If you check my post history, you can see that I've corrected the stat-blocks of the Zombie (the language description of which was entirely incorrect) and the Zombie beholder (the movement of which was a garbled mess). I've come across more stat-block errors while I've been playing D&D using D&Dbeyond, most of which are just grammatically inconsistent, that I haven't really been bothered to create another thread in order for dndbeyond to correct (For example: most if not all the blights have "common understands but can't speak" when it should be "understands common but can't speak" - noticed this error in w/ some other monsters too).

Before anyone asks - these errors are not within the original sources nor are they in the errata.

Here's the thing: I am not actively looking for these errors, but I keep coming across them. When D&Dbeyond is supposed to be accurate, yet seemingly gets the SRD and MM wrong consistently, and I pay to unlock said content in addition to a subscription... it makes me question how accurate all the information is and whether I should be cross referencing them to avoid said errors.

Is there any way that D&Dbeyond can go through and verify the correctness of what it has?

Quote from Roost1513 >>

For example: most if not all the blights have "common understands but can't speak" when it should be "understands common but can't speak" - noticed this error in w/ some other monsters too).

That is in fact a common way to list things while maintaining groupings, or to designate the important parts.

An example for maintaining groupings would be how Hand Crossbow, Heavy Crossbow, and Light Crossbow would be all over when viewed alphabetically so they get listed as Crossbow, Hand, Crossbow, Heavy, and Crossbow, Light so that no matter what organizational format one uses (alphabetical or by item type) they always stay grouped.

An example of use for designated importance would be how grammatically it should read “a bundle is 20 Arrows,” but “a bundle” is not the important part, “arrows” is, so instead it gets listed as Arrows (20).

Technically, to be correct the example you sighted should read “Common (understands but cannot speak)” but in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t matter much. Those are not technically “errors” per se, just an alternative presentation of the same information that is accepted by Academic, Legal, Medical, and Governmental/Bureaucratic organizations the world over. Whoever entered that data just did not include the parentheses.

(Technically, the actual sourcebook is using informal language, because for publication purposes contractions such as “can’t” should be avoided whenever possible. And please do not get me started on their use of hanging prepositions! It irritates me.)

I cannot speak to any other discrepancies you may or may not have found. This case example is not actually “wrong” just missing some punctuation.