But are you correcting the OICR or miscorrecting the originals?
I want original text, including misspellings, and original regional / historical spellings, including slang (which may look like another word, but is not, and isn't in a dictionary).
You cannot fix OCR text wirhout lioking at the original.
With the spelling having been fixed, even if imperfectly, you could much more easily search for content and find relevant results, and then go on to look at the originals.
What you want is still possible, unless you unreasonably make it a requirement that the transcriptions should be perfect.
This is not what this phrase is about. I came to it working on the structural data of just under 100k Chinese characters. I'd spend hours, days and weeks proofreading and correcting formulas, so your "advocating and being a champion for inaccuracy" doesn't stick. But absent an automated, complete coverage of all records against a known error-free data set, there will likely be a small percentage of errors and dubious cases.
And thanks by the way for the readiness to jump to conclusions and fire a salve of allegations, viz. "willingly", "knowingly", "introducing", "ridiculous"
You're making statements supporting the concept that errors are unavoidable, with an air of "oh well!", in a thread where someone is claiming AI is a solution... right after demonstrating a 10x error!
AI is a ridiculous answer, with its hallucinations and absurd error rates. If you didn't intend to support that level of absurd error rate, you shouldn't be replying in defence.
It sounds like you did not want to give that impression, if so, I suggest you look at the chain of replies, and the context.
TLDR: it makes sense :)