Agentic large language models (LLMs) deployed in fact-sensitive applications such as customer support must simultaneously preserve factual correctness and generate responses in a controllable stylistic register. Activation steering enables fine-tuning-free style control by perturbing hidden representations, but it lacks an explicit mechanism for distinguishing verifiable facts from stylistic content, leading to semantic leakage. We address this challenge through \emph{Defactualize-Steer-Rehydrate} (DSR), a knowledge-engineering framework that integrates a typed, salience-weighted knowledge graph (KG) with activation steering. DSR extracts salient entities using a layered regex or NER or lexical-classifier pipeline, replaces them with typed placeholders prior to steering, and deterministically restores verified values through salience-guided rehydration after generation. DSR is evaluated across six LLaMA-family models (1B--13B parameters) on 600 A2A-generated customer-support cases (1,200 generations), with a dedicated KG ablation study. DSR significantly increases verified-entity recovery relative to a steering-only baseline (Cohen's $d=0.225$, $p_{\text{Bonf}}=1.0\times10^{-4}$), though the absolute recovery rate remains modest, while preserving effective style control across diverse model families. Layer-wise separability and steering-strength diagnostics further show previously unexplored interactions between representation-level steering and factual grounding. hese results demonstrate that explicit knowledge engineering can systematically enhance trustworthy, controllable, and reproducible generative AI without requiring model fine-tuning. Code, cached steering vectors, and evaluation scripts are publicly released to support reproducibility.\footnote{https://github.com/Tanmay-IITDSAI/KG-Gated-Defactualization}
Most companies read their customer support data at scale using sentiment analysis, which measures how customers sound rather than whether they were satisfied with the result. We tested a richer alternative on 70,450 support conversations from a leading online fundraising platform: alongside tone, we used GPT-5.4 to estimate each customer's satisfaction and to flag whether they reported a concrete problem, then validated all three readings against the 1-to-5 ratings customers left on the conversations they rated. The satisfaction estimate tracked those ratings far better than sentiment did, correlating at 0.47 against 0.36 and flagging unhappy customers with far fewer false alarms. The structured read also sees what sentiment cannot: tone and satisfaction disagree in 44% of conversations, a single "Neutral" label hides everything from quietly satisfied customers to ones who quietly gave up, and the largest group of all is "tolerated friction," customers who are satisfied but still reporting a fixable problem, a standing issue that no sentiment-based dashboard can surface. The broader finding is that LLM-based annotation can capture far more than the tonality of a customer's language, offering strong potential for new business metrics grounded instead in the customer's state (whether they were satisfied) and the cause of their problem extracted directly from the raw textual data of interactions and feedback.