How should I audit third-party sources before requesting a correction?
Read the third-party page's exact claim, date and product scope before requesting a correction. Wrong About You classified 118 statements as wrong or stale among 2,922 statements in answers captured on 22 and 23 September 2026, using vendor pages read on 8 October. Another 880 were unverifiable, so an unsettled fact should not become an allegation of error.
What we measured
Measured. Wrong About You's method separates contradiction, a formerly true fact after a documented change, and a claim the checked evidence cannot settle. Its 118 combines 113 wrong and five stale statements about the selected seventy vendors. These are engine-statement labels, not a count of erroneous third-party articles. Team review remains in progress.
A separate Study 7 page comparison helps define another boundary. Of 92 construction criteria, Procore's page read on 8 October stated twenty, did not state forty-four and left twenty-eight unknown. Its team review also remains in progress. Not stated on that page did not mean absent from the product. These categories should not be turned into automatic correction requests.
Reasoned. An audit should establish what is wrong, where it is written and which primary evidence resolves it. Neither study shows that contacting a publisher will change a page or an AI answer.
Our answer-study method, v1.1.
What this means for you
Save the page URL, title, read date and the relevant sentence. Read the surrounding paragraphs: a quoted historical price, attributed opinion or comparison condition can change what the sentence claims. Distinguish the publisher's own assertion from a quotation it is accurately reporting.
Find the dated primary evidence for the same product and scope. A current product page may not establish what was true when an older article was written. A broad capability page may not settle availability in a particular edition. State that gap plainly when the evidence cannot resolve it.
Classify the finding before composing a request. A supported contradiction can justify a factual correction. A documented later change may justify an update with its effective date. Missing or inconclusive evidence calls for clarification or further review. It does not justify demanding that the publisher repeat your preferred wording.
If you make a request, keep it specific to the sentence and supporting source. Preserve the publisher's reply and check the actual page before recording any change as completed. A sent request is not an accepted correction, and a corrected article is not proof that an engine has retrieved it. Treat those as separate observations.
- For a vendor: supply the primary evidence and the affected wording together.
- For an agency: report unresolved facts, requests and verified page changes separately.
Also asked as
How should I audit third-party sources before requesting a correction?
Related
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. Preserve the answer and source passage before deciding whether a correction is supported.
For one supported factual change on a source page, Fix one answer, $490 gives the work a defined target and verification step.
Claiming or correcting a vendor record is free and never depends on a purchase.
Prepared by the Broadcastwell team.
Page owner: Rohan Iyer, AI Engineer. Corrections: hello@broadcastwell.com