Keep supplier codes from becoming public product names

A supplier feed can include internal category codes and abbreviated descriptions. Publishing them unchanged may preserve the data while making the catalog hard to understand. Separate the technical identifier from the customer-facing explanation.

Keep both roles

A Czech distributor may need the original supplier code for matching updates and a reviewed name for buyers. Replacing the code entirely can break later imports; displaying only the code can make the website unhelpful.

Assign editing ownership

Decide which fields are imported, which are locally reviewed and what an update may replace. A scheduled feed should not silently erase approved wording or reattach an obsolete document.

Use a small test

Import an ordinary item, an unknown category and a changed supplier description. Ask the product owner to inspect the public page and the internal matching information. Check whether uncertain items enter a review path instead of being published automatically.

Document the mapping

A short field map should explain stable identifiers, transformations and the owner of each decision. It helps the next person investigate a mismatch without reconstructing the original import code.

MDN's partial-update reference illustrates why changing selected fields differs from replacing a whole record. Actual provider rules still govern the connection. We can scope a reviewed catalog feed around those distinctions.