Corrections Log

Every material correction made to questions, explanations and factual claims on this site, with what was wrong, what changed, and the date each was fixed.

Last reviewed August 7, 2026

The log

3 corrections published, newest first.

Three pages named the Air Force Personnel Center as the publisher of official AFOQT preparation material. It is not.

mediumAugust 7, 2026

COR-0003 · affects: /official-afoqt-practice-materials/; /pilot-practice-test/; /afoqt-tbas-guide/

What was wrong: Our source register carried an entry, SRC-003, describing "Official AFOQT and PCSM preparation materials" published by the Air Force Personnel Center at afpc.af.mil, and three pages cited it for the proposition that AFPC is where official material lives. The entry was marked unverified and had been treated as a checking backlog. When it was checked on 7 August 2026 it turned out to be wrong rather than merely unchecked: the AFPC site does not publish AFOQT preparation material and does not mention the AFOQT at all. No afpc.af.mil address containing "afoqt" or "test" has been archived at any point since 2018, and the archived homepage is promotions and career management throughout. A reader following that pointer would have found nothing and had no way to tell whether they had missed it.
What changed: SRC-003 was removed from the register rather than repaired, because the claim is better served by the governing manual. DAFMAN 36-2664 states at paragraph A2.6.4 that official AFOQT study materials are published on the PCSM website, and at A2.9 how the AFOQT score of record feeds the PCSM score. All three pages now cite that manual by paragraph, and the prose no longer sends anyone to AFPC for study material. The register records the removal and the reason in place, so the mistake stays visible instead of vanishing with the entry.
How it was found: Internal source recheck while clearing the register’s unverified entries. The fix has been propagated everywhere the claim appeared.

The AFOQT retest interval is 90 days. Both pages had withheld the figure entirely rather than repeat the widely-quoted 150.

mediumAugust 7, 2026

COR-0002 · affects: /afoqt-retake-policy/; /afoqt-scores-results/

What was wrong: Nothing published here was incorrect, which is why this is logged as a withholding rather than an error. Both pages declined to state the retake limits because the governing document, DAFMAN 36-2664, was recorded in our register as unverified — we had identified it but not read it, and Air Force publication servers refuse automated requests. The decision not to repeat the figures circulating elsewhere turned out to be the right one: the interval those sources report almost universally is 150 days, and the manual says 90.
What changed: The manual was obtained and read in full on 7 August 2026 — the 17 January 2025 edition incorporating Change 1, certified current 15 July 2025. Four figures are now published with the paragraph each rests on: three attempts with the third requiring a waiver (A2.6.2), a minimum 90-day interval (A2.6.1), superscoring of the best composite across attempts (A2.7), and no expiry on T1/T2 and T7/T8 scores (A2.7). The scores page additionally publishes the one-week central scoring turnaround (A2.5). Minimum scores by career field remain unpublished here, now for a stated reason rather than an unverified one: the manual confirms the standards exist (A2.9) but does not print them.
How it was found: Internal source recheck; the manual was retrieved from an archived capture of the official file after direct access was refused. The fix has been propagated everywhere the claim appeared.

Four subtest timings were wrong and the scheduled break was missing during pre-launch development.

highAugust 4, 2026

COR-0001 · affects: Reading Comprehension timing; Situational Judgment item count and timing; Instrument Comprehension timing; Block Counting timing; The scheduled break

What was wrong: An earlier development build of this site stated Reading Comprehension as 38 minutes, Situational Judgment as 50 items in 35 minutes, Instrument Comprehension as 8 minutes and Block Counting as 4 minutes 30 seconds, and it omitted the 15-minute break between Situational Judgment and the Self-Description Inventory entirely. Those figures were not taken from the delivery provider and were incorrect.
What changed: Every figure was rechecked against the delivery provider on 4 August 2026 and corrected: Reading Comprehension 25 items in 24 minutes, Situational Judgment 16 items in 35 minutes, Instrument Comprehension 25 items in 5 minutes, Block Counting 30 items in 5 minutes, and the 15-minute break restored to its real position. Scored items total 276. The exam baseline is now generated from a single sourced file so no page can state a count or timing independently of it.
How it was found: Internal source recheck before launch. The fix has been propagated everywhere the claim appeared.

How corrections work here

Material errors are logged. A wrong answer key, an incorrect explanation, or a factual claim about the exam that is no longer true. Each gets an entry stating what was wrong and what changed.
Typos and formatting are not. Logging every comma would bury the corrections that matter.
Nothing is deleted. Entries stay published permanently, including old and embarrassing ones.
Disputed items come out first. Where an answer key is challenged, the question is suspended and stops being served while we investigate, rather than staying live during the argument.
Fixes are propagated. A factual correction is applied everywhere the claim appeared, not only on the page where it was reported. Each entry records whether that is complete.

Severity

High — a wrong answer key, or a factual error that could change a candidate’s decision about testing.
Medium — a misleading or incomplete explanation, or an out-of-date figure with no decision impact.
Low — an ambiguous prompt or a weak distractor we have rewritten.

Report an error

Send the page address, the question id if there is one, and why you believe it is wrong, through the contact page. A report that explains the reasoning is far more useful than one that only says the answer looks off, and it is the fastest route to getting a bad item withdrawn.

Our accuracy and sourcing standards are set out in the editorial policy, and how questions are produced and validated is on the question methodology page.

Who wrote this, how it was made, and why

Who: Written by the AFOQTPracticeTest.net editorial team. Editorial pages like this one carry no individual byline; the practice questions are separately reviewed by a named person, whose credentials and the exact scope of his sign-off are on authors and reviewers.
How: The log is generated from an append-only record in the codebase. Entries cannot be edited or deleted once published; a subsequent change is a new entry.
Why: A study site that never publishes a correction is not a site that never makes mistakes. Publishing them lets a reader judge how we handle being wrong.
Last reviewed: August 7, 2026. Read our editorial policy or report an error.