Then this goes to something in Brainiac: trivia should be correct and interesting (and usually succinct.) If Guinness can't be arsed to do some math and research, it throws into sharp relief how much work they do on the rest of their book. It isn't like a record where there might be some slightly more poisonous snake living in the Amazon basin or even the Japanese centenarian who was listed as Oldest Man Evar until his case was disputed and the French gal surpassed his record anyway--this is a thing you can suss out with e-mails or phone calls.
The premise of a book of records is that they're verified and interesting, if you can make up trivia or records then the whole idea loses meaning.
