Marketfauna / Catalog examples

One product, two conflicting manufacturer sources

Ilco POD-LAL-4B1 · Catalog research sample · 17 September 2026 · Reader edition 1.1, from research record version 2

For the person preparing a product record from supplier material: which statements can be traced to a source, what remains unresolved, and what evidence would permit the next catalog decision?

The manufacturer's product page and its 2024 coverage guide disagree on Dodge Charger 2011–2012. Those two years stay unresolved in this research record. The sources agree on ten other year/make/model combinations, but that agreement is not a test of a particular vehicle or an identification of a merchant's stock.

This is an exploratory example produced by Marketfauna's AI agents from public sources. No customer commissioned it, no physical key was examined, and no store record was changed. It demonstrates source reconciliation, not automotive certification or an import-ready product.

The decision sheet

Sources: Ilco product page, with the Chrysler and Dodge sections expanded; Ilco 2024 coverage guide, at the listed pages. “Ten” counts individual year/make/model combinations, not ten products or a compatibility success rate.

A retailer listing also uses the broader Charger range. That does not establish that the retailer is wrong: it could be using the guide, and the sources' update order and reasons for the difference are unknown. The two manufacturer sources are related evidence, not independent compatibility tests.

Next action: obtain clarification tied to POD-LAL-4B1 and its exact configuration before adding 2011–2012 as confirmed applications. Marketfauna asked Ilco on 17 September which range applies and whether equipment or identifier qualifications matter. No technical resolution is recorded in this sample. Any substantive reply will be added as dated evidence; the next scheduled review is 24 September. This recommendation concerns unresolved research rows; it is not an instruction to remove an existing merchant listing.

Fields that are easy to overstate

The sources above support the observations. Unknown fields remain empty in the companion JSON. We do not copy another retailer's stock, price or product identifier into an imagined customer's inventory.

What a completed handoff would require

1. Match the item. Tie the merchant SKU to its supplier invoice, product label and photographs. Keep competing identity candidates if they cannot be resolved.
2. Resolve or retain the conflict. Record a dated manufacturer clarification and its qualifications, or keep the two year rows unresolved. A newer-looking webpage alone is not a documented supersession of a guide.
3. Agree on the destination. Specify required fields, allowed unknowns, fitment qualifiers and who can approve commercial changes. This record is ordinary research JSON, not an ACES/PIES file or a Shopify import.
4. Review the proposed changes. Supply field-level before/after values and reasons against the actual merchant record. Only then can publication or import validation be scoped.

For this specimen, the deliverable is a traceable exception record and a clear clarification question. It does not complete those four stages. See the companion research record for the twelve dated source-status rows and unresolved fields.

What this adds to a free lookup

The free manufacturer page already supplies most basic specifications and application ranges. A competent catalog editor could reproduce this comparison without buying a special database. This sample adds an explicit comparison with the guide, separates supported claims from missing facts, and records what would resolve the exception.

Whether that saves a buyer work depends on their inputs, existing tools and review burden. We have not measured avoided returns, hours saved, error prevalence, buyer acceptance or profitable batch throughput. Finding one discrepancy is not evidence that every catalog needs a paid audit. If the merchant already has authoritative current supplier data and reliable exception handling, this may add little.

Method and audit trail

One product was deliberately selected after a preliminary source check; this is not a random sample. Sources were inspected on 17 September 2026. The product-page application sections were expanded in a browser. The page’s embedded application data was also captured on 17 September at 07:58 UTC; the exact four application strings and raw HTML are retained. The 2024 guide's relevant pages were text-extracted and visually checked. A curated page transcription, full guide, page images and original record versions were retained internally; the full manufacturer guide is linked rather than republished. Its 2024 date is not presented as 2026 freshness.

A second, separately run AI review of the saved text evidence identified the need to encode both opposing ranges explicitly. That correction is in record version 2. This is same-model review, not independent manufacturer, locksmith or physical-fitment validation. The reader edition omits internal task identifiers and correspondence metadata; source facts and holds are preserved. Subsequent corrections should identify the changed field, evidence and date instead of overwriting the disagreement silently.

Research for one of your products

See the source-research pilot: scope, deliverables and acceptance terms. Start with one SKU or product URL. The first agreed record is US$50 after explicit acceptance; the example above is a method demonstration, not a customer result.

Feedback that would change this work: Does this record let a catalog operator decide what to investigate next? Which necessary qualifier or source is missing? Would preparing these records for actual supplied items reduce work after review, or simply move it to the reviewer?

Marketfauna, [email protected]