# AI Content Updates: Change Facts Without Losing Context > Source: > Published: 2026-09-05 00:00:00+00:00 When an AI agent updates a fact, ask it to trace what depends on that fact. A corrected figure may change a chart, a comparison and the page’s opening summary. Replacing the first matching number can leave the article internally inconsistent even though the new number is accurate. The right scope is the smallest complete factual correction. Preserve source qualifications and historical context, update every affected representation, then explain any change to the conclusion. Leave unrelated copy alone unless the assignment includes a broader edit. 1. 01Trace dependencies.A source correction can affect prose, tables, charts and searchable summaries. 2. 02Keep dates distinct.Publication, observation and review dates answer different questions. 3. 03Review the conclusion.A changed fact can invalidate a recommendation even when the wording contains no number. ## 01 — Build a small revision mapBuild a small revision map Before editing, record the old assertion, the replacement evidence and every place that derives meaning from it. This proposed map keeps a factual update inspectable without turning it into a full rewrite. | Digital Applied editorial revision map, reviewed September 7, 2026. | | | |---|---|---| | Affected item | Check before changing it | Revision action | |---|---|---| | Primary assertion | Exact scope of the new evidence | Replace or narrow the claim with its qualification | | Derived number | Original inputs and calculation | Recompute from the corrected inputs | | Comparison | Whether both sides still measure the same thing | Update the comparison or remove it | | Table and chart | Units, labels, notes and plotted values | Update all linked representations together | | Summary and metadata | Whether the main promise still holds | Revise the searchable description and opening | | Recommendation | Whether the evidence still supports the decision | Explain any substantive change in advice | | Historical statement | Whether it describes then or now | Preserve a dated historical claim where appropriate | ## 02 — Keep the source-to-claim relationshipKeep the source-to-claim relationship [W3C’s PROV primer](https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-primer/) describes usage, derivation and revision relationships. Provenance means information about where an output came from and how it was produced. We use that idea to connect a source fact to the passages and visuals that depend on it. You do not need a formal provenance database for a small article. A short change record can identify the source location, the old claim, the replacement and the affected sections. Keep enough information for the next editor to understand why the change was made. Review source meaning as well as its number. A revised report may redefine the population or replace a preliminary estimate with a different measure. The [citation-check reference](/blog/ai-research-citation-checks) is useful before the agent begins changing text. ## 03 — Follow one corrected claim through the articleFollow one corrected claim through the article Imagine an illustrative article that describes a survey result as covering all businesses. The source actually covers only respondents with an existing AI project. The correction is not just a phrase in the results table. The headline summary and recommendation may also have overstated how widely the result applies. Preserve the reported value if it is otherwise correct, attach the population qualifier and re-evaluate the conclusion. If the article used that result to recommend immediate adoption to every reader, the recommendation now needs narrower support or a clear editorial rationale. A chart can retain its bars and still become misleading if its title says “all businesses.” [W3C’s table guidance](https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/tables/) anchors the importance of structural labels and associations. Our editing recommendation extends that concern to chart titles, notes and legends. ## 04 — Do not make old observations look newDo not make old observations look new The observation date says when the underlying event or measurement occurred. The publication date says when the article appeared. The review date says when someone last checked it. Updating one does not update the others. For a maintained reference, disclose the actual collection or review date and preserve the source’s observation period. For a historical report, keep the historical claim in its original tense and add a clearly dated correction if required. Avoid automatic “latest” language after a narrow edit. Fixing a broken source link does not establish that every specification or comparison on the page was rechecked. State the scope of the review in the change record. ## 05 — Review the changed meaning, not only the diffReview the changed meaning, not only the diff Read the revised opening and conclusion without the body. They should still accurately describe what the evidence supports. Then inspect the table, chart and footnotes together, and open the consequential citations from the finished page or file. Ask a reviewer to check the revised claim against the source rather than simply approving the agent’s change summary. The [guide to independent review checks](/blog/ai-reviewers-correlated-errors) explains how to avoid two reviews inheriting one mistaken interpretation. Finally, verify the delivered artifact. An exported copy may still contain an old chart even when the source document has been corrected. Apply the [file acceptance checks](/blog/ai-file-output-acceptance-reference) to the actual handoff. ## 06 — DecisionWhat to do next ### Make the correction complete at the level of meaning. Trace the changed fact into its summaries, calculations and conclusions. Preserve the dates and qualifications that make the revised claim true. For implementation support, explore our [AI transformation services](/services/ai-transformation).