Consistent
The signals agree; the row saves with its observation date and noted gaps.
Ask what the listing itself can support before the row earns a place in the sheet.
Four observable signals decide whether a source deserves a row, and every signal stays tied to what the page actually showed.
Check outcomes
The signals agree; the row saves with its observation date and noted gaps.
One signal disagrees; the row saves flagged with the exact mismatch to recheck.
Signals conflict on identity itself; the source waits outside the sheet.
A flagged row names the exact mismatch its next check must resolve.
Quick FAQ
No. The check records observable listing consistency for one row, nothing about the shop overall.
Professional photos are just photos; the check asks whether they match the item and options shown.
Only outside the working sheet, with the conflicting signals written next to it.
Four signals
Each signal compares one part of the listing against another; mismatches produce questions, not accusations.
Check path
The path reads the whole listing first, compares its parts second, and writes the outcome third so the decision stays auditable.
Reusable output
A second reader should be able to retrace the observation, compare the saved fields, and see exactly where the record stops claiming anything.
The item title, photos, and option list should describe one product, not three adjacent ones.
The shop's other visible listings should sit near the same category the row claims.
Exact size and color text should read like catalog wording, not machine-mixed fragments.
Stop rules
A named gap keeps the row honest; a filled-looking gap borrows confidence the source never provided.
Keep the record small, dated, and tied to one exact source.