Evidence decisions
A manufacturer page changed: keep a useful before-and-after record
A change log distinguishes revised claims, moved text and missing context without silently replacing earlier evidence.
By FishyMag · Published
FishyMag editorial workflow · Not a clinical review or treatment recommendation.
Quick answer
When source wording changes, save the old and new passages with their context and dates. Describe the exact difference before deciding whether a formulation record needs human review. A changed web page does not by itself prove the contents of your bottle changed.
Compare like with like
Use the same product, market, route and livestock question in both columns. If one capture is a main-page description and the other is a food-route FAQ, the difference may be scope rather than a revision. Keep the section heading and nearby conditions with each passage. A quote stripped of its question is often impossible to interpret reliably.
Classify the difference without guessing its cause
For a fictional page, an old paragraph might say “use as directed” while a newer capture adds a named livestock restriction. That is a substantive wording difference worth review. If the same paragraph simply moved into an FAQ, call it a location change. Neither example proves when a bottle’s formulation changed.
| Observed change | Record it as | Next evidence task |
|---|---|---|
| Same text, new section | Location change | Update locator and verify context |
| Restriction added or removed | Substantive wording change | Request human evidence review |
| Market or route differs | Scope mismatch | Find matching documents |
| Page no longer loads | Retrieval failure | Keep prior capture and seek current source |
Keep three dates distinct
The date you captured a page, the document’s stated revision date and the date your bottle was made are different facts. Record a missing date as missing. A fresh capture timestamp must not become a claim that the manufacturer revised the directions that day. Preserve the original source URL even if the current page redirects.
Make the review packet small enough to inspect
Include the two passages, section headings, identity fields, capture dates, original URLs and the exact question affected. Keep a local copy for your record without presenting it as a newly approved verdict. FishyMag’s review process requires human assessment for formulation changes; this worksheet does not bypass that gate or automatically refresh the existing dataset.
Use your own details
A manufacturer page changed: keep a useful before-and-after record worksheet
Download the editable text file, fill it in on your device and keep it with the relevant record. This blank worksheet records your information; it does not verify entries or approve treatment.
- Product, market, route and affected livestock question
- Old URL, section, passage and capture date
- New URL, section, passage and capture date
- Document revision dates, if present
- Exact wording or location difference
- Human review request and unresolved impact
Put it into practice
Your checklist
- Match identity and scope before comparing wording.
- Preserve both versions and keep capture dates distinct from revision dates.
- Send substantive changes through human evidence review.
Sources and scope
This article distinguishes manufacturer statements from FishyMag’s own workflows and arithmetic examples. Linked formulation records retain their own evidence dates; publishing this article does not refresh those records.
AI-assisted writing and development. Not hands-on product testing or veterinary review. How we publish →
FishyMag reports what manufacturers say, quoted and linked. It does not diagnose illness or recommend a treatment, and it never infers that a product is safe from the absence of a warning — where no statement exists, it says so.
Formulations change. Always read the label on the bottle in your hand, and contact the manufacturer if your tank contains anything valuable or unusual.