When a website and a knowledge base disagree, we would not choose a winner by file type. We would identify the claim, who has authority over it and which version is effective. An approved owner instruction can change a company offer, while an official technical manual controls a public API field. Those are different kinds of authority.
Classify the statement before choosing its source
| Claim | Source that should control | What still needs checking |
|---|---|---|
| Company price, inclusions or availability | The responsible company owner’s current approved policy | Effective date, exact offer and any customer or location conditions |
| Public API field or platform requirement | Current official documentation for the relevant product/version | Whether the integration uses that version and feature |
| Editorial restriction | The company’s applicable approved instruction | Whether it constrains wording or supplies a publishable fact |
| Unconfirmed operational detail | The person or system responsible for that detail | The specific missing answer, without filling it from a similar offer |
For example, WordPress defines date as site-local publication time and date_gmt as GMT in its posts schema. An internal note calling both fields UTC does not change the API contract. Correct the note and the integration’s conversion, rather than training the article around the mistaken description.
A newer note is not automatically a broader rule
Suppose an approved instruction says a particular afternoon tour is unavailable after December 1, while the public page still invites bookings. That instruction controls the company’s availability statement for that offer and period. It says nothing about a different morning tour. Record the affected offer, effective date and authorizing source, then correct the stale public page and any drafts that still promote it.
Likewise, a price quoted for a private group is not the standard per-person price. A seasonal pickup list is not proof of service at every hotel in the region. If two records differ only because their conditions differ, retain both with their proper conditions. If the same current offer has contradictory prices, obtain the approved price before publishing a purchase recommendation.
Keep writing rules separate from public facts
“Do not claim guaranteed wildlife sightings” is a constraint on an article. It is not evidence that wildlife never appears. “Do not disclose this internal margin” restricts publication, but does not justify inventing a public price. Preserve the rule in the editorial context while grounding the public sentence in facts the company permits you to use.
Resolve the smallest material conflict
- Write down the conflicting statements and the exact claim each affects.
- Check the source owner, effective date, scope and whether one record explicitly supersedes another.
- Use existing approved company records for private offer facts and verify public technical facts at their primary source.
- Correct the controlled source and the affected draft. Keep a record of the decision so later articles do not revive the stale version.
- Recheck the published result where a stale public page or prior article also needs correction.
When an essential private fact remains unknown, resolve that specific gap before making the claim. If the detail is optional, remove or qualify it while completing the useful answer. If an unstarted topic depends entirely on unavailable private information, choose a supported topic. One unresolved pickup surcharge should not stop an unrelated article about reading a weather forecast.
Use a small decision log and verify the output
A useful log contains the claim, approved statement, source owner, effective period, superseded record and affected pages. After editing, compare the actual published text with that approved statement. A knowledge-base update alone does not establish that a scheduled draft or an older public page has changed.
The goal is a consistent, accurate reader answer. Keep authority attached to the claim and its conditions, repair outdated material and preserve the editorial decision. That gives the next article a clear source of truth instead of another attempt to reconcile the same contradiction.
