# Correct a LinkedIn post without hiding what changed

Original constructed teaching cases. No real accounts, readers or customers.

## Case 1

E1 — Constructed same-name versions: the practice files represent an old “all 24 complete” statement and the corrected “20 complete, 4 pending” statement. They can both be named review.pdf locally. Select both and compare the different byte fingerprints; inspect the actual new contents as well. Decision: keep attachment/publication verification open until that actual object is inspected. Outcome: exact local versions distinguished, no native replacement inferred.

## Case 2

E2 — Constructed premature closure: the caption has a dated readback note, but an exported report still repeats the old claim. Mark the report/reference scope pending rather than copying the caption’s checked state. If no preview card is involved, record that reason before choosing not needed. Outcome: a per-object correction record, not a single blanket “fixed.”

## Case 3

E3 — Constructed handoff file: a complete-looking saved record contains unsupported schema data, or a shortening record is offered to the correction tool. Decision: reject the import and keep the current correction entries. Reopen a supported private correction JSON and inspect its saved source/version notes; a downloaded record is not proof of the stated public checks. Outcome: no silent replacement of working evidence by an incompatible file.

## Four preserved earlier correction cases

# Correct a LinkedIn post without hiding what changed

All scenarios and values below are original constructed teaching examples. No real account action, subscriber, reader, customer, delivery or performance outcome is established. Keep real completed notes private. These files do not publish, change settings, contact anyone or retrieve account data.

## 1. A ratio described as people

Constructed original: “Five percent of people who saw this responded.” Inputs are 100 response events and 2,000 impressions, not unique responders or viewers. The mistake is in the caption; no attached media repeats it.

Complete correction: “Correction: the 5% figure is 100 reaction/comment events divided by 2,000 impressions. It does not measure the share of distinct people who responded. The event counts are unchanged; my earlier description of people was incorrect.”

Route: ordinary text edit, save, reopen and compare the revised claim with its source. Check the actual post link. This file verifies 100 / 2,000 × 100 = 5 offline, not a real LinkedIn edit or whether earlier readers saw the correction.

## 2. A wrong value inside an attached PDF

Constructed original: the caption and page 3 of recap-v1.pdf say “24 completed reviews”; the source shows 18 complete and 6 awaiting review out of 24 total. The attachment is already published. Changing only the caption leaves a contradictory page.

Complete replacement wording: “Correction to the earlier recap: 24 was the total review queue, not the number completed. The corrected file states 18 complete and 6 awaiting review at the same snapshot. It does not establish a processing-speed improvement.” Prepare and inspect recap-v2.pdf before deciding the old post’s removal and any replacement.

Record separate states for old post, new export, actual replacement, report citation and any existing preview. New arithmetic: 18 + 6 = 24, completed share 75%. No rich-media replacement inside the old post is promised; publication and downstream reference checks remain outstanding.

## 3. A changed date in a queued Page post

Constructed original: a Page post is scheduled for next week and announces a workshop on 12 November. The confirmed event moved to 19 November; the image also contains the old date. Nothing has been published yet.

Decision: use the exact Page’s scheduled-post list and Edit post, review available content/media controls, save through its scheduled workflow and reopen. If a required field cannot be changed in the actual account, hold the item rather than asserting that every queued field is editable. Modify schedule is a separate choice from changing the event date in the text.

Corrected wording: “The workshop now takes place on 19 November; the earlier 12 November date no longer applies.” Check the image, registration destination and saved queue. No queue save or actual publication is claimed by this constructed example.

## 4. An uneditable poll with votes already cast

Constructed input: a poll asks about “last month” but the intended period was “last quarter.” Some people have already voted. The problem changes the meaning of the answers, not just spelling.

Decision: do not claim an in-place poll edit. Decide whether an explanatory correction is sufficient or the poll should be removed and a separately reviewed question published. Do not carry the old votes into a new poll as though people answered the revised question.

Complete note: “The original question used the wrong period. Its existing votes answer that original wording and cannot be interpreted as responses about the quarter.” Actual correction/removal/new publication remain unresolved until separately checked.