Free Semantic SEO learning
Resolve conflicting entity facts with a clear evidence record
An entity evidence hierarchy compares sources against the exact claim they need to support. Authority, directness, independence, date and scope all count. Ten repeated descriptions can still trace back to one weak or outdated statement.
Created by Kevin Maguire.
Define the disputed claim precisely.
“When was the company founded?” can refer to the start of trading, legal incorporation or the launch of a later brand. Those events can occur in different years without either date being false. Record the entity and event before choosing a preferred answer.
A source hierarchy should fit the claim. An official registry can establish a recorded incorporation date; it may not establish the first day a founder informally provided a service. A company history can describe its origin, but its account still needs to be assessed for scope and support.
Google’s helpful content guidance encourages clear sourcing and factual reliability. The claim record on this page is our practical editorial method. It is not a ranking score or an external certification.
Decompose the claim into identity, event or relationship, proposed fact, effective time and scope. “Company founded in 2018” hides the event being checked. “AH1 reportedly began trading in 2018” and “AH1 was incorporated in 2020” can be assessed separately. Use the claim and provenance record to retain the wording and source context.
Resolve identity before comparing dates
Confirm that the sources refer to the same legal organization, branch and name period. A trading brand transferred to another company can appear in records belonging to two identities. Resolve entity identity before reconciling the dates, and retain name periods beside the relevant documents.
Keep reconciliation open if a source does not identify the subject precisely. Choosing the most common date would hide the identity problem rather than settle it.
Compare source quality, not only source count.
Start with direct evidence appropriate to the fact: a registry record, dated company announcement, original document or relevant standard. Check who produced the source, what it states and the period it describes. An authoritative source can still answer a different question.
Use independent reporting to corroborate claims where suitable. Inspect the reporting’s underlying evidence rather than assuming independence from a different domain name. Different directories may reproduce the same supplied biography.
Record the observation date and the effective date separately. A page retrieved today can describe a historical condition. A current address does not prove the company had the same address at its founding. Preserve those distinctions in the final sentence.
The source selection method covers broader source checking. Here, choose the source suited to the entity fact. Checking an attributed statement with its accountable source can clarify what the statement means; it does not make that response independent corroboration or transfer editorial responsibility.
Worked example: two fictional founding dates.
The following example is invented and has no client or company result. A fictional company’s history says it began trading in 2018. A fictional incorporation record gives 2020. Two directories list 2018 after copying the company history.
Do not vote three sources against one. The history supports a claim about the reported start of trading; the registry supports a legal incorporation event. The two directories add repetition, not independent confirmation of the earlier event.
A suitable provisional wording is: “The company says it began trading in 2018 and was incorporated in 2020.” Attribute the first part until appropriate evidence confirms it. If the legal record refers to a different organization, pause the reconciliation and resolve identity first.
If a separate original document contradicts the 2018 account, keep the conflict open. Record the disputed claim, contact the accountable owner through the project’s normal process, and publish only the wording supported by the evidence. Do not erase the disagreement from the internal record.
Separate events and their sources
E1: reported start of trading
- Proposed fact
- The fictional company says it began trading in 2018.
- Controlling input
- Fictional dated company history.
- Time described
- The reported 2018 trading event.
- Source lineage
- Two fictional directory entries reproduce that account.
- Wording
- Attribute the trading claim until appropriate original evidence confirms it.
- Open question
- Is an independent original document available, and does it identify the same organization?
E2: incorporation
- Proposed fact
- The fictional organization was incorporated in 2020.
- Controlling input
- Fictional official incorporation record.
- Time described
- The 2020 legal event.
- Scope
- The identified legal organization, not automatically its earlier trading history.
- Wording
- Describe incorporation separately from the origin claim.
- Open question
- Verify the exact identity and the record’s scope before using a real filing.
Trace source lineage and time
Fictional source lineage: company history → directory A; the same company history → directory B. Both directory claims depend on one original account. Neither is treated as a new original source here.
Record a source’s publication date, your retrieval date and the effective date of the event separately. If any date is absent, mark it unknown. Do not substitute today’s retrieval date for the event date or assume a copied account describes the current organization.
When a directory gives no citation, its lineage may remain unknown. Similar wording suggests a dependency worth checking; it does not prove the copying route. Preserve that distinction in the evidence record.
Keep a reusable evidence matrix.
Copy the evidence matrix into your own spreadsheet or document. Enter your sources, decisions and review dates there. This page provides a static example and does not save entries or export a file.
Keep record ID, evidence item, decision, source, owner, review date, state and next route attached to each claim. Use your own record system to add or change rows.
Choose a state that reflects what is known: supported within a stated scope, needs evidence, disputed, or retired. Confidence describes your assessment and its reasons; it must not disguise a missing source as a precise probability.
Give each item its own state and next action. A derivative directory can remain useful as context while the trading claim stays open. A different original document challenging 2018 changes E1 to disputed; it does not automatically change the separate incorporation event.
Review the example record.
Copyable entity evidence matrix: fictional example
EX-01
- Record ID
- EX-01
- Evidence item
- Start of trading:2018
- Decision
- Attribute the origin claim to the company
- Evidence or source
- Fictional dated company history
- Owner
- Named editor
- Review date
- Enter verified review date
- State
- Needs corroboration
- Next route
- Find original trading evidence
EX-02
- Record ID
- EX-02
- Evidence item
- Incorporation:2020
- Decision
- Describe the legal event separately
- Evidence or source
- Fictional official incorporation record
- Owner
- Named editor
- Review date
- Enter verified review date
- State
- Supported within legal scope
- Next route
- Verify exact entity identity
EX-03
- Record ID
- EX-03
- Evidence item
- Directory dates
- Decision
- Do not count copied listings as independent
- Evidence or source
- Fictional directories repeating history
- Owner
- Named editor
- Review date
- Enter verified review date
- State
- Derivative evidence
- Next route
- Retain as additional context
Correct the page and retain the reason.
A correction record should identify the previous statement, the replacement, the evidence, the date and the person responsible. Update other places where the same fact appears, including relevant captions, summaries and structured data. Check that a correction does not accidentally merge two separate entities.
Set a review trigger suited to the claim. An organization rename, new official filing or changed product version can trigger an earlier review than a fixed calendar interval. Preserve the source history so another editor can see why the current wording was selected.
If the conflict changes the page’s central answer, resolve it before handing the claim to another draft. A later stage cannot repair an unsupported fact merely by presenting it more attractively.
A correction needs dependent checks
CR1: fictional origin correction
- Previous statement
- The company was founded in 2018.
- Replacement
- The company says it began trading in 2018 and was incorporated in 2020.
- Reason
- Separate the reported trading event from the legal event.
- Evidence
- The two fictional source records above, with identity checks still required for real use.
- Responsible person
- The assigned editor; record the person and decision date in your own system.
- Known placements
- Page body, summary, captions, author or company components and structured data.
- Verification
- Check each current public placement and preserve any accurate dated history.
Select the claim state and the next review
Give the claim a state that reflects the evidence and states the next action. These four states describe editorial decisions in this method; they are not external ratings.
Needs evidence
- Meaning
- A necessary source or identity check is missing.
- Next action
- Obtain the specified input. Move to supported within scope only when it supports the exact claim.
Supported within scope
- Meaning
- The recorded evidence supports the stated event, time and identity.
- Next action
- Retain the limits. Reopen review if a relevant source or fact changes.
Disputed
- Meaning
- Relevant evidence conflicts about the same identified claim.
- Next action
- Record both accounts and resolve the conflict or use suitably limited wording. Confidence percentages cannot replace that work.
Retired
- Meaning
- Earlier wording or evidence no longer supports the current claim.
- Next action
- Preserve the reason and history; check dependent current placements before closing the correction.
If a source disappears, preserve a permitted record of what supported the statement and assess if it remains adequate. Removal alone neither proves the claim false nor confirms it true. Follow the evidence withdrawal response and claim freshness checks for the fuller response. A new filing, rename, product version or contrary original document can reopen review before the next calendar check.
Sources and the next useful question.
Check Google’s helpful content guidance. External documentation supports the stated model or editorial boundary; the fictional examples and record formats are Semantec SEO teaching material.
Continue with knowledge graphs and ontologies. Return to the entity SEO overview or the semantic SEO learning overview to choose another task.
Choose the next question
Return to the Semantic SEO learning library to choose another explanation. If you want help applying this work to a website, send Kevin the site and the task you need to address.