AI for Creators · Guide
Refresh an AI-Assisted Article When Its Source Changes
Track claim dependencies so an updated policy, product page, or study triggers the right editorial review instead of a blind rewrite.
Keep a claim-to-source note for consequential facts. When a source changes, identify the affected claims, compare the old and new evidence, update only supported passages, and publish a correction when the change materially alters what readers were told. Record the review date and next trigger.
Find the claim, not merely the link
A source update matters only in relation to the statement your article made. A product page may change a plan limit, a policy may gain an exception, or a study may correct a figure. Open the published article and identify the sentence that relied on the old version. Preserve a short note of the earlier source, access date, and relevant passage when permitted. Do not assume that a changed page invalidates the whole article, and do not assume an unchanged URL means the claim still holds. AI-assisted drafting can make this harder when links were added after the prose was written. A claim ledger—claim, source, section, date, and owner—keeps the relationship visible without becoming a second CMS.
Compare evidence at the right level
Read the current primary record and compare the specific condition, number, feature, or wording your article uses. Check whether the source itself distinguishes old and new versions. A changed navigation label or design is not necessarily a factual change. Conversely, a small footnote may reverse a recommendation. If the source is no longer available, look for an official archive or updated document and mark the uncertainty. Do not let an assistant infer a change from snippets or a cached summary. Give the editor the old claim and current source passage, then ask what must be revised. Preserve the difference between a corrected fact and a changed editorial judgment: both may require an update, but they should be explained differently.
Revise the minimum necessary passage
Update the affected sentence, nearby caveat, and any summary, card, or metadata that repeats the claim. Recheck a conclusion if the fact was central to the recommendation. Keep unaffected advice intact; a full rewrite can create new errors and make the correction hard to understand. If an AI tool proposes wording, verify it against the actual source and the article's intended audience. Avoid a silent date bump that suggests the entire piece was re-researched. State what was reviewed and when, especially for price, policy, or product details that can change quickly. A correction note is appropriate when the earlier publication materially misled readers, not for every minor wording improvement.
Follow the claim into reused content
The same fact may appear in a newsletter excerpt, a video script, a downloadable checklist, or a social post. Search for that exact claim or distinctive figure in the team's own assets. Decide which copies remain live and which can be corrected, annotated, or retired. A linked video may need a description correction even if the article can be edited in place. Keep the review proportional: prioritize live content and materially misleading claims. Record an owner for the remaining copies so the update does not end with a fixed web page and an inaccurate campaign. The source-to-claim connection is most valuable when content is reused.
Set a useful trigger for the next review
A fixed calendar review can help, but an event trigger is often better. Watch for a new policy version, product plan change, revised dataset, correction notice, or recurring reader question. Record the source and the condition that would reopen the piece. Do not promise to monitor every linked page continuously unless the team has a real process for that. For high-stakes claims, use an appropriate qualified reviewer. For a routine how-to, a focused editorial check may suffice. The result should be a trustworthy current passage, a transparent correction where needed, and a clear reason to revisit it—not a permanently green badge.
Example: a changed feature plan
An article says a feature is available on a named subscription plan. The vendor moves that feature to a different tier. The editor checks the current official plan page and, if available, the date of change. Search the article for the feature, plan name, comparison table, summary answer, and callout card. Update each affected place and remove any recommendation that depended on the old availability. If readers may have purchased because of the old statement, make the correction visible. Do not recast the entire article as new research unless the other comparisons were reviewed. Keep the old source note so the change is understandable.
Sources and update note
Follow the linked official source before a product, price, plan, or policy decision.