Five things to check before publishing AI articles in WordPress

Before publishing, go back to the evidence for each claim

Before publishing an article written by AI, check the correspondence between claims and evidence, figures and conditions, what may be published, changes to information and the reader's next step. Even if an article reads smoothly, you need to judge separately whether its explanation has stretched beyond the registered facts.

Rootpublish's editorial guide suggests separating facts from interpretation and recording the date, conditions, source and publication scope. The steps below follow that approach.

1. Check each claim against its source

From passages that say "we can handle," "we did" or "it worked," go back to the company information that supports them. Confirm whether the information actually says it or whether it is an explanation the AI filled in.

For example, a product specification that it "checks for changes to the original information at approval" does not support saying it "prevents every error in AI articles." Rootpublish records the IDs and versions of the information a draft refers to and checks them at approval, but that alone does not guarantee that the text matches its evidence in meaning. Someone still has to compare the text with its sources.

2. Keep the conditions behind figures and results

When using a case study, check the client's problem, the action taken, the result and the measurement conditions together. Do not add figures that are not in the original material, and do not present one case's results as an effect that applies to every company. Do not fill unverified items with guesses; send them back to the person who can confirm them.

Mission, vision and values explain purposes and criteria for judgment. Do not treat them as evidence of results delivered. Also avoid saying that a person wrote or reviewed an article merely because their name or role appears in a team member profile.

3. Confirm what the article may publish

Being able to register company information and being able to publish it in an article are separate questions. Check client names, specific initiatives, results and other details of a case study against the publication scope you recorded.

Rootpublish does not use unverified or private information as evidence for articles. However, it cannot automatically judge the wording and context once verified information becomes text. The person responsible for publication checks the text and sources and decides whether to publish.

4. Check whether information changed after the draft was written

If you changed your service or company description while the draft was being prepared, review whether the text matches the new information.

At approval, Rootpublish checks the versions of the referenced company information, as well as those of the classified company information and the editorial policy. The check keeps a draft made from old information from being handled as is. Detecting a change does not prove that the revised text is correct; checking the content against the latest evidence remains necessary.

5. Decide on publication once the reader's question is answered

Finally, check that you can state the question the article answers in one sentence, and what the reader can decide next. Instead of simply adding more about the company, choose the information that question needs. If evidence is missing, do not fill the gap with generalities; make what needs to be confirmed specific.

In Rootpublish, a submission by AI does not publish an article on its own; the text and sources are checked while it awaits approval. The checks in this article are also an editorial suggestion. They do not guarantee higher search rankings or more AI citations, and effects are judged by actual measurements once the process is in use.