned in our content. In those cases we take particular care not to expose the reporter or any third party in how we log or acknowledge the change. Where a correction can be made without naming anyone, that is how we make it.
These commitments sit alongside our wider approach to handling information, which favours collecting little, holding it carefully, and being honest about the limits of any channel. Ordinary email, for instance, is not a secure medium, so we ask you not to send sensitive material through it, whether you are reporting a correction or contacting us for any other reason. The aim throughout is that raising an error with us is easy, low-risk, and free of any pressure to reveal more than the correction requires. Good information depends on people feeling safe to speak up, and this is how we try to make that true.
Limits of this corrections process
A corrections policy earns trust only if it is honest about what it cannot do, so this section sets out the limits plainly. None of these limits reduce our commitment to fixing genuine errors; they simply describe the edges of what a private support service can realistically promise.
We cannot guarantee a specific response or resolution time. We aim to acknowledge reports promptly and to prioritise by potential harm, but verification of substantive claims can be involved, our capacity varies, and Nepal's public holidays and office closures can affect how quickly we can confirm anything that depends on official sources. What we promise is a consistent process and prioritisation by seriousness, not a fixed clock.
We cannot correct the underlying regulatory reality. If a requirement is what it is, we can describe it accurately and update our content when it changes, but we have no power to alter official rules, fees, timelines, or decisions. A report that an official requirement is inconvenient or has changed is valuable input for updating our content, but the change itself is not ours to make.
We cannot turn our content into an official ruling. Even a carefully verified correction remains general guidance written to encourage confirmation against current official sources during a live engagement. Where the honest answer is that a point depends on a production's specific locations and activities, correction means making the text say so, not manufacturing a certainty we do not have.
We cannot correct content we do not control. If you find an error on another website, including one that references or links to us, we are not in a position to fix it, and we cannot vouch for information published elsewhere. Our corrections process covers our own published guidance and the materials we prepare, and nothing beyond that.
We also cannot always change wording you disagree with. Where a report is really a difference of editorial judgement or a request to reframe a topic rather than a factual error, we consider it as feedback and may decide the existing content stands. When we decline a change, we will, if you asked for a reply, explain our reasoning rather than simply going quiet.
Finally, this policy does not expand any guarantee. Reporting or receiving a correction does not create a promise of approval, timing, access, or clearance, and it does not alter the terms under which we provide our service. These limits are not caveats designed to avoid responsibility; they are the honest boundary of what an independent, non-official service can do. Within that boundary, our commitment to correcting real errors quickly and transparently is unqualified.
Contact and escalation
The final piece of a corrections policy is knowing exactly where to send a report and what to do if you feel it has not been handled well. We keep both paths simple.
To report an error in our published guidance, write to our corrections contact, which is listed on our contact page. Email is the preferred route because it creates a clear, timestamped record that we can track through review to resolution. Include the page or document, the specific statement you are questioning, and a brief reason why it looks wrong or unclear. If you would like to be told the outcome, say so, and let us know whether you are comfortable with us keeping your contact details for that reply.
If you are an existing client and the correction concerns material we prepared for your engagement, the fastest route is to raise it with your usual coordinator. It will enter the same review and verification process while staying inside the confidential channel for your project, so you do not need to use the public corrections contact for private materials.
If you believe you have found a serious error, one that could mislead on official status, on any guarantee of outcome, timing, access, or clearance, or on a critical preparation step, please say so explicitly when you write. Flagging urgency helps us triage quickly, even though we assess seriousness ourselves and will escalate a calmly worded report if the substance warrants it.
If you have reported something and feel the response was inadequate, you are welcome to follow up and ask us to look again. A good-faith request to reconsider is always legitimate. When we decline to make a change, we try to explain why, and if our explanation has not addressed your concern, telling us that directly is the best way to reopen the question. We would rather re-examine an issue than leave a reader unconvinced that we took it seriously.
Please remember that ordinary email is not a secure channel. When you contact us about a correction, or about anything else, do not include confidential production documents, personal identification, or other sensitive files. Describe the issue instead, and where private material is genuinely involved, we will move the exchange to the secure channel used for client engagements. Our office operates on Nepal time, which may differ considerably from yours, so allow for that difference when you are waiting on a reply. Within these simple boundaries, we welcome every report. Telling us we got something wrong is not a nuisance to us; it is one of the most useful things a reader or client can do, and this policy exists to make sure that when you do, it leads somewhere.
| Priority level | Typical examples | How we handle it | How it is recorded |
|---|---|---|---|
| Serious | A statement that could imply official or government status, any suggestion of a guaranteed approval, timing, access or clearance, or a factual error that could cause a production to skip a genuinely needed preparation | Immediate containment by removing or neutralising the statement, then expedited verification against current official sources | Visible acknowledgement plus an entry in the update log |
| Substantive | A factual inaccuracy in general guidance, an outdated process description, or a misleading table or checklist entry | Prompt review and verification, then a wording change that stays honest about any conditional reality | Recorded in the update log where the change affects meaning |
| Clarity | A statement that is not strictly wrong but is easy to misread, especially for readers working in a second language | Rewrite so the point is harder to misinterpret, without inventing new specifics | Logged if the change is material to meaning |
| Minor | Typographical errors, formatting inconsistencies, and small cosmetic fixes | Corrected as capacity allows, without interrupting more important work | Captured internally, not individually annotated on the page |
How correction reports are prioritised and handled
What this includes
- Corrections to factual, outdated, unclear, and structural errors in our published guidance
- Corrections to written summaries, readiness notes, and checklists we prepare for clients, handled through the secure engagement channel
- A simple reporting route open to anyone, with no account or client relationship required
- Acknowledgement of reports and an internal tracking record from arrival to resolution
- Verification of substantive claims against current official sources before a change is made
- Prioritisation by potential harm, with rapid handling of serious errors
- An update log recording material and serious changes to our content
- Honest, conditional wording where the underlying regulatory reality genuinely depends on a production's specifics
What this does not include
- Any power to change official rules, fees, timelines, responsible offices, or permit decisions
- Corrections to content on other websites, including sites that link to or reference us
- Guaranteed response or resolution times, given verification effort, capacity, and local closures
- Turning verified guidance into an official ruling; content remains general and conditional
- Changes to editorial judgement or topic framing where no factual error exists
- Any new guarantee of approval, timing, access, or clearance arising from a report or correction
- Handling of confidential production documents through open correction reports rather than the secure channel
- A comprehensive regulatory changelog for Nepal; the update log covers our own content only
Frequently asked questions
Anyone can. You do not need an account, a prior relationship with us, or any special standing to report a mistake. Readers, clients, location owners, fellow coordinators, and casual visitors are all welcome to flag something that looks wrong, outdated, or unclear. We assess the substance of a concern rather than the identity of the person raising it, so an anonymous report carries the same weight as a signed one.
The most reliable way is by email to our corrections contact, which is listed on our contact page. Email works best because it creates a written, timestamped record that we can track through review to resolution. Tell us which page or document the issue is in, quote or describe the exact statement you are questioning, and explain briefly why it looks wrong. If you are an existing client, you can also raise a correction directly with your usual coordinator.
No. A clear, reasoned concern is enough for us to review. You do not need to prove your case or supply an official source, although if you happen to have one, sharing it helps us verify faster. We confirm substantive claims ourselves against current official sources as part of every review, so a report without a citation is still perfectly actionable. Even a tentative note that something may have changed is useful to us.
It depends on the seriousness of the error rather than on how the report was worded. Serious errors, such as anything implying official status or a guaranteed outcome, are handled immediately, often by removing or neutralising the statement while we prepare the full correction. Substantive errors are corrected promptly in the normal course. Minor issues like typos are handled as capacity allows. We cannot promise a fixed number of hours or days, because verification effort and our capacity vary, and local holidays can affect how fast we confirm official details.
Yes, if you ask us to. Some people want to be told what changed, while others are content to flag an issue and move on, so we let you choose. If you would like a reply, say so when you write and let us know whether you are comfortable with us keeping your contact details for that purpose. If we decide not to make a change, we will explain our reasoning rather than simply going quiet.
We correct factual inaccuracies, statements that have become outdated, misleading or ambiguous phrasing, incorrect names or references, broken or misdirected links, errors in tables and checklists, and typographical or formatting mistakes. You do not need to know which category your report falls into; we assign that ourselves during review. What matters is that you point precisely to the statement and tell us why it looks wrong.
Yes. When our review shows the existing statement is correct, we keep it and, if you asked for a reply, explain why. We also treat requests that are really about editorial judgement or topic framing, rather than a factual error, as feedback that we may or may not act on. Declining a change is not us dismissing you; it is the outcome of checking the specific wording against the facts and finding it sound. You are always welcome to follow up and ask us to look again.
A corrected passage goes through the same standard we apply to original writing. It must be accurate, appropriately conditional where the underlying reality is conditional, and free of invented specifics. We never resolve a doubt by inventing a confident-sounding fee, timeline, or authority. If the honest position is that a detail depends on a production's specific locations and activities, or must be confirmed against current official sources during an engagement, the corrected text says exactly that instead of manufacturing false precision.
It depends on their significance. Minor fixes such as typos are simply made without a visible note. Substantive corrections that change meaning are reflected in our update log so there is a record that the content was revised. Serious corrections, especially those that could have misled earlier readers, are given clear acknowledgement rather than being folded in silently. We would rather visibly own a serious mistake than quietly paper over it.
The update log is a record of material and serious changes to our content, kept so that the history of a page is not lost the moment it is overwritten. Each entry identifies the content that changed and describes the nature of the change in plain language. We deliberately keep cosmetic edits out of it so the log stays readable and useful. It covers our own content only and is not a comprehensive changelog of Nepal's regulatory requirements, so it complements rather than replaces confirming current details during a live engagement.
Yes. Client-specific materials are tied to your confidential information, so corrections to them are handled privately through the secure channel and the named coordinator on your engagement, not through public logs or acknowledgements. The same verification standards and priority levels apply, but the visibility does not. The simplest path is to raise the correction with your usual coordinator, who will route it into the same review process while keeping everything inside your confidential channel.
Please do not attach confidential production documents, personal identification, or sensitive files. Corrections concern the accuracy of our published or delivered content, which we already hold, so your private materials are not needed. If a correction relates to client-specific material, describe the item in general terms and we will handle the detail through your secure channel. If you have a public source that supports your point, you are welcome to share it, but remember that ordinary email is not a secure medium for anything sensitive.
No. Our corrections process covers our own published guidance and the materials we prepare for clients. We are not in a position to change content on other websites, including sites that reference or link to us, and we cannot vouch for the accuracy of information published elsewhere. If you have found an error on another site, that is a matter for whoever operates it. We are always glad, though, to review anything on our own pages.
No. We never guarantee approval, timing, access, or customs clearance, and reporting or receiving a correction does not create any such promise. A correction simply makes our content more accurate; it does not alter the terms under which we provide our service, and it has no bearing on any official decision. Even a carefully verified correction remains general guidance written to encourage confirmation against current official sources during your engagement, because the underlying decisions belong to the relevant authorities and not to us.