Similar product names cause source confusion. The useful response is a targeted correction with an observable acceptance check. That keeps the repair tied to the problem instead of turning it into an open-ended redesign.
Find the likely cause
Records lack enough identifying context.
Treat this as an explanation to verify against the actual work. Look at the input, the relevant decision, and the final result together. If the evidence does not support this diagnosis, investigate the mismatch before applying a convenient but unrelated fix.
Make the targeted correction
Include product identifiers and clear scope in source metadata.
Retrieval helps drafting only when the selected material is relevant, current enough for the task, and identifiable to a reviewer.
Check that the repair worked
Check that the retrieved record matches the requested item.
Repeat the check on the final version that the reader or customer will encounter. An approved draft, a preview, and a published result can differ; the acceptance decision should concern the version people actually use.
Prevent the next related failure
A separate issue to watch for is this: the answer is fluent despite irrelevant retrieval. Require a relevance check and an explicit insufficient-evidence path.
Monitor the useful outcome
Track source relevance, missing context, and answer corrections caused by retrieval failures.
Keep a short record of the original symptom, the evidence behind the diagnosis, and the result of the acceptance check. That record makes the solution reusable when the same condition appears again, without assuming that every superficially similar problem has the same cause.