The outcome
A source-review worksheet and an approved-change queue for your organization’s FAQ. This is a practical manual workflow, not an automatic website scan, knowledge-base update or claim that every club system is connected.
What you need
- A copy of the FAQ answers you are authorized to review.
- The organization’s designated source pages or documents, with their applicable season or event.
- The answer owners and the person authorized to approve changes.
- A private place to record unresolved issues and review dates.
1. Give each answer a reference
Record the question, current answer and where it appears. Keep similar questions separate when they refer to different programs, seasons or audiences. An answer about entering a team in an event should not silently become an answer about registering a player.
2. Trace the important facts to their source
For dates, fees, locations, deadlines and contact routes, record the approved source reference and when it was checked. A working link does not prove that its content is current. Note who owns the answer and whether the source applies to the question’s actual context.
3. Classify the problem without guessing
Use clear review categories: supported, stale, conflicting, missing or ambiguous. If two approved sources disagree, preserve both references and ask the responsible owner to resolve the conflict. Do not ask AI to choose the more convenient answer or fill in an unstated date.
SYNTHETIC SOURCE REVIEW — NOT A REAL CLUB FAQ DEMO-FAQ-01 · Program start date Current approved source matches the answer → supported DEMO-FAQ-02 · Event entry deadline Answer cites a prior-season source → stale; owner review needed DEMO-FAQ-03 · “When does registration open?” Player registration or team event entry? → ambiguous; clarify context first
4. Assign a review action and owner
State what evidence is missing, who can confirm it and what needs approval. Keep private review notes separate from proposed public wording. If the organization’s process calls for an uncertain answer to be held or escalated, follow that process rather than presenting a guess as a fact.
5. Use AI to organize the review
An approved assistant can compare sanitized answer text with the source excerpts you provide and prepare a discrepancy list. Require a supplied reference for each factual claim. The model should mark unsupported facts unknown, not claim it checked a live website or that a proposed answer is authoritative.
6. Approve and verify any resulting changes
Have the designated owner approve revised facts and wording before an authorized person updates the FAQ or knowledge tool. Check the actual user-facing answer afterward and record what was changed. This guide does not edit sources, change a chatbot’s knowledge or send replies.
Privacy checkpoint
Use sanitized examples of questions, not raw parent conversations or player records. Exclude contact lists, credentials, private account links and internal-only policy notes from unapproved AI tools. Public examples and downloads here are fictional.
Reusable resource
Download the source-audit worksheet and discrepancy-review prompt. Configure the owners and approved sources before reviewing real answers.