The norm for conference-driven fields, I think, is that formal retractions of proceedings papers are really only for outright misconduct, like plagiarism or fab

The norm for conference-driven fields, I think, is that formal retractions of proceedings papers are really only for outright misconduct, like plagiarism or fabricated data, not for mistakes, oversights, bad experimental design, etc. The proceedings are seen more as a record of an ongoing conversation that continues annually [1]. If you find something wrong, misleading, incomplete, etc. in a conference paper, the normal solution is that you write a reply conference paper criticizing/correcting the earlier paper. This does mean that if you dig up a paper from 10 or 20 years ago, you need to look through more recent literature to see if anyone's published criticisms. [1] This happens in practice in some conferences more than others of course. There are lower-tier conferences where people just dump papers and no kind of actual conversation or intellectual exchange is happening.