When an AI answer gets a fact about your business wrong, save the exact claim and check it against an authoritative source. Inspect the pages linked in the answer, correct material you control, and document any request to an outside publisher. Then repeat the question under comparable conditions to see what changed.
The useful starting point is one claim you can investigate: an outdated price, an unsupported feature, or information about a different company with a similar name. Each needs evidence and an owner. A general complaint that “AI gets us wrong” gives your team much less to work with.
Record the answer before trying to fix it
Capture the question, the full answer, its links, and the date. Record the AI product or interface, search mode, language, market, and model identifier when available. Keep an API observation separate from a check in a consumer app.
Highlight the sentence in dispute. “This product is expensive” is an opinion that needs context. “This product requires an annual contract” is a factual claim you can compare with the applicable terms.
Ask the person responsible for the underlying fact to confirm it. Pricing may differ by region, billing period, or plan. A feature may exist only in a beta or require a separate integration. Write the correction with those conditions included, and preserve the supporting page as it appeared when checked.
OpenAI documents that ChatGPT can produce inaccurate facts and fabricated citations, sometimes with confident wording. Treat the answer as something to verify, including when it offers an apparently precise source. Read OpenAI’s accuracy guidance.
Inspect the linked page, then choose the action
Open the relevant links and find the passage that supposedly supports the claim. Record whether the passage agrees with the answer, contradicts it, or does not address it. A link beside a sentence is a lead for investigation; inspect its contents before assigning responsibility.
Not every answer supplies usable links. Google’s Gemini documentation, for example, says some responses include sources or related content and others do not. See how Gemini presents sources.
Use this triage:
| What you find | First action | Evidence to retain |
|---|---|---|
| Your own page contains the wrong fact | Correct the relevant page and check related material | Old wording, corrected wording, page URL, change date |
| An outside page contains the wrong fact | Send its publisher a specific correction request | Quoted passage, authoritative evidence, request status |
| The linked pages do not support the claim, or no source is shown | Record that the cause is unresolved; clarify any ambiguity in your own information | Exact answer, checked links, confirmed fact |
These categories describe what you observed. They do not prove which material caused the model’s answer. Keep that distinction in the register.
Correct an owned page where buyers need the answer
If the wrong fact is on your website, fix the page a buyer would reasonably consult. Check for contradictory versions in pricing pages, help articles, downloadable brochures, and relevant language variants. Have the responsible team confirm the new wording before publishing it.
For a pricing correction, explain the plan, currency, billing period, and conditions. For a feature correction, distinguish what is available now from what is planned. Add a meaningful update date when the information has actually changed.
Make the correction easy to find from related pages. There is little value in writing a perfect clarification that your pricing or product page never leads readers to.
For a changed URL you manage, Google provides a recrawl request through Search Console’s URL Inspection tool, available to owners and full users. Its guidance says crawling can take days to weeks and a request does not guarantee inclusion in search results. That is guidance about Google crawling, not a deadline for any AI answer to change. Read Google’s recrawl guidance.
Give an outside publisher a correction it can assess
If a review, directory, or comparison page contains the error, identify the exact passage and the evidence for changing it. A concise request might say:
Your comparison says our product requires an annual contract. Our current terms allow monthly billing on the Starter plan. Here is the relevant terms page and its effective date. Please review that sentence and its plan context.
This is an illustrative request, not a claim about Seenvero’s plans. Adapt it to facts your business can substantiate. Ask for a factual correction; do not ask the publisher to remove a legitimate opinion or turn its review into an endorsement.
Log the request and its outcome. If the publisher leaves the page unchanged, keep accurate information available on your own relevant pages. Publishing a clarification does not guarantee that an assistant will replace its source or adopt your wording.
Keep an unresolved cause unresolved
Sometimes the answer is wrong and none of its linked pages explains why. Do not invent a source trail or assume every error comes from a misleading webpage.
If the answer appears to confuse two businesses, check whether your own material clearly identifies your company, domain, product category, and service area. Add a short clarification where it helps a real customer distinguish them. Avoid building a page around an unproven story about how the model reached its answer.
You can also use the provider’s feedback route. For Gemini on desktop, Google documents the Bad response control and optional additional feedback; some work and school accounts have restrictions on adding details. The associated conversation is included with feedback, so review what you are submitting. See Google’s feedback instructions. Record submission as an action taken, not evidence that the error has been fixed.
Use a small error register
Keep the register in your own spreadsheet or issue tracker. Each entry needs the exact claim, authoritative correction, cited URL or absence of one, responsible owner, action, and repeat-check result.
The following examples are entirely fictional. Company names, prices, URLs, actions, and results illustrate the workflow; they are not Seenvero customer data. Domains ending in .test are placeholders.
Use the same fields for each case; they can become columns in a spreadsheet.
Example 1: an outdated price on an owned page
| Field | Record |
|---|---|
| Exact claim | “Acme Inventory Starter costs €19 per month.” |
| Authoritative correction | €29 per month on monthly billing, excluding tax; confirmed by the pricing owner’s approved rate sheet |
| Cited URL | acme.test/pricing, showing the old price when checked |
| Owner and action | Pricing owner: update the page and linked brochure |
| Repeat-check result | Page corrected; one new answer shows €29. Continue checking. |
Example 2: an unsupported feature in an outside review
| Field | Record |
|---|---|
| Exact claim | “Acme Inventory includes native payroll.” |
| Authoritative correction | Payroll is not included; confirmed feature documentation at acme.test/features |
| Cited URL | reviews.test/acme, containing that claim |
| Owner and action | Product marketing: request a factual correction from the publisher |
| Repeat-check result | Publisher has not replied; the claim still appears in the repeated answer. |
Example 3: possible company-name confusion
| Field | Record |
|---|---|
| Exact claim | “Acme Inventory operates delivery trucks.” |
| Authoritative correction | It supplies inventory software; acme.test/about identifies the business |
| Cited URL | None shown |
| Owner and action | Content owner: clarify company identity; record possible name confusion |
| Repeat-check result | One new answer omits the claim. Cause remains unconfirmed. |
Keep the original answer and collection details alongside each case. “Page corrected,” “publisher contacted,” and “answer changed in this check” are separate milestones.
Repeat the check without changing the question
Use the original question and record the same collection conditions. Where possible, start a fresh conversation so your correction is not already present in its history. Keep a separate test if you deliberately add the right fact to the prompt; that answers a different question.
Review several observations over time. Record a missing claim as “not observed in this answer.” If the answer repeats the correct fact, preserve the supporting sentence. Neither result establishes that every buyer will now receive an accurate answer, or that your edit caused the change.
Seenvero keeps collected answers alongside citations and collection context, giving your team evidence to inspect and revisit. Use that material with your own correction register to decide what needs attention. Its methodology also explains why repeated answers can differ.
Explore Seenvero’s sample report to see how answer evidence is presented using explicitly fictional data. For the broader monitoring setup, start with our guide to measuring AI recommendations.
Common questions
Will updating our website fix the next AI answer?
There is no guaranteed timetable. Confirm the website correction first, then observe whether subsequent answers use accurate information. Keep those two outcomes separate.
What if there is no citation to investigate?
Save the answer and the authoritative correction. Check your own information for ambiguity, use the provider’s feedback route where appropriate, and leave the source of the error unconfirmed.
Should we create a new page for every wrong answer?
Start by improving the relevant existing page. Create a separate explanation when the misunderstanding reflects a substantial customer question that needs its own answer. One isolated error does not by itself justify another page.