A directory correction is easier to maintain when its purpose is narrow. This guide covers how to close a request when the submitted replacement was superseded, using wrong field, approved replacement and request reference to separate an approved change from an unresolved question. It is written for a directory support coordinator, with a final check of the public-facing result.
| Keep separately | Purpose for this task |
|---|---|
| Source | wrong field, approved replacement and request reference |
| Public change | Close a request when the submitted replacement was superseded |
| Responsible role | directory support coordinator |
Set the boundary of this correction requests check
To close a request when the submitted replacement was superseded, first distinguish the affected public detail from neighbouring information that serves a different purpose. Identify the wrong field, the approved replacement and the affected public record in one concise request. Record the question in ordinary language before editing. This keeps the review focused when several profile fields appear to need attention, and lets a second person understand why this change is being proposed.
Build a usable source note
The source note for “Close a request when the submitted replacement was superseded” should identify wrong field, approved replacement and request reference, the relevant date or version if known, and the person able to confirm the arrangement. Track submission, response and visible result separately; a support acknowledgement does not establish that the public correction is complete. Keep a source claim separate from the wording you plan to publish. When one part remains unconfirmed, write down that gap explicitly instead of allowing the rest of the evidence to imply that everything has been established.
Test the likely misunderstanding
Consider “Close a request when the submitted replacement was superseded” as a hypothetical editing exercise: a review of “Close a request when the submitted replacement was superseded” needs to distinguish the intended public meaning from an unsupported assumption. Identify the wrong field, the approved replacement and the affected public record in one concise request. This is an illustrative decision test, not a report about a real business. Ask the directory support coordinator to explain which part of the current display could produce that misunderstanding and which supported detail would prevent it. A cosmetic rewrite alone may leave the underlying confusion intact.
Prepare the public-facing change
For the actual edit to close a request when the submitted replacement was superseded, preserve the smallest useful distinction and avoid changing unrelated approved facts. For “Close a request when the submitted replacement was superseded”: track submission, response and visible result separately; a support acknowledgement does not establish that the public correction is complete. If the platform supports a dedicated field, use it for its intended purpose. Where explanatory text is needed, put the qualification close to the information it limits; visitors should not need to discover it in an unrelated section.
Finish with a reproducible check
Treat “Close a request when the submitted replacement was superseded” as complete only after reviewing what the public record now shows. Compare the saved result with wrong field, approved replacement and request reference, including any formatting or truncation introduced by the platform. Record the affected field, the visible outcome and any remaining question for the directory support coordinator. A submitted update and a visible correction are separate milestones; retain the distinction so that a later editor does not assume a pending change is already live.
Before marking this task complete
- Can a new visitor understand the result of “Close a request when the submitted replacement was superseded”?
- Is the relevant correction requests detail supported by wrong field, approved replacement and request reference?
- Are the directory support coordinator’s unresolved questions kept separate from the approved change?