Effective Date: January 27, 2026
Governing Standard: The Lighthouse Standard (v2.1)
Resolution Pathways
The Lighthouse Standard is committed to the Strategic Overhaul of the tarot industry.
Professional integrity is not a permanent state. It is shown through the reader’s ongoing public pattern of practice: the language they use, the claims they make, the way they frame viewer agency, and the content they continue to publish over time.
This protocol explains the two formal pathways available to tarot readers after a Tarot Reader Integrity Report has been published:
- Correction Requests — for demonstrable factual errors in an existing report.
- Formal Re-Review Requests — for readers who believe their current public content has meaningfully changed and want a new analysis under the Lighthouse Standard.
These are separate processes.
A Correction Request is used when the existing report may contain a factual error.
A Formal Re-Review is used when the reader is not claiming the original report was factually wrong, but believes their current body of work should now be evaluated again.
1. Administrative Correction: Factual Errors
If a Tarot Reader Integrity Report contains a demonstrable factual error, the Lighthouse Standard will review the issue and correct the report if the error is verified against the original source data.
A factual error is not the same as disagreement with the report’s evaluation, scoring interpretation, archetype classification, or underlying methodology.
What Constitutes a Factual Error
A factual error may include:
Transcript Misquotation:
The report attributes a quote to the reader that does not appear in the analyzed transcript, or materially misquotes the reader’s actual language.
Content Metadata Error:
The report identifies the wrong channel name, video title, video URL, publication date, video duration, transcript source, or other content-identifying data used in the analysis.
Attribution Error:
The report connects a quote, title, transcript, or finding to the wrong video, livestream, channel, or reader.
Mathematical or Calculation Error:
The report contains an error in the calculation of the Integrity Score, Mirror Score, grade, classification, or report data based on the disclosed Lighthouse Standard methodology.
Incorrectly Applied Flag Due to Source Error:
A Red Flag was applied because of a transcript error, attribution error, formatting issue, or other source-data problem that can be verified against the original analyzed data.
Resolution Process
Readers must submit a Correction Request using the form below, citing the specific report, the specific factual discrepancy, and the evidence supporting the correction.
If the factual error is verified against the original source data, the report will be corrected.
Correction Requests are not used to evaluate new content, changed content, recent improvements, or disagreement with the Lighthouse Standard’s evaluative conclusions. Readers seeking a new analysis of their current public content must use the Formal Re-Review process.
2. The Formal Re-Review Process
A Tarot Reader Integrity Report is a snapshot of professional practice at the time of analysis.
It is not a permanent label.
Readers who have meaningfully changed their public content after receiving a report may request a Formal Re-Review after the required implementation period.
A Formal Re-Review is not a correction request, appeal, negotiation, or pay-for-grade process. It is a new professional analysis of the reader’s current qualifying public content under the same Lighthouse Standard methodology used across the Directory.
The 60-Day Mandatory Implementation Window
A mandatory 60-day waiting period is required between the publication of an Integrity Report in the Tarot Reader Integrity Reports Directory and the start of the Formal Re-Review process.
This waiting period exists to ensure that the re-review evaluates a sustained change in professional practice, not a temporary performance for the purpose of the audit.
The goal is to evaluate the reader’s current pattern of public content after they have had time to make meaningful changes.
Re-Review Requirements
Strategic Overhaul Verification:
The reader must identify the major content-pattern changes they have made since the original report. This may include changes related to Major Red Flags, Moderate Red Flags, Minor Red Flags, viewer agency, tarot framing, titles, calls to action, sales practices, or other issues identified in the original report.
This verification helps document what the reader claims has changed, but it does not determine the score. The score is determined by the new analysis.
Automated Data Sampling:
To preserve consistency, the Lighthouse Standard uses an automated collection process. The system pulls the ten most recent qualifying publicly available videos, transcripts, or livestream recordings from the channel URL on record at the time of re-review.
Readers may not select, submit, replace, or exclude specific videos for the analysis.
Publication Policy
If a Formal Re-Review is purchased and completed, the new report will be published in the Directory regardless of whether the score improves, stays the same, or declines.
The new report will be linked to the reader’s profile and added to the reader’s audit history.
The reader’s profile page will be updated to reflect the new analysis according to the Directory’s standard reporting rules.
The original report will remain available in the audit history so viewers can see the reader’s documented record over time.
A Formal Re-Review does not guarantee a higher score, improved grade, changed classification, removed Red Flags, or more favorable outcome. It guarantees a new analysis and publication of the completed result.
3. Disagreement With Evaluative Opinions
The Lighthouse Standard is an evaluative logic model.
Readers may disagree with the Lighthouse Standard’s classifications, scoring philosophy, archetype labels, Red Flag definitions, Green Flag framework, or interpretation of professional risk.
However, disagreement with an evaluative opinion does not constitute a factual error.
Examples of evaluative disagreements include:
- disagreeing with an archetype classification
- disagreeing with a Red Flag interpretation
- disagreeing with the Lighthouse Standard philosophy
- disagreeing with the grade or reader classification
- disagreeing with the predicted viewer impact
- disagreeing with the Window vs. Mirror framework
The Correction Request process is not used to debate the validity of the Lighthouse Standard itself.
A reader’s path to a different classification is through changed public content and, when eligible, a Formal Re-Review.
4. The Role of the Human Arbiter
The Human Arbiter’s role is data verification and quality control.
For Correction Requests, the Arbiter reviews the submitted issue against the original source data to determine whether a factual error occurred.
For Formal Re-Reviews, the Arbiter may review the completed analysis for anomalies, source-data issues, formatting problems, or complex edge cases before publication.
Verification of Source Data
The Arbiter verifies AI-detected findings against the relevant transcript, title, duration, metadata, or report data.
This is a fact-checking and quality-control process, not a subjective negotiation.
Correction of Inputs
If a finding is determined to be a false positive because of a transcript error, attribution error, metadata issue, calculation issue, or contextual misunderstanding, the incorrect data point may be removed or corrected.
Automated Logic Recalculation
The Human Arbiter does not manually adjust scores, grades, or classifications.
Once a data point is removed or corrected, the Lighthouse Standard Logic Model recalculates the relevant video score, channel averages, Mirror Score, grade, and classification according to the disclosed methodology.
Report Update
If a verified correction changes the report data, the Directory may update the existing report to reflect the corrected record.
If a Formal Re-Review is completed, a new report is generated and published as a new entry in the reader’s audit history.
5. Legal Notice & Finality
Participation in this protocol is voluntary.
This process is not a legal proceeding. It is an administrative review process operated by a private consumer-information and industry-watchdog Directory.
The Lighthouse Standard reserves the right to maintain publication of reports that accurately reflect the results of the disclosed methodology and the analyzed source data.
Submission of a Correction Request does not guarantee that the report will be changed. If the requested correction is not verified against the original source data, the report may remain unchanged.
Submission and completion of a Formal Re-Review means the resulting new report will be published in the Directory according to the Directory’s standard transparency protocols. The resulting score, grade, classification, and Red Flag profile may improve, remain substantially the same, or decline.
By submitting a Correction Request or Formal Re-Review Request, the reader acknowledges that the Lighthouse Standard’s determination regarding factual accuracy, scoring recalculation, re-review publication, and Directory recordkeeping is final.
Use the form below to submit a Correction Request if you believe the report contains a factual error, such as a transcript misquotation, metadata error, incorrect attribution, broken evidence, or calculation issue. If verified against the original source data, the report will be corrected within 5 business days.
This free correction process is only for factual errors in an existing report. It is not used to evaluate new content, changed content, or improvement over time.
If your content has meaningfully changed since the original report, use the Re-Review Request tab instead.
Use this option if you are not claiming the original report contains a factual error, but believe your current public content has meaningfully changed and should be evaluated again under the Lighthouse Standard.
A re-review is a separate professional analysis of your current qualifying public content. It is not a correction request, dispute appeal, or pay-for-grade process. A re-review does not guarantee a higher score, improved grade, changed classification, or removed red flags.
If a re-review is purchased and completed, a new report will be published in the Directory and added to the reader’s audit history. The reader’s profile will be updated to reflect the new analysis, even if the new score stays the same or declines.
Formal re-reviews are handled through a separate order page where the full terms, eligibility requirements, fee, and process are explained before purchase.
