Anything published often enough is eventually wrong, and a site reporting on an unreleased game through intermediaries will be wrong more often than most. What separates a reference from a rumour mill is not the error rate — it is whether the errors leave a trace.
So the commitment is narrow and checkable: nothing published on GTA6Notes is deleted to hide a mistake. Not the claim, not the grade it carried, not the source it rested on.
Corrections are published, never performed silently. The original keeps its anchor.
A corrected claim is struck through or marked superseded in place, and the change is dated in the public register. This site publishes no contact form and no email address, so there is currently no reporting channel — which is recorded below as an unknown rather than concealed.
Corrections deleted rather than published
None
Four kinds, and the second is the one that matters most on a site like this — a claim can be perfectly true and still be graded wrong, and a single over-graded claim devalues every other grade on the site.
| Kind of error | What it looks like | What happens to it |
|---|---|---|
| A claim that is false | The sentence says something that is not the case, whatever grade it carries. | Regraded and struck through, or withdrawn if it turns out to rest on nothing. Dated in the register. |
| A grade that is too high | The claim may well be true, but the material behind it does not reach the grade printed on it. | Regraded downward. This is the error most worth reporting, and the one least often noticed. |
| A source that does not say what we say it says | A misread quote, a figure attributed to the wrong party, a relay cited as original reporting. | The citation is fixed, and the claim is re-graded from whatever the source actually supports. |
| A claim that has gone stale | True when published, overtaken since. On this subject, dates and platform lists are the usual casualties. | Marked superseded and dated. Not struck through as false — it was not false, it is finished. |
Not an error, however firmly it is put to us: that a claim graded rumoured is in fact true. It may be. Promotion needs first-party material, and nothing else — not a track record, not the passage of time, and not the number of other sites that have already promoted it. The order of precedence is on the source policy.
There is a standing illustration of why the register matters, and it is not hypothetical: a first-party plan, stated publicly, changed inside a day. A site that simply replaced its page would have erased both the statement and the change.
Trailer 1 had been scheduled for 5 December 2023 at 9am ET and was brought forward after a watermarked copy leaked on X.
Rockstar posted: "Our trailer has leaked so please watch the real thing on YouTube." This is why sources disagree on whether the trailer is a 4 or 5 December release.
Source Forbes Dated
A claim contradicted by new first-party material is regraded as part of covering that material — the correction and the news are the same edit, so it happens on the same day. An error in a citation is fixed as soon as it is established. Neither is held for a convenient moment, and neither waits on a batch.
Beyond that, the whole fact base is re-checked against its sources rather than left to drift, and every page prints the date that check last happened. A page whose stamp is months old is telling you something true about itself, which is the point of printing it.
None. The site was first published on 22 August 2026, and an empty correction register that has been open for days is what an empty correction register should look like. It is published now, before it is needed, because one created on the day it first becomes necessary is one nobody has any reason to believe.
Separately, the site currently carries 4 claims that were widely repeated and are contradicted by first-party material. Those are corrections to the record rather than to us, and they are kept visible on exactly the same principle.
| State | Claim | Source and date |
|---|---|---|
| Disproved | Claims in mid-2026 that the game would slip again into 2027 have no first-party backing. | Dexerto |
| Disproved | Claims that GTA VI is confirmed for Switch 2 are false. | GameSpot |
| Disproved | Claims that the boxed edition includes a playable disc are wrong. | Push Square |
| Disproved | Claims that an online mode ships alongside the game on 19 November 2026 are unsupported. | GamesRadar+ |
Stated in first-party material, or shown in official footage. Two attributable sources where possible. Nothing reliable exists. Stated plainly rather than filled with speculation.
Each is set out with the material that contradicted it on the debunked page.
No route is published. This site carries no contact form, no email address, no comment thread and no account anywhere that it can claim as its own — and rather than print one that does not exist, or invite reports into a channel nobody is reading, the gap is stated.
That is a real limitation and it is not dressed up as a design principle. What can be said for it is that the alternative most sites choose — a form that files reports into an inbox nobody opens — is worse, because it looks like accountability and functions as a wastebasket. When a reporting route exists it will be published on this page and recorded on the changelog with the date it opened.
The site is built to be checked rather than trusted, and that machinery works whether or not anybody can write to us:
.md in place of the trailing slash, generated from the rendered page. It is
the fastest way to diff what a page says now against what you quoted.
Whether a correction has been made, and when, is answerable without contacting anybody: the changelog is the record, and it is added to rather than edited.
GTA6Notes is an independent reference and is not affiliated with Rockstar Games or Take-Two Interactive. It hosts no leaked material of any kind, uses no official artwork, logos or trailer frames, and illustrates itself entirely with original photography made for this site — including any picture that shows a person, who is invented, and is labelled as invented in visible text wherever they appear.
The reasoning behind that refusal, and the fact that a takedown is a legal reflex rather than an authentication of anything, is set out on the source policy. The list of what will never appear here is on the method page.
Corrections to the record, kept on the page
4