Correcting a record should leave enough history to explain what changed. Silent replacement can make a clean-looking summary harder to trust.
Record the original issue, the evidence supporting the correction and the person responsible for reviewing it. Use a proportionate change trail suited to the importance of the information.
Preserve the connection
In a fictional delivery log, two entries share an identifier. Confirm whether they represent duplicate recording or separate attempts before deleting a row. The correction should explain how the supporting records resolve that question.
Tell affected readers when an earlier report they relied on has materially changed. A corrected source does not automatically update every copied presentation or decision already made from it.
Review recurring errors for a practical cause. An ambiguous field, missing validation or unclear ownership may deserve attention. Keep that improvement distinct from blaming the person who noticed the problem. A process that allows mistakes to be surfaced and corrected responsibly gives the next reader something more valuable than a history that appears perfect because its disagreements were erased.