Standard protocol for withdrawing published paper that has wrong (or erroneous) data (published without wrong intentions) Suppose a research group publishes an article after thorough data analysis, statistics based on repeatability and reproducibility of experimental data. Now I consider three cases: 

a). Published article had erroneous uncertainties associated with measured data

b). Published article had erroneous measured data notwithstanding repeated experiments 

c). Published article had wrong interpretation of measured data 

Now, in such cases, what is the standard protocol for withdrawal of published paper, and whether it is really necessary? If the same research group publishes another article giving more accurate experimental data with revised uncertainties with more reliable and logical interpretation, does this in any way puts a question mark on the credibility of the research group? 

What according to the strictest ethical rules of publishing should be done in order to accept mistake and provide justification on why the earlier interpretation was wrong and what makes the research group change its view on the same experimental data (in this case, revised data)?
Not every published paper is right.  Publications are a snapshot of authors' understanding at a given time.  If they don't stand up to history, the literature corrects itself.    Descartes's publications on the pineal gland as the generator of motor actions have never been retracted!

If a paper is wrong because new data or new understanding has changed the authors' outlook, perhaps the best course of action is to publish a new paper, specifically discussing the previous paper.

If there is a real MISTAKE or MISREPRESENTATION in the original paper, the editor should probably be contacted about the possibility of publishing an ERRATUM.  Retraction should be reserved for the most severe of cases.