How should a regulated business assess AI visibility evidence?
For a regulated business, keep the observed claim, its primary evidence and its unresolved status together before approving its use. Wrong About You labelled 880 of 2,922 statements unverifiable in answers captured on 22 and 23 September 2026. Missing evidence is a reason to seek review, not a finding that a vendor is compliant, noncompliant or factually wrong.
What we measured
Measured. Wrong About You's method compared captured product statements with vendor pages read on 8 October 2026. Across 70 selected vendors, it classified 2,922 statements, including 118 wrong or stale and 880 unverifiable. The comparison makes the source state inspectable; it does not establish regulatory compliance, population risk or an AI tool's accuracy for a regulated industry. Team review remains in progress. Any sector-specific conclusion needs evidence that actually covers that sector and claim.
What this means for you
Reasoned. Use a claim-level review record rather than relying on a supplier's overall visibility score. Identify the statement a reader could act on, the product or service scope, the dated supporting source and the person responsible for confirming the fact. Keep a distinction between what an AI answer said and what your organisation has approved as true.
Ask a prospective supplier how it handles unresolved facts. The useful output is the missing evidence and its status, not a confident replacement invented to make the report complete. Where a claim needs specialist review, route it to the appropriate responsible person and retain the decision. A page owner or author byline does not establish that such a review occurred.
Check the proposed publication boundary too. An answer may be observable publicly while the supporting internal record is not suitable for publication. Give the public claim a source that can support it without exposing private customer material or implying an unperformed certification.
These are evidence and procurement checks. The study provides no legal determination or compliance certification. Keep those decisions within the organisation's relevant review process rather than deriving them from mention counts, citation rates or the study's selected examples.
- For a buyer: ask for one complete claim-and-source example before accepting a reporting format.
- For a product owner: approve only the factual scope the source establishes.
- For an agency: mark specialist review as completed only when you have its actual record.
Also asked as
How should a regulated business assess AI visibility evidence?
Related
- Wrong About You classifications
- The AI source standard
- Evaluate an accuracy alert
- Compare agency evidence
Next step
Use the Free 10-question check (one engine). No email is needed; runs are limited per network and per day, and by the site's daily allowance. Treat the check as an observed answer, separate from any specialist review of its claims.
For one factually approved public-page correction, Fix one answer, $490.
Our answer-study method, v1.1.
Prepared by the Broadcastwell team.
Page owner: Priya Nair, Management Consultant. Corrections: hello@broadcastwell.com