Review factual comparative content

What is the comparison allowed to say?

Define the reader’s decision and the alternatives being compared. Match the relevant product version, plan, country, currency and billing period. A feature on one supplier’s premium plan should not be presented against another supplier’s entry plan without explaining the difference. Keep availability and material conditions attached to the comparison.

For EU advertising, Directive 2006/114/EC provides the relevant framework. Article 4 sets cumulative conditions, including comparisons of alternatives serving the same needs and objective treatment of relevant, verifiable features. It also addresses misleading presentation, confusion and unfair treatment of competitors.

Article 7 provides for substantiation of factual advertising claims. Review the full conditions and applicable national and sector rules with the person responsible for legal assessment.

How do you build the evidence file?

Give every material claim its own row. Include the exact proposed wording, the source URL, the relevant product scope, the date checked and the reviewer. Prefer the source closest to the fact: official documentation for a supported feature, current public pricing for a price and the study itself for a test result.

A corporate source can still be incomplete or promotional. Record what the source establishes and which points remain unresolved. If a feature is undocumented, use “not confirmed in the reviewed public documentation” when that accurately describes the evidence. Do not convert a missing page into “feature unavailable.”

The suppliers are illustrative. The table shows editorial decisions, not claims about real companies.

Where can an AI answer help?

An answer can reveal a claim worth checking, such as an outdated feature limitation. It should not become the authoritative source for the comparison itself. Research on citation verifiability explains the need to inspect whether a linked page supports the associated statement.

If you use Rankfor Answer Trail, enter the specific comparison question and review the captured response and surfaced sources. Preserve the result as diagnostic evidence. Then verify each publishable product claim against a suitable public source. The answer text does not establish what caused a competitor preference or provide legal protection for repeating it.

What should the release review cover?

Review the headline, table, footnotes, visual emphasis and CTA together. A qualification hidden far from the claim may leave a misleading overall impression. Identify sponsorship or ownership where relevant and keep any comparative test method accessible. Use current public prices, such as the Rankfor pricing page, with the actual billing conditions if quoted.

Assign a review date and a correction owner. Archive the reviewed version and evidence record through your normal document process. When a source changes, update the affected statement and modification date. Publish only the claims that the evidence and responsible review support, keeping unresolved issues visible in the internal file.