An AI Agent Read an Old Web Page: How to Spot the Gap

Check the dates of the evidence, not just the date the agent opened the page. A fresh fetch can return an old announcement. A new summary can repeat a superseded figure. The right source depends on whether you need the current position or an accurate account of an earlier one.

When two primary pages disagree, record the precise claim and the version each supports before choosing. A visible date can help explain a conflict, but “newer page wins” is too crude for documents that describe different periods or conditions.

Use this worksheet for an assertion where timing changes the answer. You do not need a timestamp for every sentence. Record unknown dates as unknown; a guessed date is worse than a visible gap.

RFC 9111’s HTTP caching standard uses freshness to govern reuse of stored responses. Its Expires definition does not imply that the underlying resource changes at that moment. Our editorial conclusion is separate: successful retrieval is not proof that a claim is still applicable.

The W3C PROV primer links revised data to the outputs derived from them. For an agent’s brief, retain which version supports the sentence. Updating a fetch timestamp without revisiting the supporting passage does not perform that check.

This article is about interpreting retrieved evidence. It does not diagnose a particular cache layer or prescribe headers. If the agent reads stale internal records, the data read-path guide addresses a different source of the problem.

First state the user’s time-specific question. “What was announced?” and “What is available now?” may legitimately require different answers from the same pair of sources. Then identify each page’s product, population, region or version scope. Apparent conflicts can disappear when those conditions are separated.

Next look for an explicit correction, replacement notice, revision history or effective date in the source documents. Prefer the source responsible for the disputed fact within the relevant scope, while retaining the older document when explaining what changed. Do not let several copied summaries outvote a corrected primary.

If two applicable primary pages still disagree, show the conflict and its practical consequence. For a decision that depends on the disputed detail, leave that detail unresolved or seek authoritative clarification. Avoid averaging incompatible values or silently selecting the more convenient one.

Consider a hypothetical documentation change: an announcement describes an upcoming limit, a later technical page documents the active limit, and a tutorial still repeats the announcement. A question about today’s implementation should use the applicable technical documentation and its version. A question about the announcement should preserve what the announcement actually said.

A study has another timing pattern. A recently released report may analyze observations from an earlier year. The report can be the newest available source while its data remain historical. State both dates when that distinction affects the recommendation.

If a secondary summary adds no newer evidence, describe it as a summary. The source-independence reference helps trace those relationships without confusing distribution with an update.

Once the evidence changes, revisit every conclusion that depends on it. A revised eligibility condition can alter an entire recommendation even if the headline and most of the article remain true. Keep the old reasoning in the research record so the change can be explained.

Choose refresh timing according to the decision. A fast-changing access condition deserves another check near the action; a historical definition may remain useful for much longer. There is no universal number of days after which every source becomes unreliable.

For edits to an existing article, follow the content fact-preservation guide . Keep the current uncertainty near the claim, rather than hiding it behind a general “last updated” label.