Keeping AI answers grounded in the help center you trust

An AI answer can quote the right article and still give the wrong advice for the customer.

Imagine a help-center article that allows refunds within 14 days for annual plans. A customer on a monthly plan asks for a refund. The agent repeats the 14-day rule but leaves out the annual-plan condition.

The source is relevant. The answer still needs correction.

Keeping answers grounded means checking both the source and how the agent applies it to the customer's situation.

Define the approved sources

List the articles, internal guidance, and other sources the agent is allowed to use. The public help center may be only part of that set. Account-specific answers may also depend on approved tools or customer records.

For policies that affect eligibility or access, make the conditions explicit. Name the applicable plan, region, product version, or date where those details matter. Give each policy an owner who can resolve conflicting guidance.

If two approved sources disagree, settle that conflict before using either as the standard for an answer review.

Compare claims with the rule that applies

Choose a topic and inspect a set of answers. For each factual claim, ask what supports it and whether the customer's situation meets the rule's conditions.

Keep the answer excerpt and a link to the relevant source. Record the source version or effective date where available, especially when reviewing older conversations. Today's policy may differ from the one the agent should have used at the time.

A citation helps you inspect the answer. It does not prove that the answer is correct. An answer without a visible citation may still be supported by approved guidance.

If you cannot inspect the source or verify a required customer detail, record the uncertainty. Do not label an answer unsupported simply because you cannot see everything the agent used.

Choose a fix that matches the cause

Different gaps need different work:

• If no approved source answers the question, ask the content owner to supply guidance or define a handoff.
• If an article omits an eligibility condition, correct the article and review related content for conflicts.
• If clear guidance exists but the answer applies it to the wrong case, review how the agent selects and uses that guidance.
• If the agent needs account information it cannot access, define how it should collect that information or transfer the request.

Adding another article will not solve every answer problem. In the refund example, an explicit plan check may matter more than another explanation of the refund window.

Recheck the affected conversations after an edit

Save examples of the original problem before changing the content. After the updated guidance is available to the agent, review new conversations with the same conditions.

For the refund example, look for monthly-plan requests and inspect whether the answer now applies the correct policy. Also check annual-plan requests so the correction does not remove valid guidance for eligible customers.

Record other changes made during the same period. If routing or agent instructions also changed, you cannot attribute the result to the article alone.

CraftCX's Policy Monitoring helps teams review AI support conversations against their policies. Keep the source evidence close to each finding so the person responsible can decide whether to change the content, the guidance, or the workflow.