Wrong technical specifications can rule out a suitable model
A wrong operating range, connector, capacity or compatibility statement can make a suitable product look unsuitable. Start with the exact buyer question and the sentence attributed to your model. Compare that statement with the relevant manufacturer document, revision and market. Missing information is not a proven error, and a specification about a competitor must not be assigned to your product.
Similar model names can hide different variants
A family name is not enough when voltage, size, firmware support or generation changes the purchase decision. Check the requested model and the model actually described. Keep the model identifier, variant-specific source and official page together. An unresolved variant should remain a review question rather than a confident technical conflict.
A competitor recommendation needs a reason, not just a score
Record which competing models appear and the requirements used to recommend them. Your product may be absent, incorrectly rejected or genuinely unsuitable for that use case. Those findings require different decisions. Do not rewrite correct manufacturer facts merely because another product was recommended.
The right model with the wrong link is a different problem
A brand homepage, discontinued variant and unrelated seller page do not answer the same purchase question. For your business, an appropriate next step may be a product page, documentation or an approved dealer or RFQ route. Agree that destination for the selected scenario before deciding a link is wrong. A third-party seller is not automatically an error.
Bring a small, commercially important product scope
Start with the models your sales team is asked about, their official pages or datasheets, current variants, target market and a few real buyer questions. A specifier may ask about compatibility; a procurement buyer may ask for an exact model and purchasing route. These are pilot planning examples, not a claim that every role and attribute is automatically supported.
Review the evidence before choosing a correction
The useful review connects the question, dated provider answer, quoted claim, product identity and source record. Use it to decide whether the problem is a wrong fact, unresolved model, missing recommendation or destination mismatch. Confirm the supported attributes and provider coverage during scoping; do not assume every specification can be extracted automatically.
Correct what you own, then compare another observation
Prioritize approved changes to official product records and sources under your control. Preserve the original answer and repeat the same frozen questions. Separate a changed answer from a changed model, question or evaluation policy. Publication, a crawler visit, a citation and a product recommendation are different evidence levels, not a promise of sales uplift.
Questions before starting
Do we need to replace our catalog or PIM?
No. Keep the systems that maintain your approved catalog. This pilot concerns what an AI assistant says to a buyer, and the evidence needed to compare that answer with your product records. Native integrations and import scope must be confirmed separately.
Can you check every SKU and technical attribute automatically?
Do not assume universal coverage. Begin with a representative family and agree the models, variants, attributes, languages and providers in scope. Unsupported extraction or unresolved identity must remain visible as a limitation.
Can you guarantee that AI will recommend us instead?
No. ProductKnowledgeGraph can help you inspect observations and address product-information problems you control. It cannot compel an external model to choose your product or establish sales impact from a mention alone.