Review AI product copy before updating your catalog

Producing a draft and approving a product page involve different work. Publication requires verified information, preserved limitations, and a check of the page after the text is transferred. We suggest the following review for one description. It contains no completed generation results and gives no basis for applying an approved draft across an entire catalog.

1. Gather approved source material

Before drafting, decide where specifications, package contents, and usage conditions will come from. Record the current document or catalog data version. If sources disagree, refer the question to the person responsible for product information. Do not ask the model to choose whichever version sounds more plausible.

Mark missing information explicitly. Compatibility, environmental resistance, and permitted uses should not be inferred from what seems typical of a category. In the drafting instructions, make clear that unknown properties must remain unknown until someone verifies them.

2. Check each product claim

Break the description into claims that can be checked. Find support for each one in the approved material. Compare model names, dimensions, units, package contents, and conditions. Watch for words such as “always,” “any,” and “fully,” which may broaden a more limited source statement.

Save the prompt, response, and preparation date, along with the model name where available. In the review notes, distinguish verified statements, errors, and open questions. Fluent wording does not change the need for evidence. Remove an unsupported statement or hold it for clarification before publication.

3. Look for omissions and practical value

Now compare the sources against the draft: what important information was left out? Pay particular attention to restrictions, exceptions, and differences between variants. A description can repeat individual specifications correctly while omitting a condition that changes whether the product is suitable.

Then consider the purpose of each paragraph. Does it help someone choose a variant, understand a use, or find a relevant property? Rephrasing a specification list may add little useful information. If the draft offers no meaningful improvement, keeping the current copy is a valid editorial decision.

4. Decide, then check the page

Use clear decisions: accept, revise, or return for missing source data. Record the owner and the reason. Keep the previous version before replacing it. After transfer, check headings, lists, links, the product association, and the display on the agreed screens.

For a larger update, agree on the scope and review rules separately. Approval of one description does not establish the accuracy of other products. This procedure checks content and its publication. It does not demonstrate an effect on traffic or sales; those questions need their own plan and evidence.

WGP develops and supports online stores. Frontbox includes a responsive storefront that also works on phones, plus development and support, and connects to a 1C-Bitrix store. A mobile app is a separate paid add-on. Catalog work should include agreement on data sources and responsibility for the final copy.

5. An editor's checklist

• Confirm the version of the approved source information.
• Find evidence for every stated product property.
• Check units, variants, and package contents.
• Make sure limitations have not disappeared.
• Record the decision and preserve the previous version.
• Check the resulting page after transferring the text.

Choose one category and identify the properties where an error would most interfere with a correct purchase decision. Make those properties mandatory checks in the editorial acceptance process.