# Business-fact correction review: three retained cases Review date: 6 October 2026. Prepared with Codex assistance. No independent human fact-check is claimed. This is a review of selected claims and source passages, not a whole-answer accuracy assessment or a study of a provider's error rate. No feedback, publisher request or profile edit was submitted. No new AI answer was collected. Actions below are proposals. A blank later-observation field means not collected, not fixed. ## Evidence and scope The starting evidence is the [frozen citation pilot protocol](https://seoinformatica.com/downloads/authority-batch-06/citation-protocol.md), [P02 answer](https://seoinformatica.com/downloads/authority-batch-06/citation-P02.md), [P06 answer](https://seoinformatica.com/downloads/authority-batch-06/citation-P06.md), their [P02 source list](https://seoinformatica.com/downloads/authority-batch-06/citation-P02-sources.json) and [P06 source list](https://seoinformatica.com/downloads/authority-batch-06/citation-P06-sources.json), and the [initial source review](https://seoinformatica.com/downloads/authority-batch-06/citation-source-review.md). Original files and whole-answer accuracy labels remain unchanged. Both answers were collected in Perplexity Search, signed out, with the underlying model not exposed and connection geography uncontrolled. P02's retained timestamp is 2026-10-06T07:14:27.313701Z. Its metadata identifies that as a transcript-boundary correction time, not an exact query-submission time. P06's retained timestamp is 2026-10-06T07:18:39.228Z. Do not infer precise generation times from file timestamps. The [source record](https://seoinformatica.com/downloads/authority-batch-07/correction-source-records.json) contains exact selected passages, URLs, historical revision identifiers, file hashes and access limits. Current public About, AI SEO, Terms and company LinkedIn text were readable through the web reader on 6 October 2026, with a crawl label of today. About and the AI SEO price FAQ were also inspected in ordinary Chrome around 10:55 UTC. Reader access dates do not establish when a provider's search index refreshed. ## C01: historical quotation identified **Answer and scope:** P02, the clause beginning “What does not exist yet: a wall of reviews”. Its surrounding statements about all reviews, ratings and preferences have not been assessed here. **Starting classification:** quotation not found in the current About page during the initial source review. **New evidence:** source B01 contains the exact sentence “What does not exist yet: a wall of reviews.” in an earlier About manuscript. The historical text appears in revision `d74d31fb4608fed7e87b38fc2cfab957fbce3b70`, authored 2 October 2026 at 01:36:36 +05:30. The last inspected pre-removal version is `4020ac39b5b37aceae5b1d61fec82f95da42f497`, authored 5 October at 16:26:51 +05:30. Revision `834bab17205c323cf3afefc3209e37908455226b`, authored 5 October at 17:58:14 +05:30, removes the passage. The current source and public About readback do not contain it. **Current classification:** historical wording identified; not present in the current page reviewed. Do not label the quotation fabricated on the evidence available. **What remains unknown:** the precise source version Perplexity retrieved, retrieval time, which material produced the answer, and the accuracy of the surrounding ratings claims. Source-control dates establish manuscript history, not historical deployment or model retrieval. **Proposed action:** preserve both versions. If submitting feedback about the current description, attach the exact old phrase, current source passage and source dates. Request that the current description be considered. No change to the correct current About page is proposed merely to match the answer. **Responsible role:** reviewer preparing the evidence; authorized account user if platform feedback is later approved. **Action status:** prepared, not submitted. **Later observation:** not collected. **Outcome:** not established. ## C02: a pricing description needs its scope condition **Answer and scope:** P06, “Transparent, all-in pricing” and the adjacent starting-fee statement. This record does not assess the whole recommendation. **Evidence:** B03, the AI SEO FAQ, states the starting fee and says the exact fee depends on the layers the business needs, with the proposal naming work, responsibilities and fee. B02 distinguishes the ongoing plan from separately quoted website projects. B04 puts service scope and fees in the written service agreement. B06 is the current public offer's source record, with a `from` price prefix. The service-page and About distinctions were also visible in the current public responses. **Current classification:** starting fee supported; an unrestricted reading of all-in scope is not supported by these reviewed sources. Qualification needed. An all-inclusive interpretation is not established, but this review does not claim that every possible use of the phrase is false. **Proposed replacement:** “The plan has a starting monthly fee. The proposal confirms the work and exact fee; separately quoted website projects are another route.” This is proposed editorial wording, not a changed assistant response or offer. **What remains unknown:** why the phrase was selected, what the assistant intended by it, and whether feedback would change another answer. P06's India-headquarters claim is not assessed here and must not be changed to another location by inference. **Proposed action:** prepare response feedback with the disputed phrase and specific source passages. Keep the existing offer correct; do not alter price or scope to accommodate an answer. The business owner should confirm any publishable replacement wording before it is sent. **Responsible role:** business owner for offer facts; authorized account user for any later platform feedback. **Action status:** prepared, not submitted. **Later observation:** not collected. **Outcome:** not established. ## C03: differing entry-route instructions in controlled sources **Answer/source scope:** P02 and P06 source lists include the SEO Informatica LinkedIn company profile. The older source review already identified a difference between company-profile and current-site descriptions. This record reviews the sources' entry instructions, not the cause of an answer sentence. **Evidence:** B05's public LinkedIn description still invites readers to “Start with a free Clarity Audit.” B02's current About page offers a direct Clarity Call or an optional written Outside View. These are different labels and instructions for starting work. The current public source read supports that discrepancy; neither source is an independent endorsement of the business. **Current classification:** source discrepancy confirmed within the passages inspected. The profile's current wording needs an owner decision about alignment, not an automatic claim that every part is factually false. **Proposed profile wording for review:** “Request a free Clarity Call to discuss your business and priorities. If you prefer a written first look at an existing website, choose the optional free Outside View.” This is a proposed replacement for the entry instruction only, not an authorized rewrite of the whole profile. **What remains unknown:** whether the profile supplied a specific answer sentence, the assistant's source weighting, and any effect a later profile change would have. A retrieved candidate list is not proof of sentence-level attribution. The alternate LinkedIn URL identified in the original pilot was not newly read or resolved in this review. **Proposed action:** show the profile owner both passages, confirm the intended route names, then apply any separately approved profile edit and record the resulting public text. No such edit has occurred in this review. **Responsible role:** owner or authorized administrator of the company profile. **Action status:** proposed for owner review, not submitted or applied. **Later observation:** not collected. **Outcome:** not established. ## What this review does and does not establish The three selected cases have different findings: historical wording identified, a missing price qualification, and a source discrepancy. The work does not establish three false answers, a platform error rate, whole-answer accuracy, a causal source, or a successful correction. It demonstrates how additional evidence can change the proposed action. Keep the original answer and source record. Put any later source change, submission receipt and answer observation in separate dated fields. A single changed answer cannot establish permanent behavior or causation. ## Public guidance reviewed - [Google AI Overviews feedback](https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/14901683?hl=en): answer feedback and source-checking guidance. - [Google Business Profile editing](https://support.google.com/business/answer/3039617?hl=en) and [knowledge-panel feedback](https://support.google.com/knowledgepanel/answer/7534842?hl=en): separate surfaces with their own requirements. - [Google recrawl requests](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/ask-google-to-recrawl): crawling and indexing limits, not an answer-correction deadline. - [OpenAI feedback routes](https://openai.com/form/model-behavior-feedback/) and [accuracy guidance](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/8313428-does-chatgpt-tell-the-truth): response feedback and checking sources. - [Perplexity legacy support FAQ](https://www.perplexity.ai/cnr/hub/faq/support): older official search-reader text was available, direct recheck failed; current interface placement unverified. Consult the [help center](https://www.perplexity.ai/help-center) before acting. All access/review dates: 6 October 2026. No reviewed source supplies a universal deadline or guarantee that a correction reaches every future AI answer. ## Using the files The CSV has one row per selected case, retaining dates, source IDs, unresolved questions and action status. Its source-comparison columns also retain the answer's cited or retrieved URLs, sources actually checked, exact relevant passages, publication or update dates where known, historical versions, access methods, access limits and authoritative business evidence. A retrieved URL is not automatically a citation supporting the disputed sentence. Source check dates, publication dates, manuscript revision dates and model retrieval times remain separate. The blank CSV has the same columns so your evidence can travel with the claim without requiring a separate source file. Leave unknown dates blank and explain the gap in the access-limits or unknowns field. For several sources, label each passage and date with its source ID, as the worked rows do. CSV cells beginning with spreadsheet formula-control characters, including after leading whitespace, are prefixed with an apostrophe on export. Import all columns as text where your spreadsheet offers that option. The Markdown record and source JSON retain the reference wording separately from that spreadsheet protection. Use the [blank Markdown template](https://seoinformatica.com/downloads/authority-batch-07/correction-blank.md) or [blank CSV](https://seoinformatica.com/downloads/authority-batch-07/correction-blank.csv) for your own claim. Unfilled fields mean not recorded. Do not distribute private answer links or account details unnecessarily.