Every number that was wrong here is still on this page – with the date, the old figure, and how it came to light. A correction you can no longer see is not one.
What was wrong: “The usual answer is ‘three months of salary’.”
What is right now: That is the German rule of thumb, and it had travelled across with the translation. The American sources – SEC, FDIC, Federal Reserve – measure in EXPENSES without exception, not in salary. The article now gives the sourced range and says plainly that narrowing it to fixed costs is our own judgement.
How it came to light: While looking for an American source for the rule of thumb. There was none for that one – and three for a different one.
What was wrong: “Go twice a week and you pay under $5 a visit.”
What is right now: $588 a year divided by 104 visits is $5.65. The figure was 13 percent too low – and too low in favour of the gym the article argues against.
How it came to light: While rechecking every number in this article by hand against the calculator it uses.
What was wrong: “It is close to a full paycheque.” And the FAQ took 260 working days minus 10 public holidays minus a fortnight of leave and arrived at 250.
What is right now: The German version says “roughly half a monthly net salary”; the claim had grown in translation. And the arithmetic did not work: 260 minus 10 minus 14 is 240. The leave clause is gone – there is no statutory entitlement in this market anyway. The paragraph about the 7 percent contradicted itself as well and has been rewritten.
How it came to light: While rechecking the FAQ arithmetic against the days the calculator actually uses.
In the site itself
What was wrong: Nine English articles shipped empty headings: <h2 id="kapitel-1"></h2>, and entries without a name in the table of contents.
What is right now: The sections carried their text in the wrong field. Twenty headings are repaired, and the loader no longer lets a subheading through without a title.
How it came to light: While rendering an article against the real server. No test could see it: the pages answered with 200, and the loader checked the KIND of a section, never its field.