An AI article audit starts with the claims and the reader’s task, then checks the title, description and links. Smoother sentences will not rescue a page that still leaves people guessing. This revision sheet helps you review one article, keep its useful passages and replace unsupported promises with an answer someone can act on.
Contents
- What the Google documentation actually establishes
- Define the reader’s question and decision
- Check claims with an evidence sheet
- Add value that the draft is missing
- Review the title, description and surrounding elements
- A fictional example of a pre-publication revision
- Validate the page and schedule its next review
- Frequently asked questions
What the Google documentation actually establishes
Google’s guidance on generative AI content, checked on 5 October 2026, displays a last-updated date of 1 October 2026. It calls for human accuracy and trustworthiness checks, including metadata, and warns about producing many pages without added value. That documentation date alone does not announce a new algorithm or an automatic penalty for every article created using AI.
Your practical task is to examine the page. You can accept a proposed structure and reject an unverified claim within the same draft. Equally, an informal sentence can contain a serious error. Write down changes you can inspect rather than give the article a vague “human content” score.
This extends our method for checking an AI answer. Here, the object is a complete article that readers may use, share and follow to your offer. The elements surrounding its main text are part of the review.
Define the reader’s question and decision
Before editing, finish this sentence: “After reading, the person should be able to…” Add a concrete action and situation. “Understand newsletters” is broad. “Identify the information needed before sending a first bilingual newsletter” gives you something to verify.
Read the introduction, section headings and ending against that task. Mark passages that directly help. Put digressions in a separate working note. If background information stays, make clear what it changes for the reader’s decision.
Compare the article with existing pages too. A different headline does not create a different need. If your blog already answers the same question, consider updating that page rather than adding another version. Make this choice before extensive rewriting; it may change where the finished work belongs.
Check claims with an evidence sheet
Copy statements containing numbers, rules, availability or promised results into a table. Include sentences using “always”, “automatically” or “guaranteed”. A link in the draft is only a starting point: open it and check whether it supports the particular statement.
| Claim to review | Evidence needed | Editorial decision |
|---|---|---|
| A feature is available | Current documentation and scope | Name the plan or remove the claim |
| A percentage improvement | Source, period, population and calculation | Keep the limitations or remove the number |
| A three-step process | Verified workflow or documentation | Correct the sequence and conditions |
| A customer achieved a result | Authorised data and context | Support it or use a labelled fictional example |
| Advice based on your method | Reasoning and decision criteria | Present it as your recommendation |
Separating evidence from recommendations prevents two mistakes. You do not need to invent a source for your own working method; explain why you recommend it. You cannot turn an uncertain statement into a fact by adding “according to several studies”.
For changing information, record the verification date and relevant condition: country, version, subscription or account type. A statement that works in one setting can mislead when presented as universal. If you cannot verify a promise, remove it and explain the limitation that matters to the reader.
Add value that the draft is missing
Find the moment when the reader still has to guess. Does the article explain what to inspect, how to choose between options and what to do when the simple example does not fit? That is often where your next paragraph should go.
Replace “optimise your article” with a small operation: select the question, locate the relevant passage, verify its main claims and rewrite the answer with the necessary conditions. When different situations require different actions, add a decision table rather than another general recommendation.
A clearly labelled fictional example can demonstrate a method. It should not impersonate a customer case. If you have a real demonstration, check permissions and context before including it. A screenshot only becomes useful evidence when the explanation makes its relevance clear.
Our article on SEO writing: answer, evidence and action explains how to build a page. During revision, focus on the parts that fail those checks. Keep precise passages, then add the missing condition or explanation instead of rewriting everything for the sake of freshness.
Review the title, description and surrounding elements
Keep the promise consistent
Write the title after revising the content. If it promises “every mistake” but the page explains one specific check, narrow the promise. The description should say who the page helps and what the reader can do with it. Avoid introducing a result the article does not demonstrate.
Review captions, image alternatives and structured data too. An illustration is not a screenshot from a test. Markup should not declare an author, review or first-hand experience that does not exist. Check these elements on the complete page, not just in the writing document.
Make links continue the same decision
For each link, ask what the destination lets the reader do next. Open it and check that the page matches the anchor text. An unavailable offer or a resource in the wrong language can interrupt an otherwise useful article.
A fictional example of a pre-publication revision
Fictional example. A draft about bilingual newsletters says: “A customer’s country automatically identifies their language and increases sales by 30%.” There is no evidence for the result, and the language rule is too broad.
The revision removes the percentage and separates declared language preference, delivery country and marketing permission. It adds a practical situation: someone living in Belgium might prefer French or another language. The next action becomes checking which preference field the email tool actually uses.
| Element | Before revision | After revision |
|---|---|---|
| Promise | Automatic selection and guaranteed results | Choose an explicit language rule |
| Evidence | No checked reference | Verify procedure and conditions |
| Example | Presented as an achieved result | Clearly labelled fictional situation |
| Action | Send immediately | Check a small sample before sending |
The central decision is now usable, and the rest of the page supports it. Changing adjectives alone would have left the operational error intact.
Validate the page and schedule its next review
Read the displayed page on a phone. Check contents links, tables, images and internal destinations. Record the substantive corrections. Updating a date without improving the information does not explain what changed for the reader.
Assign the next review to a person and a meaningful trigger: a change in your offer, process or source documentation. Use your business blog calendar to organise the wider workload.
The SEO Copywriting and Conversion guide can help turn this into a repeatable routine. Start with one page: define the question, check evidence, make corrections and inspect the finished result. Apply the same criteria to neighbouring articles once that revision is complete.
Frequently asked questions
Should I delete every article written with AI?
Review accuracy and usefulness. Keep solid passages, correct errors and consolidate pages answering the same need when that creates a clearer destination for readers.
Can an AI detector replace this audit?
It does not verify whether your process works or your number has a source. Base the publishing decision on the answer, the evidence and the actual reader journey.
Which correction should come first?
Start with the mistake that would stop someone taking the right action. Then align the headline and supporting passages, keeping information that is already accurate.
Can I keep an invented example?
Yes, to explain a method, provided you clearly call it fictional. Do not attach measured results, testimonials or a real customer identity to it.
