The comparison article says a plan costs a certain amount. The vendor changed its pricing two months ago. The page still looks fresh because its “updated” date changes automatically on every deployment.
That is a date decoration, not an editorial refresh.
Identify volatile claims
Pricing, plan limits, coverage, product features and source policies can change. Mark those claims in the editorial ledger with a review date and the source needed to check them.
Original methods and hypothetical worksheets may age more slowly, but their links and product calls to action still need maintenance.
Refresh the claim, then the date
When you review an article, record what was checked and what changed. Update the visible modification date when the work materially changes or the factual review warrants it under your stated policy. Do not imply a new investigation merely because punctuation changed.
For a hypothetical tool comparison, inspect the actual plan and relevant feature documentation. A homepage redesign alone does not prove that a capability was added or removed.
Preserve useful history
If the article discusses a dated market event, keep the original observation and add a clear update. Rewriting the past to match today’s state can destroy the evidence that made the article interesting.
When a page no longer serves a distinct purpose, merge or retire it with an appropriate redirect rather than leaving a confusing orphan in the archive.
A small publication can use a simple register: article, volatile claim, source, last check, next review and owner. Review the highest-impact claims first.
Freshness is a property of the evidence, not the number in the byline. A reader should be able to tell whether they are reading a current comparison, a historical observation or a durable research method.