Quick answer
Check changes in the question, interface, search setting and version before attributing the issue. Compare the original answer, visible sources and current public facts. You do not have to force a choice between “model issue” and “content issue”: a page error can be verified, while the cause of an omission may remain uncertain.
Details
Define the observation first
This diagnosis concerns brand descriptions, shortlist inclusion and recommendations in AI answers. It does not concern detecting AI-written text. Separate absence, wrong facts and answer variation instead of treating them as one accuracy score.
Record the exact question, actual interface, language, date, search setting and any version information you can confirm. Note unavailable settings rather than assuming full control. See web-search and closed-book answers.
Use an observation to propose a check, not a verdict
| Observation | What to investigate | What it does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| Answer error matches an error on a public page | Actual page wording and citation relationship | That page is the sole cause |
| Page is correct but the answer is wrong | Entity, revision and support in cited text | A definite internal model fault |
| Search and closed-book answers differ | Settings, wording, versions and visible sources | One exclusive cause |
| Several models omit the brand | Shared visible sources and buying-task fit | Causation by website content |
| Repeated answers vary | Comparable conditions and retained samples | A need to rewrite the site every time |
This table is an investigation method, not a root-cause algorithm. Inspect the specific statement even when the answer cites a page containing an error.
Choose correction or further observation from the evidence
If public facts are wrong, conflicting or missing necessary scope, confirm the current wording with the owner before preparing a correction. If the only evidence is one omission, retain the signal and collect comparable answers. Mark version or setting changes rather than assigning the difference to content work.
Write down confirmed facts, possible explanations and remaining checks. Do not invent an account of an invisible retrieval process or internal model state. Extensive rewriting can wait where supporting evidence is absent.
Retesting can inform the diagnosis without proving sole causation
Record actual publication and its date, then repeat the original questions under comparable settings. Disclose concurrent model, source or content changes where known. A lack of change records does not prove that external conditions were stable.
Report what the observation supports: for example, that an answer under recorded settings agrees with current facts, while other interfaces remain unchecked. See the same-conditions retest guide.
FAQ
Q: How can we tell whether an AI recommendation issue comes from the model or our content?
A: Record comparable questions and settings, then inspect current facts and visible sources. Separate verified page problems from possible explanations and unknown causes. Several wrong answers alone do not prove that the website caused them.
Q: Should we change our website whenever the same prompt gets a different answer?
A: Check whether the interface, search setting, version and context are comparable. Correct a verified page error, but do not treat answer variation alone as a reason to rewrite public content.
Q: Does a correct web-search answer and a wrong closed-book answer prove the cause?
A: No. The two modes may involve different sources and settings. Retain them separately and investigate visible evidence; the difference does not identify an exclusive cause.