I have already read the relevant questions, but mine is really different;
I found an usefull information in a paper, it (basically) says for a specific case that "they use up to %60 more torque" but when i go to original source i saw that, in the original paper one of the values was "%63 torque", so i wrote, "they expend about %60 extra torque" and i couldn't give reference to secondary source, because it was wrong, and my sentence became different.
Just like that, a paper said that (just a part of it) "during walking on flat surface". However, when i open the original source, i saw that, original source says "for unrestrained walking" which means "during normal walking", so i couldn't give citation to secondary source for that sentence because i corrected a part of information.
Similarly another paper (briefly) said that "in that country 159.000 amputation occurs per year" but when i open the original source, i saw that it was 143.000 so; i write "in that country each year more than 140.000 limb loss occurs." so, i couldn't write reference to secondary source, because information became different. But sentence structures are similar i do not know, if it is plagirasim?
Note: please do not choose "dublicate" because my question is different, im correcting some missing or falsified information and i need a help about it. Is it correct to citing just original source, because secondary source reflects the information in different way/and i can not find that information in original source, so, i modify the information and i just cite the original source. Because at secondary source, information is a bit or more different (falsified or reflected secondary aouthor's interpretation)? (as i explained above)
Note2: For some of them, i use summary of secondary sources but i do correction for wrong parts or falsified numbers/interpretations. So i think it becomes my summary? i do not know where the drawline is, Thanks a lot,