Arrow 
Save the answer and cited passage, verify the current fact and identify which record needs attention. Do not assume that updating your website rewrites an independent review or forces the assistant to refresh.
Separate age from inaccuracy.
A review may accurately describe a product or service as it existed at the time. The problem can arise when a later summary presents that historical limitation as a current fact. Keep the publication date, product version and original wording in the record.
Do not request removal simply because feedback is unfavourable. A genuine opinion about a past experience and a mistaken factual statement require different handling. The next action should match the actual issue.
Match the correction to the actual problem.
- 01CaptureAnswer and cited review.
- 02ComparePast context and current fact.
- 03CorrectThe appropriate owned record.
- 04RetestA new dated observation.
Trace the specific disputed claim.
Save the buyer question, date, response and cited URL. Identify the relevant passage and compare it with the current approved source. If the answer cites nothing visible, record that limitation rather than guessing which review caused it.
Use a narrow correction brief: the exact claim, the current supporting fact and the responsible owner. A vague complaint that AI dislikes the brand is difficult for an editor or a product team to investigate.
Three different issues need different responses.
Opinion
A genuine past experience.
Fact
A changed feature or condition.
Summary
A present-tense interpretation.
Correct the record you can legitimately maintain.
Update the official product or service page when it is ambiguous or obsolete. Where a third-party profile has a factual error, use the platform’s published process and provide appropriate public evidence. The independent reviewer remains responsible for their own editorial material.
The fictional example below concerns a feature introduced after a review. It does not establish that the original reviewer made a mistake, and it does not demonstrate a particular AI response or refresh time.
The old review may have been accurate.
A past review says a feature was unavailable.
The current answer treats that as today’s product scope.
Document the feature’s actual current availability and limits.
Preserve the original review’s historical context.
Keep review requests independent.
Google’s review policy prohibits incentives for posting, revising or removing feedback. A public-record correction should not become an exchange for a favourable opinion.
Publish a dated product update when it helps readers distinguish versions. State the actual scope and avoid implying that every old criticism has been resolved. A precise current source is more useful than a blanket claim that all reviews are outdated.
Retest without claiming control of the answer.
Repeat comparable questions and retain the new response alongside the old one. Record which sources appear and whether the current claim is accurate. A changed answer may be useful, but one observation does not prove permanence or causation.
Continue with the business-fact investigation and the review-source map. Keep any commercial impact separate from the correction record.
Sources and editorial scope
This is Arrow AI editorial guidance. Diagrams and examples illustrate a method, not client results or platform ranking factors. Clear information and source access do not guarantee a recommendation. Platform-specific facts are attributed to the sources below.
The Arrow read
Make the next decision clearer.
See what your customers can understand today, then improve the source or workflow that answers their next question. Start with a free GEO audit.