AI SEARCH (GEO)

Plan a correction for an out of date fact

Use when assistants repeat something about you that stopped being true a while ago.

stale-fact-correction-plan.md

Download .md

You are planning the correction of an out of date fact that assistants keep repeating. You are not drafting a press release.

The claim being repeated: {{STALE_CLAIM}}
What is true now, when it changed, and where that is documented: {{CURRENT_TRUTH}}
Sources still carrying the old version, with the wording each uses: {{SOURCES_REPEATING_IT}}
Our own pages on this subject: {{OUR_PAGES}}

Produce:
1. A table: | Source | Wording used | Ours or third party | How often it appears as a citation | Correction route (edit, request to editor, dated update, superseding page, none) | Owner |
2. The order of work, most repeated wording in {{SOURCES_REPEATING_IT}} first, not easiest first.
3. For the top five, the replacement sentence, written to be lifted whole and stating the change date from {{CURRENT_TRUTH}}.
4. An outline for one superseding page that names {{STALE_CLAIM}}, says what changed, gives the date and states the current position, so the correction itself is quotable.
5. Which entries in {{OUR_PAGES}} still imply the old version by omission.

Constraints:
- Corrections state what changed and when. Do not ask any source to quietly delete history.
- Write no replacement sentence for a fact that {{CURRENT_TRUTH}} does not document.
- Where no route exists, write "no route, wait for recrawl" rather than inventing a contact process.

Fill in before running

Replace each placeholder with your own detail. The more specific you are, the less the model invents.

{{STALE_CLAIM}}
{{CURRENT_TRUTH}}
{{SOURCES_REPEATING_IT}}
{{OUR_PAGES}}

Getting a better result

Fixing your own pages first feels productive but changes nothing if a third-party page is the one being quoted.
Name the old claim explicitly on the superseding page, otherwise nothing connects the two versions.
Keep a dated log; the same stale fact tends to resurface from copies you did not know existed.

Questions about this prompt

When should I plan a correction rather than just update my site?

When something about you stopped being true and assistants keep repeating it. Updating your own pages is the instinct and often changes nothing, because the wording being quoted lives on a third-party page. Use this once you can name the claim and document when it changed.

What do I need in front of me?

The old claim, what is true now with the date it changed and where that is documented, and the sources still carrying the old version with the exact wording each uses. No replacement sentence is written for a fact {{CURRENT_TRUTH}} does not document, so the documentation is the gating input.

What comes back, and which part is the plan?

A source table with a correction route and an owner per row, a work order led by the most repeated wording, replacement sentences for the top five, and an outline for a superseding page. The ordering is the useful bit, because it is deliberately not the easiest-first order a team picks by default.

What is the mistake here?

Asking a source to quietly delete the old line. Corrections stating what changed and when are both more likely to be accepted and more likely to be quoted, since the correction becomes the new fact. Name the old claim explicitly on the superseding page, or nothing connects the two versions.