humanflow

Corrections

Every claim we have published and got wrong, with the date it shipped, the date it was fixed, what we originally said and what is actually true. 4 so far. We do not edit quietly and we do not remove the page that was wrong.

Last updated 2026-08-15

A correction that only appears on the page it corrects is findable by everyone except the person who read that page last week. This log exists so the record can be read in one place, including by people checking whether we do what our methodology says we do, and by anyone deciding whether this site is worth citing — how to cite us points at this log rather than at itself for that. Who we are is on the about page.

Most entries below made HumanFlow look better than it was. That is the ordinary direction of a vendor's mistakes, and it is the reason this page is worth more than a promise to be careful. Where an error went the other way, it says so.

Published 4 August 2026 · corrected 15 August 2026

HumanFlow vs Walter Writes

What we published
The per-request cell of the Walter Writes comparison table read “[VERIFY] — not stated in the material we could retrieve”. An editor's note to himself, published as though it were a figure.
What is true
The cell now reads “Not stated in the material we could retrieve”, which is what we actually know: their site refused our reads, so the figure was never established.

This error flattered nobody — it was just wrong.

It was live for eleven days, and not only on the Walter Writes page — the same row appears in the comparison table on eleven /alternatives pages, so the marker rendered on twelve URLs in total. Our content gate did not catch it because it only ever read the blog, and this copy lives in TypeScript. The gate now reads the source as well.

Published 4 August 2026 · corrected 15 August 2026

The best AI humanizer, ranked on what you can verify

What we published
The page said “eleven tools” in five places — the meta description, the opening line, the byline, a section heading and an FAQ answer.
What is true
The table had thirteen rows the whole time, and its structured data said so. The count is now computed from the list instead of typed by hand.

This error flattered nobody — it was just wrong.

The count went stale the day the table grew and nothing recalculated the word. On a page whose argument is that its figures can be checked, a number contradicting the table beneath it is the cheapest possible way to lose that argument.

Published 4 August 2026 · corrected 4 August 2026

HumanFlow vs Grammarly

What we published
That Grammarly did not offer AI humanizing, and that its AI detection sat behind a paid Pro plan.
What is true
Grammarly publishes a free AI humanizer, plus a Humanizer agent with four voices and a custom voice profile built from a 200-word writing sample. Its standalone AI detector is free.

This error made HumanFlow look better.

Both halves were wrong in the same direction, which is the direction worth being suspicious of. The correction stands at the top of that page rather than in a footnote.

Published 4 August 2026 · corrected 4 August 2026

HumanFlow vs WriteHuman

What we published
That WriteHuman's entry plan was $18 a month, and that they were cheaper than us on annual billing.
What is true
Their Basic plan is $12 a month on annual billing against our $10.80, so we are the cheaper entry — and $18 is their Pro tier, not their entry.

This error made a competitor look better.

The rarer direction: this one had us understating our own position, by comparing their mid tier against our entry.

Found something wrong?

Tell us at support@humanflow.pro. If it changes a conclusion it gets an entry here, whichever way it cuts. How we source and review what we publish is set out in our editorial policy.