An article cites China's market size in 2023, while a newer source gives the global market size in 2025. The newer date doesn't make it a like-for-like replacement.
How would you organize this review in Busabase? I'd want the old value, proposed value, source excerpts, and links together so the reviewer can compare year, region, units, and definition. Should unverified candidates live in a separate Base or in a change request on the original record?
A newer date alone is not enough. I would keep each statistic in Busabase with its year, geography, unit, definition, source URL, excerpt, and verification status. A 2025 global market-size figure is a different claim from a 2023 China figure unless the scope and method make them directly comparable.
Keep unverified candidates in a separate research Base linked to the article or current claim. Ask the agent to show an old-versus-proposed comparison, point out every changed dimension, and mark gaps as “not comparable” rather than silently replacing the published number. Once a reviewer accepts a genuinely comparable candidate, submit a Change Request to the canonical article/claim and keep the older value in its history. If the new source answers a different question, publish it as an additional statistic instead. Which metric and definition are you tracking in the article?
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading is always open; you only need an account to post.
Sign in