FitzTheRuke
Legend
I get what you mean, but it's probably not meant to be quite so... insidious.I don't like it because it implies that everything pre-errata was an error, and now they've "improved" the old rule by correcting that error. I strongly disagree with the idea that everything newer is better, and this nomenclature supports that bogus (to me) philosophy.
Though, I suppose that if they didn't feel that the text needed "correcting" then they would just leave it alone. T
I think where mistakes are made ("corrections" that don't lead to improvements, which you are right absolutely happens) is probably when something is implemented broadly to fix a smaller problem (we can see this potentially happening, say, if Leveled Feats turn out to be not-as-good-as-intended, when they were almost certainly created to stop people taking GWM et al. as their background feat.)
Or other cascading effects that can happen when you make one change here and it breaks something over there. Edition changes seem to always do that. I call it "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".
Time will tell when it comes to 1D&D.