# Update Priorities for Competitor Data


**Last Updated:** 2025-11-20

**Generated:** 2025-11-16

## Summary

After completing Details sections migration for 10 competitors, there are 40 remaining discrepancies to address.

## Priority Categories

### 1. Description Updates (High Priority)

Many competitors have placeholder descriptions instead of real product descriptions. These need to be updated from extracted data.

**Affected Competitors:**

- clockin (37% similarity - needs update)
- flairhr (27% similarity - needs update)
- hrlab (28% similarity - needs update)
- jethr (30% similarity - needs update)
- leapsome (15% similarity - needs update)
- lexware_office (21% similarity - needs update)
- memtime (20% similarity - needs update)
- moco (33% similarity - needs update)
- paycor (26% similarity - needs update)
- And more...

**Action:** Update descriptions from `extracted_competitor_data.json` for all competitors with similarity < 50%.

### 2. Pricing Discrepancies (Medium Priority)

Some competitors show `0.00` as extracted price, which likely means pricing wasn't found on the old page.

**Affected Competitors:**

- deputy: Extracted `0.00` vs Current `3.50`
- gastromatic: Extracted `0.00` vs Current `91.00`
- hubstaff: Extracted `0.00` vs Current `7.00`
- pentacode: Extracted `0.00` vs Current `3.00`
- And more...

**Action:** Review old pages manually for these competitors to verify correct pricing, or keep current values if extraction failed.

### 3. FAQ Count Mismatches (Medium Priority)

Some competitors have 0 FAQs extracted but 7 in current data.

**Affected Competitors:**

- flairhr: Extracted `0` vs Current `7`
- jethr: Extracted `0` vs Current `7`

**Action:** Review old pages to verify if FAQs exist, or if extraction failed.

### 4. False Positive has_details Flags (Low Priority)

Many competitors are marked `has_details: true` in extracted data but have 0 sections. These are false positives from extraction.

**Affected Competitors:** 32 competitors with `has_details: true` but 0 sections

**Action:** These should remain `has_details: false` in current data. The extraction script incorrectly marked them. No action needed unless we verify they actually have Details sections.

## Recommended Next Steps

1. **Update descriptions** for all competitors with similarity < 50% (highest impact)
2. **Review pricing** for competitors with `0.00` extracted (verify against old pages)
3. **Review FAQ sections** for competitors with count mismatches
4. **Ignore false positive has_details** flags (they're correctly set to false)

## Notes

- The Details sections migration is complete for all 10 competitors that actually had Details sections
- Remaining discrepancies are mostly data quality issues (descriptions, pricing, FAQs)
- Some discrepancies may be intentional (e.g., placeholder descriptions for new competitors)