People act on what we publish about compliance obligations, so when we get a fact wrong we say so in public rather than editing the page quietly. This log records substantive factual corrections to published articles. How we source and review material in the first place is set out in our editorial policy.
What we log, and what we do not
We log any change that alters what a reader would understand a rule, a date, an obligation or a number to be. That includes a wrong effective date, a rule described as in force when it is a proposal, a misattributed obligation, and any quantified claim we could not substantiate.
We do not log routine editing: typographical fixes, restructured sections, refreshed examples, broken links, or ordinary updates that add newly published information without changing an earlier statement of fact.
How corrections are handled
- Reported or found, then verified. We confirm the position against the primary source before changing anything, including when the report is confidently worded.
- Corrected at the source. The claim is fixed on every page carrying it, not only the page that was reported.
- The argument is rebuilt, not deleted. If a corrected fact was load-bearing, we replace it with an accurate mechanism rather than removing the sentence and leaving a hole.
- Logged here with a date when the change is substantive, stating what was wrong and what the page now says.
Report an error
Send it through our contact page. A link to the page and the sentence in question is enough. If you can point at the primary source, that is faster still. We would rather hear about a mistake than leave it published.
Correction log
Six industry pages covering AML for banking, crypto, fintech, government and neobanks, and KYC for banking
What was wrong: The pages stated that a FinCEN “AML/CFT Program Rule” took effect on 1 January 2026 and introduced a new “reasonably designed and risk-based” standard. Neither half was correct.
What it says now: FinCEN’s programme modernisation proposal is described as a proposal, issued as a notice of proposed rulemaking on 7 April 2026, with nothing yet binding. The separate investment-adviser AML rule is dated to its actual application date of 1 January 2028. The “reasonably designed and risk-based” wording is attributed to its real source, the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 at 31 U.S.C. 5318(h)(2)(B)(iv), rather than to a 2026 rule.
Two industry pages, AML for fintech and AML for neobanks
What was wrong: The pages dated the EU Instant Payment Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2024/886) to January 2026, and stated that it made batch-only transaction monitoring non-compliant.
What it says now: The euro-area deadlines are stated correctly as 9 January 2025 for receiving instant credit transfers and 9 October 2025 for sending them, with payment service providers outside the euro area following in 2027. The monitoring claim was removed: the Regulation makes no such requirement, and on sanctions its Article 5d runs the other way, prohibiting per-transaction screening during execution and instead requiring customer-base screening at least once each calendar day and immediately after any listing change.
Coverage and ownership figures used across product and blog pages
What was wrong: Two quantified claims were in circulation that no Zyphe measurement supported: an ownership-tracing figure expressed as a precise percentage, and a corporate-registry count described as European.
What it says now: The ownership claim is stated qualitatively, as support for low ownership thresholds configurable per risk tier. The registry count is stated as the canonical figure of 240+ corporate registries worldwide, without the European qualifier. Both retired figures were removed from the claims registry so they cannot reappear.