Negative. About what?

“The product is excellent; support never answers.” A sentence like this contains two judgements about different aspects of the same brand. Applying one colour to the whole text loses either the appreciated product or the criticised service. The unit of analysis matters before the algorithm: article, mention, passage or experience. Even when a model returns a label in the required format, its meaning needs checking. Google’s structured-output documentation distinguishes valid syntax from semantic correctness. [gemini-structured]

Check that the content concerns the right brand

Before labeling text favorable or critical, establish who is being discussed. A name may refer to a product, competitor, person or namesake company. Keep the relevant passage and attribution rationale. When several subjects appear, do not transfer a judgment about one to another. This matters especially with short or generic search terms. A smaller relevant collection is more useful than a larger volume containing unrelated cases that distort the report.

Read the topic before choosing a response

A critical label does not yet tell you what to do. Identify the topic: price, availability, usage, support or accuracy. Distinguish factual errors from personal preferences and verifiable service problems. Keep a few readable examples per topic without unnecessary personal data. If source rights do not allow reproducing text, retain the reference and use an original summary within permitted rights. The report should help a product or service owner recognize a concrete situation rather than merely read a percentage.

Have another person review selected cases and record differences. When reviewers interpret irony differently, do not hide the problem in an average: clarify the rule or keep the case uncertain. Preserve criteria version and review date. When rules change, state whether earlier periods were reclassified or are no longer directly comparable. This does not eliminate interpretation but makes the process explainable. Useful classification can be discussed and corrected as better information becomes available.

From criticism to a task: an illustrative case

Imagine several mentions describing unclear deliveries. Before concluding that service deteriorated, read the conditions, check the period and consult the operations owner. The issue might be an ambiguous page, one specific case or a recurring difficulty. The proposal should match: clarify timing and areas served, contact support or investigate the process. This is an illustrative example, not customer data. Keep evidence, an owner and a way to check whether the reported problem was addressed for each task.