Job help-centre-articles-checked-against-current-policy-and-product · revised 12 October 2026
Check every help article against your current policy and product, with evidence for each
Every article gets a status (current, outdated, contradicts another or broken link) with the source it conflicts with, against the sources you name. We change nothing.
You might be seeing
- Customers quote an old price from an article
- Two articles give different answers
- Links go to pages that no longer exist
No passwords, keys, card details or admin invites needed to start.
What usually happened
After a price, policy or interface change, articles keep the old facts and contradict each other. The bot answers from those pages and repeats the old fact.
Who it’s for: Support lead whose prices, policies or product screens changed and whose help articles may not have.
Usually starts when: A price, policy or interface changed last quarter and customers are quoting the old article.
The result: Every article in your help centre gets a status of current, outdated, contradicts another or broken link, with the source it conflicts with named for each outdated one. You also receive proposed edits as text and a list of contradictions and broken links.
Check whether this job fits
Answer these without sending chats, tickets, files or logins. Nothing is submitted unless you choose to contact us.
What you get
- The article table with status and evidence
- The contradictions list
- The broken-links list
- Proposed edits as text
Included
- One help centre of up to about 200 articles, exported or crawled
- The sources of truth you name: changelog, pricing page, policy pages
- An article-by-article table with status and evidence
- A list of contradictions between articles and a list of broken links
- Proposed edits as text; no article is changed by us
Not included
- Editing or publishing any article
- Judging whether your policy itself is right or legal
- Checking against sources you have not named
- Screenshots or product walkthroughs
- Translations
How we know it’s done
Agreed with you before work starts. Each check produces evidence you keep.
You re-check 20 findings (seed recorded) and agree with at least 18; the report states that 18 of 20 shows a true agreement rate of at least 71% at 95% confidence.
Evidence: The 20 findings with your marks.
Each article marked outdated cites the line of the source it conflicts with, and each contradiction names both articles.
Evidence: The article table with source references.
Broken links are checked by a fresh crawl on the day of delivery, and the count in the report matches it.
Evidence: The crawl output.
You name 5 facts you know changed, unseen by us until the final run; the table marks every article containing them as outdated or contradicting.
Evidence: Your list of 5 facts beside the table rows.
Sign-off. You re-check the 20 findings and read the table, then sign off in writing. Payment follows sign-off.
If it fails. If your re-check rejects more than 2 of 20 findings, we redo the comparison once. If it still fails, we hand over what we have and you decide whether to stop or re-quote. If any of your 5 facts is missed, we add the missing rows and you re-check them once.
When it fits, and when we stop
It fits when
- A source of truth exists for the facts: a changelog, pricing page or policy
- The help centre can be exported or crawled
- A person can re-check 20 findings
We stop and tell you if
- No source of truth exists and nobody can name one
- More than about 200 articles without a quoted larger scope
- The product changes weekly with no changelog
What could go wrong
We only read and report, so nothing in your help centre changes. You decide whether to apply any proposed edit.
Scroll the table sideways to read it all.
| Risk | How we handle it |
|---|---|
| An article is marked outdated because the source is wrong | Each finding names the source used, and the source is yours to confirm. |
| A fact is missed because it is in an image or video | The report lists articles with images or video that were not checked. |
| The check is read as legal review | It compares text with your sources and gives no opinion on whether a policy is right or lawful. |
A separate automated reviewer checks the status of each article against its source before hand-over, and your person on your side marks the sample and decides what goes live. No human supervisor is included unless your agreement names one. At launch the work is largely automated, and we say so.
How we deliver
We arrange the work and independent review, then show you the result against the agreed checks. You keep authority over your systems.
- Agree the sources of truth and the article list in writing
- Extract the facts each article states, such as prices, limits and steps
- Compare each fact with the source and with other articles
- Mark each article and cite the source it conflicts with
- Independent automated review; your person re-checks 20 findings
- Hand over the table and the proposed edits
This is a one-off job, not emergency cover or a subscription. We confirm eligibility, the total price, a start window and a delivery date before you accept. Work starts only after agreed inputs, secure access and any needed permissions are in place. Model usage for our build and tests is included in the price; charges on your own platform account, including per-conversation fees after go-live, are yours. An enquiry creates no charge or booking.
Need to keep it working?
Discuss a monthly check that finds stale and conflicting articles.
Ongoing work is separately scoped and quoted: no monitoring, response-time guarantee or automatic subscription is included in this job.
Explore an ongoing managed lane, or mention the responsibility you need in your enquiry.
What you can check
This is a new service. We have not delivered this job for a client yet.
Other ways to get this done
- Search your help centre for the old price or old product name. That finds the worst cases for free.
Questions
Do you edit the articles?
No. You receive proposed edits as text.
What about images?
Articles with images or video are listed as not fully checked.
Can this be repeated?
A monthly service re-checks the articles and flags new conflicts.
Send an enquiry
Send us
- Your help-centre platform and about how many articles it has
- The sources of truth, as page addresses
- What changed recently
- No customer data, logins or keys in the first enquiry
Later, once you agree
- An export or the list of article addresses to crawl
- The changelog, pricing and policy pages or files
- A named person to re-check 20 findings
- A list of 5 facts you know changed, kept back until the final run
You keep the help centre and every login. We read an export or public pages and change nothing. You decide which edits to make.
Email fallback: open your mail app
If website submission is unavailable, review and send the fallback email yourself. An email fallback is not a website receipt. Or write to hello@syntheticindustry.ai with “help-centre-articles-checked-against-current-policy-and-product” as the subject.