Find Conflicting Claims Across Your Website
Use LLMIC Trust & Consistency to review potentially conflicting claims while preserving the passages and pages that support the comparison.
A website loses trust when important facts disagree. The fastest path to a reliable correction is to place both passages side by side.
Build availability: This guide describes the September 2026 development workflow. Some controls may not yet be included in the public installer. Check the release notes and your app version before following the steps.
Evidence flow
- Choose important claimsFocus on prices, dates, policies and product facts.
- Retain passagesKeep the exact wording and source URLs.
- Review meaningDistinguish true conflict from different context.
- Assign ownershipConfirm the authoritative fact before editing.
This visual explains the review sequence. It is not a performance forecast or a set of measured customer results.
Start with a clear question
Open the relevant LLMIC dashboard only after loading the crawl, property or saved observation needed for this review. For content consistency, record the website, date, filters and document layer before interpreting a result. This keeps the work reproducible when another team member reviews it later.
Read the evidence before the recommendation
Open the affected page or row and inspect the retained evidence. Counts help you find patterns, but the page-level source explains what was actually measured. When coverage is partial, a response failed, or a legacy crawl omitted the required field, keep that state visible. Do not turn unavailable evidence into a failed check.
Choose the smallest useful action
Write an instruction that names the exact URL, observed condition and intended result. Preserve intentional behavior and review shared patterns before applying a site-wide change. If a suggestion creates new wording, markup or redirects, a person should approve the facts and destination before publication.
Understand the limits
Text similarity can identify candidates, but it cannot decide factual truth. A human owner must confirm the authoritative claim, and the review becomes stale when either passage changes.
Quick reference
| Evidence or state | How to use it |
|---|---|
| Exact conflict | Resolve the approved fact and update every affected page. |
| Different context | Clarify audience, date or condition instead of merging. |
| Old statement | Check publication and effective dates. |
| Incomplete capture | Obtain full evidence before declaring inconsistency. |
Check the result
After the reviewed change is deployed, collect fresh evidence with a compatible configuration. A task marked complete records workflow progress; it does not prove the live page changed. Save the verification time and result, then use Verify SEO Fixes for supported checks or run a complete follow-up audit.
Continue your workflow
Return to the documentation home, learn how to interpret audit results, or organize reviewed work in the Action Queue and Fix Generator. Remove private information before sharing exports, and contact LLMIC support with a sanitized example when a result cannot be explained.
Frequently asked questions
Use LLMIC Trust & Consistency to review potentially conflicting claims while preserving the passages and pages that support the comparison.
Load the relevant crawl, define the prompt or question set, and connect only the supported provider needed for the measurement. Record the provider, model, location, language, and run time so the observation can be interpreted later.
Review the exact prompt, returned answer, mention or citation, cited URL, provider metadata, and any unsuccessful check. Keep measured provider output separate from local readiness checks and editorial recommendations.
Turn the observation into a review task with the affected page, captured answer evidence, intended audience need, proposed change, and owner. A missing mention is an observation from that test, not proof that the brand is invisible everywhere.
Repeat the same saved question set with comparable provider settings and record the new dated observation. Do not compare different prompts, models, markets, or time periods as if they were the same measurement.
A provider run is a dated observation, not a probability or ranking guarantee. Results can change by model, prompt, location, personalization, availability, and time, and a local checklist cannot prove inclusion in an AI answer.
Save or export the evidence, assign the approved action, and use the related guides linked on the page for the next check. After implementation, repeat the same workflow against a fresh crawl so the result is comparable.