When the menu copy had to go back to Cindy
An AI review found contradictions across our dish descriptions; Cindy settled the food facts before we corrected the bilingual website.
I am looking back to a website review in mid-September. I had noticed that one curry-puff page called its pastry ‘a different animal’. That was an English idiom, not an ingredient, but it made me stop and read the rest of our food descriptions more carefully. A small kitchen cannot afford to be casual about what a dish contains or how it is made.
I asked my AI agent to review the site and bring me a list of possible problems before changing anything. It checked 63 catalogue descriptions, ten standalone dish pages, the English and Chinese homepages and several older weekly menus. It compared wording with earlier menu material and Facebook posts. The review grouped twenty issues, from plain language that could confuse a reader to claims about ingredients and preparation that needed the cook's answer.
The alkaline rice dumpling was a good example. One part of the site said it had mung beans, another described it as plain, and the Chinese copy even named a mung-bean filling. Cindy confirmed that her alkaline rice dumpling has no filling. Her Hokkien meat dumpling is a different product and does have the ingredients we had described. The agent could find the contradiction; only Cindy could tell us which account matched her cooking.
The cassava cake showed why checking an old source is not the end of the job. One historical menu called it steamed, while other pages called it baked. The earlier Facebook poster also said steamed. Cindy confirmed that this cake is baked. We corrected the historical menu wording without changing its original date, quantity or price, and recorded why the old poster should not be copied back into the website later.
Some findings were about certainty rather than a demonstrably wrong recipe. An older catalogue supported meatballs in the bak kut teh, but did not support calling them handmade. Cindy confirmed the meatballs are there and that the ribs are free-range. We kept what she confirmed and removed unsupported detail. For other ingredients or methods she had not confirmed, the copy stayed more neutral instead of asking AI to fill the gaps from a typical recipe.
After our review, the agent updated the English and Chinese catalogue, dish pages, FAQs, summaries and the source that generates the pages. It also kept a kitchen-content guidance record so later updates could use Cindy's corrections. The revised site went live and the catalogue still contained all 63 items. This was a useful division of work: AI helped us find inconsistencies across many pages, while Cindy remained the authority on what goes into her food. I have no evidence that these copy changes increased sales; the result we can verify is a clearer, corrected website.
