AI search work can involve SEO, content, engineering, PR, customer support, and paid advertising. Assign one person to coordinate priorities and reporting. Name the contributor responsible for each task.
From brief to publication review
Use the following review steps for content. Adapt them to the page and its level of factual risk.
Brief. State the customer question, the page’s purpose, and the information needed. Link relevant evidence and note how the finished page will be checked.
Draft. Explain the answer clearly. Identify the subject and keep important conditions close to each claim.
Evidence review. Verify factual claims against suitable sources. Remove unsupported assertions or state the uncertainty. Check that citations support the actual wording.
Section review. Read each section independently. Correct ambiguous references and incomplete explanations without removing useful context.
Markup. Add supported structured data where appropriate. Use maintained facts and check that the markup agrees with the visible page.
Publish and review. Verify the page, links, assets, and access behavior. Record the publication date and compare relevant measurements later.
Reviewing AI-assisted drafts
Set the same factual and editorial standards for human and AI-assisted drafts. Google’s scaled-content policy concerns content produced primarily to manipulate rankings, regardless of how it was created.Google's spam policies, which cover scaled content abuse, site reputation abuse, and cloaking, and apply however content is generated, by hand or by model.
Assign a reviewer who is responsible for factual accuracy and publication readiness. Check source links directly. A generated citation or confident sentence is not verification.
Assigning responsibility
One person. Keep the scope manageable. Complete the measurements and corrections needed for the next decision before expanding the work.
A small team. Assign measurement, content, technical changes, and external communication explicitly. Coordinate deadlines and approvals in one task list.
A large organization. Keep common scoring definitions and business facts centrally maintained. Let subject specialists review their own products and markets. Record exceptions rather than allowing conflicting facts to remain unexplained.
Maintaining business facts
Maintain important business facts in a source that the responsible teams can access. Published pages, profiles, feeds, and markup should agree with that source.
Record each fact’s owner, evidence, and review date. Maintain approved claims with their supporting material. Use the organization’s normal review process for claims that require specialist approval. Publication controls cannot guarantee how a model later paraphrases the text.
The standing procedures
Incorrect answers. Save the response and available sources. Correct errors on pages you control, request appropriate third-party corrections, and use the provider’s feedback process where available.
Factual maintenance. Review volatile information when it changes. Schedule periodic checks for other important pages. Update dates only when the content receives a substantive revision.
Experiment records. State the hypothesis, change, measurement period, and comparison method. Record concurrent updates and limitations so a later reviewer can assess the result.
Assign responsibility for changes
The business owner or subject specialist confirms facts. The editor maintains the pages. The developer handles access and supported data formats. The analyst maintains prompts, records, and scores. One person can perform several roles, but each task still needs an owner.
For each correction, retain the approved fact, affected URLs, publication date, verification result, and next review trigger. The trigger may be a price change, product release, location change, or provider update.
Use a recurring review to decide what needs investigation. Separate factual errors that require action from ordinary variation in recommendation counts. A dashboard change alone is insufficient instruction for an editor.