list_corroboration_candidates

com.epovest/ai-visibility · Verify this server

The MENTIONS a search engine has shown the brand in, found in the text the engine itself returned next to each address. The list is recomputed on every read from the raw payloads of the latest surveys, and surveys_scanned says how many were read. Pages already filed in either registry (corroborations or surfaces) are left out. Each row carries the excerpt as proof, matched_by ("website" means the full domain of the brand appears in it, near proof; "name" means only the name did, weaker, homonyms exist: read the page before recording) and suggested: the registry the filing is proposed in, with three values. "surface" when the host is a known profile place, a page the customer usually has the final say on; "ask" when the address looks like a listing on a place outside that catalogue, so it can be either side and the answer settles it; "corroboration" otherwise. On an "ask", put the test to the user in their own terms: if they change that page, does the change stay? Yes files it with create_surface, no with create_corroboration. Do not guess it from the host: two pages of the same host differ, a product listing on a software directory is held by the vendor while the comparison page next to it is not. Once the page itself has been read, the row also carries page_check: result is "website" or "name" when the page carries the brand, "absent" when the page reads without it, and it names the cause when the text did not come: "blocked" (an anti-bot stands in front of the page), "unreachable" (the page did not answer), "no_page" (the address answers with something that is not a page), "unreadable" (the page answers HTML with no text in it). In those four the engine excerpt above stays the proof shown. excerpt is a full passage taken from the page, and checked_at dates the reading. It is a suggestion, never a filing: to file one, call create_corroboration or create_surface with its url; to refuse one, dismiss_corroboration_candidate.