Incorrect specifications: first establish whose claim it is
Save the question, answer, provider and observation date. Identify the sentence about your product rather than assuming every specification in a comparison belongs to it. Then compare the relevant attribute with a dated manufacturer source. Check units, operating conditions and document scope before calling the difference an error.
Model and variant confusion: resolve the product before the fact
An older revision, a regional voltage variant and a current model can share most of a name. Match the requested product to the official model, MPN or GTIN where assigned, and the variant-specific page or document. Do not manufacture identifiers or use a neighboring model as the source. If the model remains ambiguous, keep the result unresolved.
An evidence example, not a customer result
The table below uses fictional models to show why similar-looking discrepancies require different conclusions. It is not a captured ChatGPT response or an accuracy claim. A real review needs the full answer, source version, product identity and measurement context.
| Situation | Illustrative source fact | Illustrative answer | What to conclude |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wrong specification | Fictional ABC-500 is rated for -40 C in the applicable source. | The answer explicitly gives ABC-500 a -20 C limit. | Candidate conflict: verify units, conditions, version and claim attribution. |
| Different variant | ABC-500-EU is the documented 230 V variant. | The answer describes ABC-500-US at 120 V. | Resolve the requested variant first; do not report a generic voltage conflict. |
| Competitor attribution | The source gives ABC-500 an IP67 rating. | The answer says a competing XYZ-900 has IP66. | Not evidence that AI misstated ABC-500. The claim belongs to the competitor. |
| Unsupported claim | A source exists, but the answer cannot be attributed reliably. | The wording or attribute is outside the supported comparison. | Insufficient evidence or not comparable, not a proven missing fact. |
A wrong purchase link is separate from a wrong specification
Check the exact URL in the answer, including which model and offer it represents. An accurate technical description can still lead to an old variant or an unrelated item. Conversely, a valid authorized dealer link should not be rejected merely because it is not the manufacturer homepage. Destination expectations depend on the agreed buyer scenario.
Choose the smallest supported correction
A stale official page may need a content update; inconsistent variant identifiers may need clarification; a misattributed competitor sentence may need no change to your data at all. Review the evidence with the product owner before publishing. Do not turn uncertain extraction into a confident correction request.
Retest without rewriting the earlier result
Keep the original question and answer. After approved source changes, repeat the frozen question and show the new observation separately. A different provider model or success policy can invalidate direct comparison. An improved answer is an observation; it does not by itself establish why the answer changed.
Questions before starting
Does a different attribute always mean an AI error?
No. The answer may concern another variant, document version, market, condition or competitor. Establish those boundaries before assigning a verdict.
Does a missing specification mean the product was described incorrectly?
No. A missing mention, an unsupported extraction and a contradictory statement are different observations. Keep them separate in the review.
Can ProductKnowledgeGraph verify every kind of specification?
Coverage must be established for the selected product and supported attributes. This page describes the evidence required for verification, not universal automated extraction or technical certification.
Supporting sources
- Google Merchant Center: use correct product identifiers; do not guess them
- Google Search Central: distinguish product groups and variants
These sources explain product data and model behavior. They are not endorsements of ProductKnowledgeGraph.