Review a batch of AI product copy for factual drift

Checking one generated description is not enough to establish that a whole batch is accurate. Review the claims most likely to change the customer's decision.

Create a claim checklist

List materials, dimensions, included items, prices, availability, care instructions and delivery statements. Add any category-specific claims that require evidence.

For jewellery, that may include metal or stone descriptions. For clothing, it may include fit and fabric. The checklist should follow the product rather than a generic writing score.

Compare against the approved source

Keep each output connected to its product reference and fact pack. Do not compare only against another AI-generated summary.

When a fact is missing, the output should remain appropriately limited. Words such as premium, sustainable or guaranteed are not harmless decoration if they imply unsupported qualities.

Look for systematic errors

A repeated mistake may come from the prompt or data mapping. If every variant description uses the parent price, correct the cause before editing dozens of outputs individually.

Group failures by type: invented claim, omitted distinction, wrong product, stale offer or confusing instruction. That makes the next batch more reliable.

Keep the customer's task central

A description can be factually safe but still unhelpful. Check whether the reader can understand what arrives, choose an option and know what happens next.

Do not pad every page to the same length simply to make the batch look substantial. Add detail where it resolves a real buying question.

Retain the disposition

Mark each item accepted, revised or held, with the reason for held content. Do not count a generated file as a finished page while its central facts remain uncertain.

Use the product-catalogue overview to organise the records behind the copy. This is a quality-control routine for drafts, not proof that an AI tool has independently verified a merchant's products.

Illustrative case to check

In a batch of jewellery copy, several outputs add “hypoallergenic” even though the source only says stainless steel. Treat that as a systematic unsupported claim. Correct the instructions and review every affected output rather than fixing one example. The absence of a complaint is not evidence that the material claim was verified.