Before you preserve source identifiers in an AI candidate export, identify which part of the visitor journey depends on the detail. The right correction should be understandable to someone who has never used this business before. For ai duplicate triage, that means preserving the practical conditions as well as the headline information.
Set the boundary of this ai duplicate triage check
To preserve source identifiers in an AI candidate export, first distinguish the affected public detail from neighbouring information that serves a different purpose. Use candidate grouping to reduce manual comparison work while keeping the decision about business identity with a reviewer. Record the question in ordinary language before editing. This keeps the review focused when several profile fields appear to need attention, and lets a second person understand why this change is being proposed.
Build a usable source note
The source note for “Preserve source identifiers in an AI candidate export” should identify candidate records and confirmed branch identifiers, the relevant date or version if known, and the person able to confirm the arrangement. Compare location, contact route and operating identity; similarity in a name or address alone can join legitimate neighbours or branches. Keep a source claim separate from the wording you plan to publish. When one part remains unconfirmed, write down that gap explicitly instead of allowing the rest of the evidence to imply that everything has been established.
Test the likely misunderstanding
Consider “Preserve source identifiers in an AI candidate export” as a hypothetical editing exercise: several directories can repeat the same old claim because they copied one source. Agreement among copies is weaker than independent accountable confirmation. This is an illustrative decision test, not a report about a real business. Ask the cleanup reviewer to explain which part of the current display could produce that misunderstanding and which supported detail would prevent it. A cosmetic rewrite alone may leave the underlying confusion intact.
Prepare the public-facing change
For the actual edit to preserve source identifiers in an AI candidate export, preserve the smallest useful distinction and avoid changing unrelated approved facts. Record origin and date, and preserve unresolved disagreement rather than counting repeated claims. If the platform supports a dedicated field, use it for its intended purpose. Where explanatory text is needed, put the qualification close to the information it limits; visitors should not need to discover it in an unrelated section.
Finish with a reproducible check
Treat “Preserve source identifiers in an AI candidate export” as complete only after reviewing what the public record now shows. Compare the saved result with candidate records and confirmed branch identifiers, including any formatting or truncation introduced by the platform. Record the affected field, the visible outcome and any remaining question for the cleanup reviewer. A submitted update and a visible correction are separate milestones; retain the distinction so that a later editor does not assume a pending change is already live.
Before marking this task complete
- Can a new visitor understand the result of “Preserve source identifiers in an AI candidate export”?
- Is the relevant ai duplicate triage detail supported by candidate records and confirmed branch identifiers?
- Are the cleanup reviewer’s unresolved questions kept separate from the approved change?