Corrections #
BehavioralStrategy.com corrects public errors in place when possible and records material changes here. Routine copy edits that do not change meaning are not listed.
Correction log #
The September 5, 2026 habit and nudge correction updates explanatory notes in BS-0025, BS-0027, and BS-0056. Their reported results, classifications, and sources are unchanged.
| Date | Affected URL | Old claim | Correction | Reason | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-05 | /cases/mpesa/; /cases/instagram-pivot/; /cases/slack-pivot/; /synthesis/case-matrix/; linked summaries |
The cases and summaries overstated effortless adoption, behavior-change comparisons, or historical fit validation. | Rebuilt M-PESA and Instagram around inspected public source accounts, made operational dependencies and unknowns explicit, narrowed Slack and Glitch claims, and aligned the matrix and summaries with the revised cases. | The sources do not establish the organizations’ use of this framework or isolate a causal advantage for behavior selection. The new teaching packets identify proposed tests separately from historical observations. | Corrected |
| 2026-09-05 | /synthesis/; /applications/technology/; /methodology/drive-framework/; /evidence/ledger/ |
Unnamed examples asserted churn, population prevalence, or internal research history; habit and nudge summaries extended research into broad product or strategy conclusions. | Labeled diagnostic examples as hypothetical, bounded Spotify inferences, and narrowed the corresponding ledger notes. Habit studies do not estimate automaticity across meaningful product behaviors; the proposed fit-first workflow has no comparative effectiveness result in these sources. | The cited studies and case records do not support those broader inferences. Reported evidence results, IDs, classifications, and source links are preserved. | Corrected |
| 2026-09-05 | /cases/ynab-vs-mint/; /synthesis/ |
Mint had lost 82% of active users; its decline supported an engagement comparison with YNAB. | Removed the decline: registered users and monthly active users are different populations. Removed undated YNAB comparison figures and corrected automated tracking versus active allocation. | The sources do not provide a comparable engagement time series or an isolated causal advantage. | Corrected |
| 2026-09-05 | /cases/; /synthesis/; /synthesis/practitioner-guide/ |
Old Proposify conversion figures and a Time-to-First-Benefit prediction label remained after the case was corrected. | Propagated the existing correction. The summaries now describe early company-reported activation associations, with no measured TTFB or usable effect estimate. | Derivative pages had not retained the canonical case limitations. | Corrected |
| 2026-09-05 | /methodology/behavior-ranking/; /methodology/choose-target-behavior/ |
A four-component weighted score and minimum below 6 could return a hard INFEASIBLE verdict. | Replaced the rule with the current three BFA dimensions, evidence quality, uncertainty, and realistic trials. Retained computational examples are explicitly illustrative. | Unvalidated ordinal scores cannot establish behavior probability or project viability. | Corrected |
| 2026-09-05 | /methodology/validate-behavior-market-fit/; /downloads/behavior-fit-assessment-worksheet/ |
Dispositional Fit was framed as self-concept, and external tools, resources, or time were included in Capability Fit. | Aligned the protocol and worksheet with recurring tendencies and preferences, actual abilities and skills, and external opportunity in Context Fit. | The former assignments conflicted with the current BFA constructs and could double-count constraints. | Corrected |
| 2026-09-05 | /glossary/four-fit/; /methodology/drive-framework/; /cases/instagram-pivot/; /synthesis/ |
Behavior mismatch was assigned a universal failure ranking; Instagram illustrated measured BFA, near-zero TTFB, or a controlled before-and-after result. | Removed universal rankings and unsupported TTFB/control claims. Identified analyst ratings and case mechanisms as retrospective interpretations. | The records do not show use of this method, isolate its effect, or establish a universal failure ranking. | Corrected |
| 2026-09-05 | /standards/measurement/; /frameworks/adoption-chain-mapping/; /metrics/how-to-measure-behavior-change/; /glossary/bpmf/; /methodology/behavioral-strategy-process/; /charter/; /definition/ |
Default thresholds, score examples, or one-cohort outcomes could establish viability or market fit; some rate levels were labeled as percentage points. | Labeled invented examples and context-dependent rules, removed automatic market-fit conclusions, and separated percent levels from percentage-point changes. Distinguished bPMF from the broader market-fit decision. | Decision rules require a stated context and validation; cohort behavior alone does not establish sustained outcomes or viable economics. | Corrected |
| 2026-09-05 | /synthesis/; /synthesis/case-matrix/; /synthesis/quick-reference/ |
Case summaries repeated disputed company histories, unsupported universal friction targets, and categorical ratings that differed from their cases. | Aligned summaries and all ten matrix rows with current case records. Disclosed the disputed YouTube origin story, Duolingo course-completer study limits, and Zoom chronology. | A general disclaimer cannot replace claim-specific source limits. | Corrected |
| 2026-09-05 | /comparisons/; /evidence/why-nudges-fail/ |
Adjacent approaches were described as omitting behavior selection or as inferior to the integrated Behavioral Strategy workflow. | Distinguished COM-B from the full BCW process and B=MAP from Fogg’s broader methods. Corrected other comparisons and removed untested superiority claims. | The primary methods include broader selection and problem-framing work; no comparative validation of this integrated approach was supplied. | Corrected |
| 2026-09-05 | /evidence/research-library/; /comparisons/behavioral-strategy-vs-habit-formation/ |
Nudge effects were relative percentages or a simple lab-to-field comparison; Lally excluded exercise; Save More Tomorrow was automatic enrollment. | Used percentage points and correct sample descriptions; included exercise and modeled-time limits; described voluntary advance saving commitments. | The prior descriptions did not match the cited studies. | Corrected |
| 2026-09-05 | /comparisons/vs-academic-behavioral-strategy/; /about/field-evolution/ |
A Cambridge Elements work was called a handbook, and specific formalization milestones were assigned without sources. | Corrected the title and publication type, confirmed ongoing academic activity, and replaced unsupported dates with dated records and explicit recollection limits. | A record date or later recollection does not establish first invention or first use. | Corrected |
| 2026-09-05 | /education/; /education/reading-list/ |
The hub promised more than 30 resources and the list included an unverified title/author pairing. | The hub, visible list, and structured data now describe nine verified books with publisher records. | The former count and bibliographic entry were unsupported. | Corrected |
| 2026-09-05 | /tools/bos-calculator/; /downloads/bos-worksheet/ |
The BOS tool accepted invalid inputs, applied inconsistent probability bounds, and promised an unavailable worksheet. | Added input checks, consistent bounded probability calculations, stated units and period, readable sensitivity results, exports, and a blank editable/printable worksheet. | The prior behavior could produce misleading results and did not fulfill the download promise. | Corrected |
| 2026-08-09 | /cases/duolingo-habits/; /evidence/ledger/ |
The case attached the Duolingo learning-study evidence ID to unrelated DAU/MAU claims and described a cross-sectional course-completer study as evidence of learning gains. The ledger also treated 225 recruits as the outcome denominator and compressed different Spanish and French results into one level. | The case now uses the study only for its observed ACTFL reading and listening levels. The ledger reports outcome-specific sample sizes and levels, the observed study window, its course-completer boundary, and the authors’ Duolingo affiliations. | The cited study did not measure DAU/MAU or change from baseline. Its valid denominators and results differ by outcome and language. | Corrected |
| 2026-08-09 | /evidence/ledger/ |
The ledger described the commuter experiments only as context-bound, said system design mattered more than default prompts, and listed the effect as variable without attaching or summarizing the primary paper. | The record now reports Study 1’s small registration increase, its lack of active-use improvement, the transit-pass outcomes, the study-specific windows, the participant reuse, and the post-hoc power-based equivalence bounds. | The prior summary was not traceable to the study’s reported results and omitted material findings and design limits. | Corrected |
| 2026-08-09 | /cases/couch-to-5k/; /evidence/ledger/ |
The case and ledger treated 27.3% as a settled nine-week completion rate and derived 72.7% non-completion. | Both records now disclose that the paper’s abstract reports 27.3%, while its Results section reports 64.5% dropout and Figure 1 shows 39 of 110 completers (35.5%). They also identify the modified, single-site, instructor-supported program. | The source conflicts with itself, so it does not support one settled completion rate for this cohort or the standard self-directed NHS app program. | Corrected; source conflict remains unresolved |
| 2026-08-09 | /cases/proposify-ttfb/; /evidence/ledger/ |
The records published rounded onboarding and conversion figures without sample counts, base rates, uncertainty, or a defined calculation, and the case claimed TTFB and first-proposal improvements not reported by the source. | The records now retain only the company’s qualitative early observations, label them observational, and state that the effect is not estimable from the published account. | The company account was one month old, nonrandomized, and described its own result as potentially anomalous. It did not publish the information required for a quantitative effect claim. | Corrected |
| 2026-08-09 | /cases/ttfb-mobile-2025q2/ |
The removed page stated: “Pilot case study: reducing time to first behavior (TTFB) on mobile lifted D0-D7 task completion from 22% to 36%, a 14 point gain.” It also stated: “Baseline completion: 22% Post completion: 36% Δ-B: +14 pp”. Both statements are retracted. | The case, its two-row data file, its duplicate ledger row, and its machine-text copies were removed. The old case and legacy evidence URLs now redirect in one hop to the measurement standard. | One baseline row and one post row cannot support cohort percentages or an effectiveness claim. The case also reused an evidence ID assigned to a different claim in the canonical YAML ledger. | Corrected and redirected |
How to report an error #
Send the affected URL, the statement at issue, and any source that supports the report through the contact page. The editorial review checks the public page, its evidence record, and all generated copies before it closes a correction.
See the Editorial Policy for correction severity, disclosure, and propagation rules.