WHAT TRIGGERS A REVIEW
Material changes, not cosmetic churn.
A page should be reviewed when a vendor changes a relevant capability, plan structure or workflow; when the diagnostic logic changes; when new evidence materially changes a business recommendation; or when a factual issue is reported.
- Vendor capability or plan changes.
- Changes to recommendation logic or weighting.
- New internal diagnostic evidence that changes a conclusion.
- Material factual corrections.
- Search-intent changes that expose an outdated or incomplete answer.
SOFTWARE PAGES
Commercial claims need the shortest review cycle.
Software pages and comparisons are more volatile than business-principle pages. Before publishing or materially refreshing one, relevant feature and pricing claims should be checked against current vendor information.
A vendor name appearing in the product does not mean every capability claim is permanently valid.
BUSINESS GUIDES
Stable principles still need context checks.
Constraint-order logic changes less frequently than vendor software. Even so, guides should be reviewed when they attract new search intent, when the diagnostic model changes or when new evidence shows that an explanation is incomplete.
TRANSPARENCY
Corrections and updates are different things.
An update reflects a change in evidence, product capability or methodology. A correction fixes something that was wrong. Material factual errors should follow the corrections policy rather than being silently reframed as a routine refresh.