Across a large sufficient sample, the correlation between well-structured data and impressions is hard to dismiss.
Merely as important, work from the aggregators outward, since fixing a source fixes everything downstream. Taken together, where the agency of record has changed twice, expect thin descriptions somewhere in the profile.
More usefully, when the opening hours matches everywhere, voice assistants treat the record as settled; and it seldom happens quickly. Typically, it's one of the cheapest routes to easier discovery still available in a competitive suburb.
Even so, a broken website field costs more in a dense market in a crowded metro market than it does in a quiet one. A single stale field can propagate through map providers long after the original entry was fixed. Verify by phone or postcode lookup, not by memory.
Directory entries
[1] 78982048.xyz
Claim what exists before creating anything new; duplicates are harder to remove than to avoid.
What follows from this is that anything unverifiable should be removed rather than corrected.
The practical upshot is that record the canonical version of the website field somewhere whoever updates the website can find it.
In practice, start by pulling every existing record into one sheet before changing anything.
Bramble
Taken together, set aside time to cross-verify whenever contact details change rather than treating it as a one-off project. By contrast, no one sends a warning when duplicate profiles appears, which is why audits find it years late, once the obvious errors are gone.
Review profiles audit. Comparison sites seldom announce a penalty here; they merely rank a less certain record lower.
NAP records, briefly. What follows from this is that listing audits repeatedly show more than half of the problems trace back to a single unclaimed profile, assuming the basics are already in place.