Assign review dates to facts inside articles

Treat a changing fact as its own record

The deliverable links fact ID, statement, evidence, last check, review trigger and dependent articles. A price, usage limit and interface procedure in the same article can have separate rows. The register should reveal what needs checking without requiring a complete reread of every page.

A review date is a work schedule, not a guarantee that information remains true until then. A provider announcement can trigger an earlier check. If a scheduled review finds no change, record that outcome. Keep publication dates distinct from the dates when individual facts were actually examined.

Store the scope with the statement

Write what was checked, not just “review pricing”. Include plan, currency, billing interval and relevant market where they affect the statement. A number stored without its conditions invites confusion between a monthly charge and an annual-plan equivalent. Link the source and relevant heading.

Add an owner, impact level and status. A condition that changes a purchase decision deserves different priority from a minor label change. If the source is inaccessible or ambiguous, keep the item unresolved instead of marking it checked merely because somebody attempted to open the page.

Separate verification from publication

Useful states include unchecked, checking, correction required, awaiting publication and rechecked. Reading the source and publishing the correction are different events. Maintain a view that exposes items stuck between them.

Use the fact ID to connect repeated information across articles. A corrected pricing guide does not automatically update a comparison or calculator note using the same condition. After release, open the dependent pages and check the actual public wording. The record should represent completed verification, not an assumption that a saved draft is already visible to readers.

Example: a price stays while a limit changes

For fictional product X, F-201 records a monthly billed price and F-202 records a storage limit. The month-end review finds the price unchanged but the limit different. Mark F-201 unchanged and F-202 as requiring correction, then inspect the three dependent articles.

If one of those corrections has not been published, retain the outstanding article reference instead of closing the fact. Do not present a date-only edit as a substantive article refresh. Google’s helpful-content guidance explicitly cautions against changing dates merely to make unchanged pages seem fresh.

Let changes trigger earlier review

Provider announcements, reader reports, broken links and a changed interface can trigger an unscheduled review. If monitoring is automated, treat detected change as a request for comparison rather than proof that the article is wrong. A reviewer still needs to establish the relevant difference.

When current information cannot be verified, decide whether to qualify the statement, remove an unsupported number or hold the affected passage. An old saved screenshot can show what was previously reviewed, but it does not by itself establish current terms. Keep the decision and reason in the record.

Keep the register maintainable

Start with facts that materially affect reader decisions instead of attempting to catalogue every sentence. A normal spreadsheet may suffice; consider Airtable when several owners and filtered views make the work easier. The important capability is tracing affected articles and unpublished corrections, not the longest feature list.

Separate tool cost, verification time, editing and release checks. Completion means the important facts have identifiable support and a truthful review state, and necessary corrections reached the public pages. Filling every row with a future date is not sufficient if nobody can explain the previous check.

• Prioritize article updates with evidence, exposure and reader impact
• Write an evidence-led SEO article brief that an editor can verify
• Review SEO changes without confusing timing with causation