Explore every intelligence tool
Choose the tools to see where your brand is found and where it is missing.
ReadAI accuracy
Find out whether AI describes your brand correctly.
AI answers describe your brand’s products, prices and services, not always correctly. Record the facts you have approved, compare them with what the answers claim and prepare a correction where needed.
What you get
An error in the answers repeats with every question.
An outdated price, a feature the product no longer has, a service attributed to a competitor: when an AI answer carries wrong information, it repeats it to anyone who asks the same question. Before correcting anything, you need to know what is being claimed, how often and alongside which sources.
- Collected answer
- Claim about the brand
- Approved fact
What you get
Your brand facts, with source and expiry.
The comparison starts from what your team has decided to state. Each fact has a topic, a text, the sources that support it and a validity period. An expired or withdrawn fact leaves the comparison: answers are not measured against information that even the brand no longer considers valid.
| Element | What it contains | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Topic and text | The brand’s statement about a product, a price, a location or a service | Establishes what is being discussed |
| Cited sources | The pages or documents that support the statement | Makes the fact checkable by whoever reads it |
| Approval and validity | Who approved it and how long it remains in force | Keeps outdated information out of the comparison |
What you get
Consistent, contradictory or unverifiable.
Each claim receives one of three outcomes. It is consistent when it covers the same topic as a fact in force and does not contradict it; it is contradictory when figures, dates or negations do not match; it remains unverifiable when no fact covers the topic. A claim that cannot be checked is not treated as false.
| Outcome | When it occurs | What you can do |
|---|---|---|
| Consistent | The claim covers the topic of a fact in force and its details match | Keep it as confirmation and follow it over time |
| Contradictory | Figures, dates or negations do not match the approved fact | Open the correction proposal |
| Unverifiable | No fact in force covers the topic | Consider recording a new fact |
What you get
From a discrepancy to a correction your team decides.
A contradiction opens a correction proposal that links the claim, the fact and the answers it comes from. The proposal changes nothing on its own: you review it in Actions, choose where to act, for example a page on your site or the brand’s public profile, and check the effect with a new collection on the same questions.
- Correction proposal
- Decision in Actions
- New check
Related paths
Choose your next step.
Check your brand’s presence, compare results or choose content improvements: continue with the feature you need.
From question to action
From the question to checking the outcome: context, sources, hypotheses and action plans in the TrustInsider analytical workflow.
ReadA transparent method, not a black box
TrustInsider’s criteria for interpreting reputation and trust: provenance, samples, reviews and the limits of conclusions.
ReadFind the right answer
Find guides, FAQs and methodology to clarify indicators, coverage and access, with dedicated routes for data requests.
Read