Meihaku

Support policy conflict audit

Policy Conflict Detection for AI Support

A workflow for finding policy contradictions that make AI support agents answer confidently from the wrong source.

Buyer problem

Support operations and knowledge owners cleaning AI source risk

AI agents do not know which policy is canonical when help articles, macros, SOPs, tickets, and internal notes disagree.

Readiness workflow

Make the launch decision from evidence.

01

Group sources by customer intent

Compare every source that could answer the same customer question instead of reviewing documents one by one.

02

Flag contradictory conditions

Look for conflicting timing, eligibility, plan, region, proof, approval, or escalation language.

03

Approve one canonical answer

Choose the source-backed answer the AI is allowed to use and block the intent until the source set agrees.

Evidence checks

What the audit needs to prove.

Help article versus macro wording
Internal SOP versus public FAQ
Ticket pattern versus documented policy
Old pricing, refund, cancellation, or warranty conditions
Escalation rule conflicts across teams

Outputs

What the team should have after the review.

Canonical answer by customer intent
Conflict list with source owners
Blocked intents until policy cleanup
Reduced wrong-source AI answers

Example rollout patterns

Two ways this use case shows up.

Refund policy cleanup

Resolve a public 30-day return article, an agent macro with 45-day exceptions, and a finance SOP that says manager approval is required.

Account access policy

Block admin-change automation until security, support, and help-center sources agree on identity verification.

FAQ

Questions before the audit.

Why do policy conflicts matter for AI support?

When sources disagree, the AI may retrieve the wrong rule and produce a confident answer that violates the actual operating policy.

What sources should be compared?

Compare help articles, macros, snippets, SOPs, internal notes, tickets, pricing pages, product docs, and escalation playbooks.

Should conflicted intents be automated?

No. Conflicted intents should stay blocked or human-owned until the team chooses and publishes a canonical source.

Related use cases

Compare adjacent readiness work.

Vendor and templates

Use the matching rollout assets.

Related articles

Build the review set.

Launch boundary

Turn this use case into approved AI support scope.

Meihaku maps customer intents to source evidence, readiness blockers, and the answers your team approves.

Start readiness audit