up:: For Press
Corrections and verification
If something here is wrong, it should be fixed, and the fastest route is addie@lamarrlabs.com with the page name and what’s incorrect.
Every page carries a last-verified date in its byline. Every load-bearing figure carries the document it came from. That’s the standard this resource holds itself to, and reporting a miss is a favor rather than an imposition.
How do I report an error?
Email addie@lamarrlabs.com with 3 things:
- The page, by name or URL.
- The claim as it currently reads.
- What’s wrong, and a source if you have one.
A source isn’t required. “This number looks off” is a useful report, and it gets checked.
What happens next: the claim is traced back to its primary source. If the source doesn’t support it, the page is corrected and its verified date is bumped. If the source does support it, you get the citation back so you can judge for yourself.
How do I verify a claim before publishing?
Three routes, fastest first.
| You need | Go to |
|---|---|
| The number, stated accurately, with its qualifier | Every figure and where it comes from |
| The original document a claim rests on | The primary documents behind every claim |
| Whether your material is out of date | What changed recently |
Between them, those 3 pages carry the load-bearing figures and the primary sources this resource leans on hardest, so most verification questions resolve without needing to ask anyone. They are not exhaustive: a figure can appear on a single page and be sourced there rather than in the index, and if you find one that is, tell me and it gets added.
For anything they don’t cover, email is fine, and a specific question gets a specific answer with the document attached.
Two habits catch most of what slips through, and both come from checking this material against primaries rather than against coverage.
Take the date from the filing, not from the aggregator. Quantum-industry news listings routinely repeat one item under several dates as it propagates. Pasqal’s Nasdaq listing was carried as August 24, 2026 by one widely-read listing, while the filings put shareholder approval at August 25 and the shares trading from August 28. Where a company issued a release or made a filing, that document carries the date.
Check whether a figure stands alone or anchors a larger one. Canada’s commitment to Xanadu was reported as CAD 893 million project. A number reported without the structure around it is smaller than the thing it describes.
What does this resource commit to?
Six standing commitments, so you know what you’re relying on.
- Every load-bearing figure traces to a primary source, cited inline with a link. Nothing important is asserted from general knowledge. Where a source sits behind a host that refuses automated retrieval and has not been obtained by hand, the page says so rather than leaving the citation to imply the document was read.
- Qualifiers travel with figures. A projection is labeled a projection, a draft is labeled a draft, an expert survey is labeled a survey. The qualifiers most often dropped are collected at What gets reported wrong.
- Vendor and commercial claims are labeled as such, alongside who benefits from the framing.
- Uncorroborated claims are marked uncorroborated, including high-profile ones.
- Pages carry a verified date, so staleness is visible rather than assumed. It means claims on the page were read against their cited documents on that date. It does not mean every claim on the page was, because some cited documents cannot be reached at all.
- Corrections are made to the page, rather than appended, with the verified date bumped so the change is dateable.
What if we disagree about a claim?
Then the citation is the arbiter, and you’ll get it.
Some claims in this field are contested, and those are marked as contested rather than resolved. Which parameter strength to require, whether to pair old algorithms with new, whether published timelines survive contact with real estates, and how durable the new algorithms are, are all live disputes with credible people on both sides. Those are set out at For a security or technology audience.
If a page states something as settled that’s actually contested, that’s an error worth reporting, and it’s the kind most worth catching.
Can I use this material?
Yes, freely, and no permission is needed. It’s given away on purpose.
Two requests rather than conditions. Take the citation with the number, because a figure without its qualifier is how accurate material becomes inaccurate coverage. And link the page if it was useful, so the next person can check the source themselves.
Questions people ask
How fast do corrections get made? Factual errors get priority and are usually corrected the same day they’re confirmed.
Do you publish a correction log? Each page’s verified date moves when it changes, the git history of this resource is public, and What changed recently tracks what has moved in the field. There’s no separate human-written log of edits, so the commit history is the record.
Can I get a claim confirmed on background? Email works. If a claim can be sourced to a public document, you’ll get the document, which is more useful than confirmation anyway.
Who maintains this? Addie LaMarr, a working cryptographer. Every page carries the same byline.
Is anything here sponsored or vendor-funded? No. Vendor claims that appear are labeled as vendor claims, with the commercial interest stated.
What if a page is out of date rather than wrong? Report it the same way. Staleness is a defect, and the drafts and schedules in this field do move.
Where to go next
- Every figure and where it comes from carries every number with its qualifier.
- The primary documents behind every claim carries every source document.
- What changed recently covers whether your material is current.
- For Press returns to the index.
Last verified 2026-09-01 · Maintained by Addie LaMarr, LaMarr Labs.