“Keep source blanks when AI suggests replacement values” is a specific information-maintenance task. The import editor needs to connect the public detail with raw fields and approved transformation rules, then decide what a visitor should be told. The aim is a clear, supported result that can be checked after saving.
Set the boundary of this ai data cleanup check
To keep source blanks when AI suggests replacement values, first distinguish the affected public detail from neighbouring information that serves a different purpose. Retain the raw value and the proposed transformation separately so a reviewer can see exactly what changed. 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 “Keep source blanks when AI suggests replacement values” should identify raw fields and approved transformation rules, the relevant date or version if known, and the person able to confirm the arrangement. Do not let normalisation erase leading zeros, meaningful punctuation or differences between separate businesses. 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 “Keep source blanks when AI suggests replacement values” 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 import editor 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 keep source blanks when AI suggests replacement values, 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 “Keep source blanks when AI suggests replacement values” as complete only after reviewing what the public record now shows. Compare the saved result with raw fields and approved transformation rules, including any formatting or truncation introduced by the platform. Record the affected field, the visible outcome and any remaining question for the import editor. 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.
| Keep separately | Purpose for this task |
|---|---|
| Source | raw fields and approved transformation rules |
| Public change | Keep source blanks when AI suggests replacement values |
| Responsible role | import editor |
Before marking this task complete
- Can a new visitor understand the result of “Keep source blanks when AI suggests replacement values”?
- Is the relevant ai data cleanup detail supported by raw fields and approved transformation rules?
- Are the import editor’s unresolved questions kept separate from the approved change?