Arrow 
Prioritise conflicting business listings, write precise correction requests and track source updates separately from changes in AI answers.
Your website may be correct while another business record is not.
Directories can show outdated business information because their records were created at different times, updated by different parties or populated from other sources. Identify the exact conflicting field, verify the current fact and correct the most relevant records first. Do not assume that publishing a website update automatically updates every listing.
For a customer, the source can look authoritative even when it is stale. A directory may show a former address, an expired service package or a phone number for another branch. The first task is to determine whether the listing represents the right business and which fact is actually wrong.
This is a source-maintenance workflow, not a recommendation to submit your business to hundreds of directories. More listings can create more records to maintain. Prioritise useful, legitimate destinations that customers use or that appear in the answers you are investigating.
Which listings deserve attention first?
Begin with a cited source containing a material error, then official or important industry profiles, then other records with clear customer relevance. A listing's position in your correction queue should reflect the consequence of the wrong fact and the evidence that the page matters.
| Listing situation | Priority rationale | First action |
|---|---|---|
| Cited page shows the wrong branch address | Can cause a wasted visit | Verify identity and request the address correction |
| Official profile has an old domain | Sends customers to the wrong destination | Update through the authorised account |
| Industry association lists a retired service | Misrepresents current fit | Supply the current scope and evidence |
| Old article accurately reports a past event | Historical information may be valid | Add context only if it is presented as current |
| Unknown bulk directory with no observed relevance | Value of maintenance is unclear | Assess legitimacy before creating an account |
Do not use citation alone as proof that the entire directory caused a bad answer. The useful observation is narrower: a particular response displayed a particular source containing a conflicting fact.
What should your source register contain?
Create one row for each record you intend to maintain. Include URL, business or branch represented, field in conflict, approved value, evidence, ownership and correction status. Keep credentials and private account details out of a public editorial document.
Record when you last inspected the live page. A submitted form or a confirmation email does not prove the public record is correct. After an update, open the actual listing and compare the fields that matter.
Use separate statuses such as “verified current,” “request submitted,” “publisher reviewing,” “corrected” and “unresolved.” A queue in which every request immediately becomes “done” hides the remaining work.
For records that you own, identify the responsible account or team through your normal access process. For records you do not control, document the publisher's correction route. Do not impersonate a customer or another business to change the information.
How do you write an effective correction request?
Make the request specific enough that an editor can act without conducting the whole investigation again. Include the affected URL, exact wrong field, current replacement, effective date when relevant and an authoritative source.
A useful template is: “The listing at [URL] currently shows [old fact]. The current information is [verified fact], effective [date if applicable]. The official reference is [URL]. Please update that field while preserving the rest of the record. We can provide further verification through your normal process.”
Do not claim that the publisher is responsible for all of your AI visibility problems. A factual correction is easier to assess than a demand for a ranking improvement. If the issue is a duplicate or merged listing, explain the identity distinction rather than submitting another record.
What if several websites repeat the same error?
Look for a shared origin, but treat the relationship as a hypothesis until verified. Similar wording can suggest copied descriptions or a common data provider. It does not prove an upstream dependency.
Ask the publisher whether the field is maintained locally or supplied externally. If an approved update keeps reverting, the field may need correction at another source. Keep both the observed reversion and the publisher's explanation in your register.
| Repeated problem | Investigation | Appropriate response |
|---|---|---|
| Same former address across several listings | Compare dates and disclosed data sources | Correct verified shared source plus relevant local records |
| Updated field later reverts | Ask how the publisher maintains that field | Resolve the maintenance route, not just the visible text |
| Two businesses merged under one name | Compare domains and locations | Request an identity correction or separation |
| Global company details replace a branch | Check record type and hierarchy | Clarify branch-specific facts |
Use the company confusion guide when the record belongs to a namesake. Use the location guide when the issue is branch scope or access conditions.
What does a small correction project look like?
Imagine a fictional catering business that stopped providing delivery outside its local area. Its current website is correct, but an association profile and an event directory still describe nationwide delivery. One recorded answer cites the event directory.
The owner confirms the current delivery area. The website editor checks that the same boundary appears on the service and enquiry pages. The operations coordinator sends precise corrections to the two publishers and tracks them separately. The association updates its page; the event directory has not responded.
The honest status is “one external record corrected, one pending.” A later AI answer may still use the stale listing. The team now knows what remains unresolved instead of repeatedly rewriting an already correct website.
The example is illustrative and includes no claimed performance improvement. It shows why source correction and answer correction are separate milestones.
How do you prevent the same drift next quarter?
Connect important listings to the business change process. A move, rebrand, pricing change or discontinued service should trigger a review of the affected public records. The list can remain small if it covers the destinations that genuinely matter.
Give volatile facts a clear maintained source on your own site. When requesting updates, point publishers to that source rather than supplying a brochure that may itself become outdated. Keep the business fact owner responsible for approving changes.
Google's AI-feature guidance includes keeping Business Profile information current among existing site-owner practices. That supports maintaining accurate records; it does not justify a universal directory-count target or a promise that every corrected profile will be cited.
Sources and editorial scope
Reviewed September 23, 2026. Platform-specific statements link to the documentation beside the claim. The workflows and examples are Arrow AI editorial guidance. Fictional scenarios illustrate a method; they are not customer results, measured demand or evidence of ranking gains.
Part of What AI Says About Your Business. Explore Arrow GEO or request a free audit to identify the next public-information gap.