Rubric v0.8 · 4 checks · 15 of 100 points
Can a stranger check who runs this and what you promise?
Assurance is a precondition for being recommended. An engine asked to suggest a provider has little reason to name one whose operator, credentials, and outcomes cannot be checked.
Why this dimension exists
Trust here is a set of facts a stranger can check without contacting you.
Who operates this business, and is that stated where a machine can read it? Do the people making claims have anything behind them beyond a first name and a stock photograph? Are the outcomes described specific enough to be wrong? And does the site say what it does not do, what it cannot promise, and where its limits are?
Stated limitations can read as weakness to the writer, but they read as credibility to a reader, including a retrieval system judging whether a page is a sales document or a description of reality. A page that declines to guarantee something specific is easier to trust on the rest.
A person rates these four checks, because whether a credential means what it appears to mean is a reading, not a measurement.
The 4 checks
None of these is deterministic. Every one is a reading rather than a measurement, so the free scan names them as not covered rather than guessing.
TE-01 — Ownership and accountability
What is tested. Determine whether a visitor can identify the organization, responsible people, contact path, and relevant policies.
What is recorded as evidence. About, contact, legal, privacy, and ownership pages.
What fails it. Anonymous commercial site; unusable contact path; unclear operating entity.
How to fix it.
- Name the legal entity, its jurisdiction and its location somewhere permanent and linked from every page.
- Give a real contact route that reaches a person, not only a form.
- Name who is accountable for the work, with a role.
- Keep it consistent with your Organization structured data.
How to confirm it is fixed. Try to find out who runs the site using only the site, in under a minute.
Reference.
- Organization structured data — Google Search Central
- Organization — schema.org
TE-02 — Expertise and credential support
What is tested. Review material credentials, certifications, audit claims, partnerships, awards, and professional experience.
What is recorded as evidence. Primary support, scope, dates, responsible entity.
What fails it. Logo walls without explanation; expired credentials; claims that exceed the supported scope.
How to fix it.
- State the qualifications, certifications and years that are actually relevant to what you sell.
- Link to the issuing body where the credential can be verified.
- Drop credentials that sound impressive and mean nothing here.
- Attach them to a named person rather than to the company in the abstract.
How to confirm it is fixed. Pick one credential and try to verify it from the page alone.
Reference.
- Person — schema.org
- Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content — Google Search Central
TE-03 — Customer and outcome evidence
What is tested. Inspect case studies, testimonials, references, examples, and outcome methodology.
What is recorded as evidence. Named or responsibly anonymized examples, customer authorization signals, calculation context.
What fails it. Unverifiable testimonials; stock identities; outcome claims without baseline and scope.
How to fix it.
- Publish outcomes with the specifics: what the situation was, what was done, what changed, over what period.
- Attribute each to a named customer where you have permission, and say when you do not.
- Include the ones that did not go to plan, and what you learned.
- Do not publish a testimonial you cannot trace back to a real person.
How to confirm it is fixed. Take one outcome and check that a reader could tell whether it resembles their own situation.
Reference.
- Review — schema.org
- Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content — Google Search Central
TE-04 — Policy and limitation clarity
What is tested. Review privacy, terms, data handling, refunds, warranties, support boundaries, and relevant professional disclaimers.
What is recorded as evidence. Policy URLs, dates, offer consistency.
What fails it. Missing policies; contradictory data claims; disclaimers that invalidate the marketed service.
How to fix it.
- Write down what you do not do, and who you are a bad fit for.
- State the terms that actually bite: what is included, what is billed separately, what the refund position is.
- Give the limits of any claim you make, in the same place as the claim.
- Put these where a buyer will read them before they buy, not only in the terms page.
How to confirm it is fixed. Ask somebody to find, from the site alone, one thing you will not do.
Reference.
- Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content — Google Search Central