Case Study: Correcting AI Misinterpretation of Business Expertise for a Service-Based Business
- Katina Ndlovu
- 2 days ago
- 3 min read
Context
This case involved a service-based business that was increasingly appearing in AI-generated summaries and search-assisted answers. Visibility across AI systems was improving, but descriptions of the business were inconsistent and occasionally inaccurate.
The business was being referenced, but not always understood correctly.
The Core Problem- AI Misinterpretation of Business Expertise
AI systems repeatedly summarised the business in ways that were plausible but misaligned with its actual expertise and scope.
Descriptions varied depending on the source, signalling weak corroboration and unclear authority signals rather than a lack of relevance.
Why This Was a Trust Issue
This was not an AI tooling issue or a content volume issue.
AI systems rely on consistency across sources to determine meaning.
When expertise is implied, fragmented, or described differently across pages, systems interpolate. That interpolation introduces drift, which weakens trust at scale.
The Approach
The work focused on improving interpretability rather than visibility by:
Aligning how expertise was described across core pages
Making scope and role definitions explicit rather than contextual
Reducing conflicting language that allowed multiple interpretations
Reinforcing the same meaning through structure and hierarchy
No new claims were added. The goal was consistency of interpretation.
What Changed
After restructuring, AI-generated summaries became more consistent and aligned with the intended positioning.
Descriptions of the business relied less on inference and more on explicitly stated expertise.
The business was referenced more accurately without requiring manual correction.
Evidence of Authority Clarification
The impact of this work was visible in how AI systems interpreted and repeated information about the business.
Specifically:
AI-generated summaries shifted from varied or generic descriptions to more consistent representations of expertise
Conflicting interpretations across different AI systems were reduced
Core descriptions relied more on explicit statements rather than inferred meaning
References to the business aligned more closely with its actual scope and role
These indicators show that authority strengthened once expertise could be interpreted without interpolation.
The AI-generated summary accurately identified the business’s role, scope, and regulatory positioning once expertise was stated explicitly. Core services were described consistently without speculative or generic language. This shows how authority strengthens when expertise can be interpreted and repeated by AI systems without inference.
Why This Matters for Brand Trust and Authority
AI interpretation now forms part of brand trust.
When machines misread expertise, credibility erodes before a human ever engages.
Clear authority ensures that meaning holds when content is summarised, cited, and reused.
Where This Pattern Applies
This issue commonly appears in:
Businesses gaining AI visibility faster than positioning clarity
Brands with inconsistent historical messaging
Service-based businesses entering AI-driven search environments
Relationship to Brand Trust and Authority Work
This case reflects modern brand trust work: ensuring expertise is consistently understood not only by people, but by the systems that increasingly mediate discovery and decision-making.
FAQs
What problem does this case study demonstrate?
It demonstrates how AI systems can misinterpret a business’s expertise when scope, role, and authority are implied rather than explicitly stated.
Is this case study about improving AI rankings or visibility?
No. It focuses on improving the accuracy and consistency of how AI systems interpret and summarise a business, not on increasing visibility or rankings.
What changed to correct the AI misinterpretation?
Expertise, scope, and role definitions were made explicit and consistent across key content, reducing ambiguity and conflicting signals.
How is accuracy assessed in this case study?
Accuracy is assessed by comparing AI-generated summaries before and after clarification, focusing on consistency, specificity, and reliance on stated information rather than inference.
Who is most affected by this type of AI interpretation issue?
This issue commonly affects service-based and expertise-led businesses where credibility depends on clear scope, role definition, and regulatory or contextual accuracy.
About the Author
Katina Ndlovu works on brand trust and authority at the structural level, focusing on how expertise is interpreted across websites, search engines, and AI systems. Her work centres on reducing ambiguity around positioning, scope, and authorship so credibility is consistently understood by both people and machines.
If you are seeing AI summaries that misrepresent your expertise or scope, you can explore related case studies or get in touch to discuss your context.
Comments