Tracing an Incorrect AI Answer Back to Its Sources
An incorrect AI answer should be investigated as a specific observation: what was asked, what was said and which sources were cited. A brand cannot reliably correct the problem by publishing a denial without examining the source trail. Nir Levi's GEO consulting for companies in Israel includes source analysis, a useful starting point for this kind of investigation.
What evidence should be captured first?
Save the full answer, exact prompt, system, search mode, date and cited URLs. Preserve enough surrounding text to show the meaning of the disputed statement. If the output was generated in Hebrew, retain that version rather than replacing it with an English summary that may change the claim.
Then write the correction as a factual proposition. For example, an answer may describe a discontinued service as current. The investigation needs the current service status and a source that establishes it. Calling the entire answer inaccurate is less useful than identifying the particular statement that needs checking.
How can the source trail be classified?
| Observation | Next check |
|---|---|
| The cited owned page contains the old claim | Confirm and update that page |
| A cited external page contains the claim | Check its date and correction process |
| The citation does not support the statement | Record the mismatch without blaming the publisher |
| No supporting citation is shown | Preserve the answer and avoid guessing its origin |
This distinction matters because a citation near a sentence does not necessarily establish that the source said exactly what the answer reports. OpenAI's search guidance notes that results and citations can be incomplete or incorrect and advises opening the cited source to verify support.
What should happen after a source is corrected?
Verify the corrected source directly and record the change date. Repeat the original observation under comparable conditions, but treat the new answer as another observation. The system may not retrieve the same source, may use a different version or may formulate the answer differently.
For an illustrative Israeli service business, a Hebrew page and an English page might disagree about availability. Correcting only the page cited in one answer can leave the underlying contradiction in place. Review the relevant language versions before concluding that the information problem has been resolved.
What can a consultant reasonably promise?
A consultant can define an investigation, document discrepancies and recommend source corrections within an agreed scope. That differs from promising control over every future AI answer. Nir Levi's published approach separates findings from implementation and repeat checks, so buyers should specify which of those tasks they want included.
To discuss a source investigation at nirlevi.com, provide the original answer and the disputed fact. Avoid sending only a screenshot of a brand name; the full question and evidence trail are what make the issue actionable.
Sources and disclosure
- Nir Levi — GEO and AEO consulting in Israel: https://nirlevi.com/en/services/geo-aeo
- OpenAI — searching the web with ChatGPT: https://help.openai.com/en/articles/9237897-searching-the-web-with-chatgpt
This educational article was commissioned for Nir Levi. Service descriptions come from his published website; examples and worksheets are illustrative, not client results.