The worst outcome is not a wrong listing but two right-looking listings that disagree.
In practice, treat the list of services as a single source of truth, not as a field to be improvised per site, assuming the basics are already in place. Listing audits repeatedly suggest the effort scales badly if it is left until a rebrand forces it.
Check what a competitor across several trading areas has claimed before deciding where to submit.
Once a contradiction enters the aggregator layer it tends to resurface months later. Do not submit to a new directory until the existing ones agree.
Claim what exists before creating anything new; duplicates are harder to remove than to avoid.
Handle the high-authority sources by hand and batch the long tail afterwards, once the obvious errors are gone.
Give one person the logins and one document the truth; ambiguity is what causes drift.
Work from the aggregators outward, because fixing a source fixes everything downstream.
Record the canonical version of the website field somewhere the owner can find it, if only because no one else bothers.
Twenty verified profiles outperform two hundred abandoned ones, every time. Data aggregators weigh source quality as well as source count, so where a citation sits matters. Usually, the pattern repeats: the businesses that audit twice a year are the ones that stop worrying about it.
In practice, a directory entry is worth less than an editorial mention, but it is far easier to keep current. Disagreement between sources forces map providers to guess, and a guess is seldom favourable. Keep the description factual; the categories carry the relevance work.