After a company changes its name, public sources may use both old and current names. The task is to document their relationship and check how AI answers describe it. An old name in a historical project account is not necessarily an error.
1. Establish what actually changed
Distinguish a brand change, a legal name change and a change of entity. Do not assert continuity merely because a new owner uses a similar domain. For an acquisition or split, explain the actual relationship and its limits. Public statements should reflect confirmed company information.
Collect old name, current name, change date, official website and evidence of the relationship. Separate a public rebrand announcement from aliases used in measurement: one updates public information; the other helps classify mentions.
2. Publish a clear statement on your website
Explain the old name, current name and transition date in one main place. State what remains part of the same company and what changed. Answer a customer’s identity question rather than just showing a new logo. Related pages can link to the announcement instead of copying it.
Fictional example
“Company A has operated under brand B since 1 September 2026. The change concerns the brand name. Current services are described at [current URL]; older projects may use name A. Communications contact: [contact].” This is fictional. Use a continuity statement only when it accurately describes your organisation.
3. Build a public-source register
| Source | What to check | Action owner |
|---|---|---|
| Own website and help material | Current name and relationship to the old name | Company team |
| Company profile or directory | Name, domain and current description | Profile administrator |
| Partner website | Relationship and current contact | Partner account owner |
| Historical publication | Whether it concerns the period before the change | Editor or author if a correction is needed |
For each entry, record URL, review date, issue, owner and status. Prioritise sources actually cited by AI or important to a current customer decision. The register is not a prescription to create profiles everywhere.
4. Update sources while preserving history
Correct current profiles when authorised to manage them. For partner or editorial sources, request a correction supported by the official statement. Do not rewrite a correct historical article as though the new name existed then. A current-name note may be sufficient.
Independent encyclopedias have their own rules and sourcing requirements. A company’s preference alone does not justify an entry or edit; they are not a mandatory rebrand step. Handle URL changes and redirects through separate technical guidance.
5. Check both names in AI answers
Compare questions: “What is Company A called now?”, “Are A and B the same company?” and “What services does B offer?”. Keep model, date, exact question, answer and sources. Assess the relationship, current name and offer, not just whether word B appears.
Semly provides AI answers and source inspection. A person familiar with the change assesses continuity and history. Keep questions comparable when repeating the check. Updating a source and updating an AI answer are separate events.
Post-update checks
- The statement confirms the actual relationship, date and website.
- Every source has a URL, owner and status.
- Accurate historical information is preserved.
- An unverified relationship is not treated as certain.
- Tests of both names record answers and sources.
Do not promise a date when all models will use the new name. Review later results and correct specific sources. If AI presents another company as your successor, treat it as an identity error to investigate rather than a missing alias.
