Vendor Record Discrepancies: What the July Archive Can Prove

This article originally presented ten revisions to our listing records as proof that vendor products had changed. That went beyond the evidence shown. A difference between an earlier directory entry and a later reading can reflect a product change, an incomplete first reading, a tier mismatch, or an error in our own record. The table alone does not distinguish those causes.

Archive correction · 5 September 2026. The table below preserves what the July article reported, including its earlier values and recorded replacements. It is a history of claims made in this article, not a current price list or a verified chronology of vendor changes. The original article described checks between 21 and 24 July 2026, but did not provide paired, dated source captures for the claimed before-and-after changes. We have not supplied missing historical evidence by checking today’s offers.

The discrepancies recorded in the July article

The rows below reproduce the old table’s claims under corrected column headings. Words such as “now”, “confirmed” and “our own error” are the archived article’s wording, not findings of this correction. None should be used as a September buying specification without checking the vendor’s current plan and terms.

Tool	What we had on file	What’s true now	Kind of drift
Knowatoa	A 7-day free trial (sourced from a third-party review)	No time-boxed trial of the paid product; a free, one-time, no-card AI-visibility audit instead	Secondary-source error, not a vendor claim
GeoRankers	Grow tier: “2,100+ AI answers analyzed”	Grow tier ($129/mo): “1,100+ AI answers analyzed”	Self-reported usage metric
Frase	AI Visibility tracking gated to the $103/mo Professional tier	Included starting on the $39/mo Starter tier	Feature-tier gating
Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit	Engine coverage stated without a tier boundary	Confirmed base tier ($99/mo): ChatGPT, Google AI, Gemini, Perplexity; Claude and Grok require Enterprise	Engine-coverage precision
Profound	No published pricing, fully sales-led	Self-serve Starter ($99/mo) and Growth ($399/mo) tiers now published; Enterprise stays custom	Pricing-model change
Otterly AI	API access unavailable	API and MCP access included from the $189/mo Standard tier up	Feature-availability claim
Peec AI	Enterprise pricing and API access fully unpublished	A custom Enterprise tier (with API access) now sits alongside three published self-serve EUR tiers	Pricing-structure transparency
Profound	Enterprise tier: “up to 10 answer engines”	Enterprise tier: up to 9 answer engines, matching the 9 Profound names by name (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, Grok, Microsoft Copilot, Meta AI, DeepSeek, Google AI Overviews) in its own FAQ	Our own data error, not a vendor claim
Promptwatch	Tracked ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity, Copilot and Google AI Overviews, 6 engines; no MCP server listed	Tracks 8 engines (adds Grok and DeepSeek) and ships an MCP server so Claude, Cursor and other MCP-compatible AI assistants can query its visibility, citation and mention data directly	Undercounted engine list + a missing feature
Trakkr	REST API gated to Scale as a paid add-on; MCP access gated to Scale (from our own earlier same-day check)	REST API bundled into Scale at no extra cost; MCP access ships from the Growth tier up; only white-label agency branding is a separate Scale add-on	Our own correction, made hours earlier the same day, was itself backwards

What this record can—and cannot—establish

The earlier article called seven rows genuine product changes and three rows our own errors. We withdraw that seven-versus-three causal classification. Its linked live pages do not establish what each vendor offered before the claimed change, when a change occurred, or why it happened.

The article explicitly described the Knowatoa trial claim, the Profound engine-count mismatch and the Trakkr API/MCP interpretation as corrections to our own records. Those acknowledgements remain part of this archive. They do not prove the stronger assertions that a vendor had never offered a trial, that a feature was never absent, or that the same product terms held throughout the period.

It also described four same-day reads of Trakkr’s pricing page. Re-reading can help catch a misinterpretation, but repeated retrievals of one page are not independent sources and do not establish a product-change timeline.

To report a vendor change rather than a record discrepancy, preserve comparable before-and-after evidence: the vendor and product identity, exact plan, billing term and currency, feature definition or allowance, source URL, capture dates and the relevant source text. A dated announcement may establish a change directly; a later live page alone cannot reconstruct the earlier state. Where the historical evidence is missing, the change date and cause remain unknown.

What to check before buying

The discrepancies still illustrate useful checks, without relying on their old prices being current:

1. Separate trial, free tier and one-time audit. A no-card audit is not necessarily ongoing access to the paid product. Confirm duration, available functions and whether the output can be refreshed.
2. Compare the exact plan and billing basis. Record monthly versus annual commitment, currency, minimum term, included usage and paid add-ons. A price without those conditions is not a comparable workload cost.
3. Distinguish feature existence from entitlement. Ask whether the plan you would buy includes the API, MCP server, required engine or export—not merely whether the vendor offers it somewhere.
4. Check the engine names behind a headline count. The counted unit might be a model, a consumer surface or a search mode. Do not assume two vendors’ totals count equivalent things.
5. Recheck decision-critical terms at purchase time. A directory entry and a comparison are dated references, not guarantees that the vendor still offers the same terms. Keep the quote or plan evidence on which you actually buy.

Our measurement guide explains why mentions, citations and reporting denominators also need explicit definitions. These operational checks complement—not replace—verification of the commercial terms.

FAQ

Does this show that the vendors misrepresented their products? No such conclusion follows from this archive. Some discrepancies were attributed to our own errors, and the remaining rows lack the paired historical evidence needed to distinguish a vendor change from an incomplete earlier record. We also withdraw the original unsupported explanations about infrastructure costs, product maturity and the absence of changelog announcements.

Are the table’s replacement prices and features current? No currentness claim is made. They are the replacements reported in the July article. Follow the vendor’s official sources and inspect the exact plan before making a buying decision; a live link does not turn an archived value into a current one.

Does a recent modification or verification date settle every claim on a page? No. An editorial correction can narrow an unsupported interpretation without re-verifying every vendor term. This correction preserves the article’s historical reporting window and does not certify the table as freshly checked. Inspect the evidence attached to the specific claim rather than infer whole-page certainty from one timestamp.

How should an unconfirmed change be reported? As an unconfirmed change or a discrepancy in the record, with the missing evidence named. Do not invent a former offer from today’s page, infer a commercial cause from a price difference, or treat several reads of one source as independent confirmation. Our methodology describes the wider evidence standard.

Source record and limitations

The following are the navigation links named by the earlier article. They are live URLs, not an archive of the July captures. The earlier blanket statement that every figure was directly supported by a primary source is withdrawn: its Peec Enterprise detail also cited OMR Reviews, a third-party source. No fresh vendor-term verification is claimed for this editorial correction.

Vendor sources previously linked: Knowatoa onboarding · GeoRankers pricing · Frase pricing · Semrush AI visibility pricing · Profound pricing · Otterly plan details · Peec pricing · Promptwatch tracking and MCP documentation · Trakkr pricing.

Secondary source previously linked for Peec’s Enterprise detail: OMR Reviews.

For separately maintained vendor records, start with the index or AI-visibility tools. Check each claim’s source and observation date; this archive is not a replacement for that check.