When to Refresh AEO Content: An Evidence-Led Review Schedule

Correction — 31 October 2026: the earlier version included unsupported research or outcome claims without supporting records. Those findings and dataset promises are withdrawn. This is practical guidance, not a verified original study or client result.

Refresh for a reason

Prioritise changed product information, inaccurate explanations, broken sources and genuinely missing answers. A recent date is not a substitute for useful content.

Match reviews to topic sensitivity

Prices, regulations and product features may need more frequent checking than stable definitions. Choose an editorial schedule based on what changes in your business, not an unsupported universal interval.

Use search data carefully

Compare query and page performance across equivalent periods. Record seasonality and site changes. A fall in clicks or a missing AI source can have multiple explanations.

Log substantive changes

Record the old issue, supporting evidence, actual edit and review date. Change dateModified only when a meaningful revision occurred. Preserve important corrections rather than silently rewriting history.

Keep citation runs comparable

Use a stable prompt panel with dates and settings. Track source changes without assuming refreshes caused them. Do not claim a schema or recency multiplier from a descriptive log.

Review outcomes honestly

Report actual traffic and enquiries separately from AI mentions. No verified re-citation rate, half-life or optimal refresh cadence is established here.

Sources and further reading

Google guidance on AI features