A review date should describe a review that actually happened

Identify the event behind the date label

Start with the wording visible beside the date. Published, updated, and reviewed each tell readers something about the page’s history. Determine which event the business intends the label to describe and find the corresponding editorial record. A system timestamp may show that someone saved a page without establishing which statements were examined.

Keep the first publication date, later content edits, and substantive review dates distinct in the internal record. A correction to a link or layout may be a real edit, but it does not establish that every provider claim or policy statement was checked again. Conversely, a documented review can find that the text remains accurate without changing the prose. Unchanged text is not the problem; claiming a review without having done it is.

Connect the review to a particular version and scope

Identify the page URL and the version the reviewer examined, then name the sections, claims, tables, images, and linked materials included. Record exclusions and the reviewer’s role. A review of one paragraph cannot establish that another section’s provider instructions were current, and a review of one article does not cover the linked catalog.

Compare that scope with the public presentation. A single prominent last-reviewed date can appear to describe the entire article. If the work was limited, use wording that accurately communicates the limitation or withhold the broader review claim until the relevant work is complete. Keep private reviewer records internally; the public page needs a truthful description of scope, not personal contact information or a full internal task log.

If the record has gone missing, do not reconstruct a precise date from memory. Preserve any evidence of work that can be verified and arrange a new review for the unsupported scope. A new review earns its actual date; it does not retroactively establish the earlier one.

Keep source dates separate from the review date

For each material source-dependent statement, retain the source URL, the evidence used, its relevant publication or version information, and the date your team actually checked it. An article edited today can still rely on a source last checked earlier. Changing the article date must not silently advance the source-check date.

Opening a working link establishes that the destination was reachable at that time. It does not, by itself, show that the source still supports the article’s interpretation. A substantive source check compares the relevant statement with the source’s current scope, including any provider, country, product, or method limits that matter to the claim.

The FTC’s truth-in-advertising guidance supplies a general requirement for truthful, nonmisleading, substantiated advertising across media. This review record applies that principle to how a merchant describes its own review activity. It is an editorial method, not an FTC-required date format, a universal review interval, or a legal determination about a particular label.

Publish only the review status the work supports

At the end of the review, record which statements remain supported, which were corrected, and which need further evidence or an authorized decision. A completed check may discover an unresolved issue. Do not use the date to imply that the issue has been cleared; correct or remove unsupported wording and describe any remaining limitation accurately.

Record when an approved correction actually reached the public page. A completed internal review and a published revision are separate events, so compare the live version with the reviewed version before changing the displayed status. Name the owner of outstanding work and the actual content change that would call for another review; do not claim an automatic or continuous review process that the business does not operate.

For a Prism website-review consultation, provide the affected URLs, the label shown, and the scope you want examined. Prism’s published review covers catalog descriptions, marketing claims, policies, and business disclosures within an agreed scope. Its findings are informational, not certification. Agree on the pages, reporting, responsibilities, fees, and terms before work; a Prism review date cannot be presented as legal clearance or processing approval.

Review-date record

Use this for one published date label on one page version. Compare what the label implies with what the review record establishes. Leave missing history unresolved, preserve actual source-check dates, and record a new review only when the work happens.

Worksheet entries are not submitted by Prism’s worksheet and are not saved by the site. Use record types, availability, anonymized observations, or match/mismatch results. Do not enter government identifiers, customer names or addresses, customer messages, receipt-access links, card or bank details, passwords, or keys. Send sensitive documents only through the provider’s verified secure channel.

These are temporary notes. Leaving or reloading this page may clear them. Worksheet entries are not sent automatically. If you copy notes into the consultation message and submit the form, Prism receives them as part of your request.