GPUDECK · DISPUTE REGISTER · PUBLIC
GPUDeck publishes dated figures about named companies, and on some pages it earns a referral fee. That combination obliges a route for a provider to say “you have represented our price incorrectly” — and for that to be visibly different from “we dislike being compared”. Both are answered; only one changes a number. The corrections register records GPUDeck’s own errors; this register records challenges from outside.
A frozen edition is never edited to resolve a dispute. The annotation attaches to the edition, not inside it: the published bytes and their SHA-256 stay exactly as they were, and the dispute is recorded beside them. This is the same record-preservation rule scholarly publishers use — keep the original published object, and expose the corrections and their reasons separately. An edition that can be quietly rewritten cannot be cited.
A submission alone does nothing. Once a GPUDeck reviewer judges a material factual error plausible, the affected cell is marked UNDER REVIEW on current representations and is temporarily removed from decision receipts, derived current claims, floor and median calculations, and any share-card finding — until it is resolved. If a referral link is attached to that representation, it is disabled automatically while the review holds. That is not a penalty: it prevents GPUDeck earning from a figure it has itself declared uncertain. The historical frozen artifact is untouched throughout.
Every dispute is classified as exactly one of these, and the classification is published:
CURRENT_VALUE_CHANGED'Our price is different now.' Not a historical correction - current evidence refreshes normally and the frozen issue remains correct if the historical observation was correct.ATTRIBUTION_ERRORWrong company or provider attached to an observation.NORMALIZATION_ERRORWrong unit, commitment type, minimum GPU count, currency, tax treatment or segment.SOURCE_ERRORGPUDeck recorded the underlying source incorrectly.CONTEXT_MISREPRESENTATIONThe literal observation may be true but the accompanying description creates a materially false impression.METHODOLOGY_DISAGREEMENTThe provider disagrees with how GPUDeck chooses or presents evidence but identifies no factual error.LEGAL_REQUESTSeparate escalation path.Email disputes@gpudeck.com or use this form. A message sent from a provider-domain address is labelled VERIFIED PROVIDER SUBMISSION; unverified reports are investigated on exactly the same terms, only the label differs.
No disputes have been received. This line changes the day one is, and every dispute that arrives appears here until it reaches a terminal status. There are no disappearing tickets.