I think this is a very interesting topic.

At HLA we do not admit to ever being wrong, but in our reports we are careful to limit the way we report our research by having a specific section outlining constraints to our report. Obviously as most clients do not want to pay for years of historical research (eg extensive  newspaper research), only limited research is undertaken and often we rely on secondary sources and research by others, so depending on what we have done, we put in a statement explaining the limitations of this approach. This I think covers the situation where somebody finds some new evidence. Our biggest problem has been when somebody reviews our research and comes to a different conclusion. To cover this we have the following statement "Significance assessment represents a mixture of facts and interpretations tested against established criterion and it is possible that another professional may interpret the historical facts, the physical evidence and apply the criterion in a different way and reach a different conclusion".

We also have a number of statement saying in effect "unlike superman we cannot see under the ground so our predictions are informed guesses" but in more circumspect terms. Generally clients seem very happy when we dig and find nothing (even though they have paid for the work) but are less happy when our predictions are correct.

We probably need to make more of these limitations in our proposals and tenders to avoid giving the clients the impression that getting definite answers when instead they are getting probabilities and interpretations.

But then what to do when years later new information comes to hand? 

Virgil's approach seems to be practical assuming that the regulatory agency has the ability to handle new information on what may have been a dead project. I wonder how many would simply file the errata sheet rather than put it in the library copy?

There is also the question of who will pay for the time involved in preparing a letter or report to the regulatory agency and what should go into it?

Another problem to overcome is that this is probably an natural occurrence new information comes to hand all the time and moreover opinions and perspectives on sites change as we as professionals learn more. So finding new information should be viewed as a positive not evidence of a stuff up by the original researchers.

Iain Stuart

[log in to unmask]