AI Discoverability Implementation Audit

Executive summary and fit classification

Fit classification: Foundation fit. Retrieval, identity, or trust foundations need work before any measurement or monitoring spend is justified.

tln.example scored 57.1 out of 78 adjusted rubric points at moderate confidence. Of 33 checks in rubric version 0.2: 9 inconclusive, 9 partial, 6 complete, 4 substantial, 4 minimal, 1 missing. 27 open item(s) were ranked into an implementation backlog.

The three highest-value actions

#1 CR-06 Body text is machine-readable prose — Render or remove the template syntax so the published text is the text, and re-check the pages that a buyer reads first.
#2 CI-01 Direct answer passages — Give each priority question its own heading and a self-contained two-to-four sentence answer directly beneath it.
#3 CI-02 Claim support — For each material claim, state the source, the measurement period, and the scope next to the claim itself, or remove the claim.

What this report is. A measurement of conditions this site controls, each supported by a captured, timestamped observation you can reproduce. What it is not. A prediction of whether any AI answer product will cite this site, and not a promise of ranking, traffic, leads, or revenue.

Overall score, adjusted denominator, and confidence

57.1

44.5 points awarded of 78 adjusted (raw rubric 100)

Grade C
Material discoverability friction
Confidence: moderate

Execute a structured 30-day remediation backlog

Confidence basis. 78 of 100 rubric points were resolvable (78% coverage); 9 check(s) worth 22 points are inconclusive; 0 scored check(s) carry low confidence.

Why the denominator is not 100

The raw rubric is 100 points. 22 point(s) were removed because those checks could not be scored either way.

Not applicable (the check does not apply to this site): none.
Inconclusive (collection or scope prevented a decision, so the check is unresolved rather than failed): CR-05, EN-02, EN-04, TA-01, AC-01, AC-03, MR-01, MR-02, MR-03.

Neither group was scored as zero. A zero is reserved for a check rated Missing, which requires evidence.

Dimension scores. The bar repeats the percentage column; no meaning is carried by colour alone.
Dimension	Rubric weight	Adjusted weight	Awarded	Percentage	Grade
CR Crawl and retrieval accessibility If a retrieval system cannot fetch your pages reliably, nothing else on this list matters. Everything downstream depends on this working.	15	12	9.5	79.2%	B
EN Entity clarity An engine has to decide which organization a page is about before it can recommend that organization. Conflicting names and missing contact facts force it to guess, and it may guess wrong.	15	8	4	50%	C
CI Citation readiness This is the largest single block of points because it is the mechanism. Answer engines reuse passages that stand on their own; copy that needs the surrounding page to make sense is rarely quoted.	20	20	8.75	43.8%	F
TA Topical coverage and authority Coverage decides whether you are a candidate answer at all. A question with no owned page cannot be answered from your site by anything.	15	11	3.75	34.1%	F
TE Trust and evidence 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.	15	15	7.5	50%	C
SD Structured data Structured data is the one place you state your identity in a form nothing has to infer from prose. It is also the cheapest of these to fix.	10	10	9.5	95%	A
AC AI and agent controls Crawler treatment should be a decision you made rather than a default nobody chose. It is worth few points because it is usually already fine — and catastrophic on the rare occasion it is not.	5	2	1.5	75%	B
MR Measurement readiness Without a baseline fixed before results are known, any later movement can be explained after the fact. This is what makes a re-audit mean something.	5	0	0	Not scored	—

Highest-value actions

Ranked by impact, effort, confidence, and dependency. Impact and confidence are scored 1–5 (higher is better); effort is scored 1–5 (higher is more work). Points at stake is the rubric points this item can still recover.

Prioritized implementation backlog. Priority = impact^1.5 × (1 + points at stake ÷ 5) × confidence factor ÷ effort factor, where the effort factor is 1 + (effort − 1) × 0.35. Each item's recommendation is the row beneath its numbers.
#	Action	Severity	Impact	Effort	Time	Confidence	Points	Priority	Depends on
1	CR-06 Body text is machine-readable prose	Critical	5	2	1-2h	5	2	11.59	None
Recommendation for CR-06 Body text is machine-readable prose: Render or remove the template syntax so the published text is the text, and re-check the pages that a buyer reads first.
2	CI-01 Direct answer passages	Critical	4	3	half a day	5	3.75	8.24	CI-03
Recommendation for CI-01 Direct answer passages: Give each priority question its own heading and a self-contained two-to-four sentence answer directly beneath it.
3	CI-02 Claim support	Major	4	3	half a day	5	2.5	7.06	CI-04
Recommendation for CI-02 Claim support: For each material claim, state the source, the measurement period, and the scope next to the claim itself, or remove the claim.
4	TA-03 Comparative and decision content	Critical	4	3	half a day	3	3	6.4	None
Recommendation for TA-03 Comparative and decision content: Publish one honest comparison or decision page with a criteria table, and state explicitly where the offering is not the right fit.
5	TE-03 Customer and outcome evidence	Critical	4	4	1-2 days	5	3	6.24	TE-01
Recommendation for TE-03 Customer and outcome evidence: Publish at least one case example with the situation, the intervention, the measurement window, the baseline, and the result, with the customer's permission recorded.
6	CI-03 Stable passage structure	Minor	3	2	1-2h	5	2	5.39	None
Recommendation for CI-03 Stable passage structure: Give every page one H1, a descriptive H2 for each distinct answer, and a stable id on each H2 so a passage can be linked directly.
7	EN-01 Organization identity consistency	Minor	3	2	1-2h	5	2	5.39	None
Recommendation for EN-01 Organization identity consistency: State one organization or person name, one description, and one contact path consistently in visible content and in structured data on every page.
8	TA-04 Internal topic relationships	Major	3	2	1-2h	3	2.25	4.74	TA-01
Recommendation for TA-04 Internal topic relationships: Link every evidence and educational page from the commercial page it supports, and from a topic index.
9	TA-02 First-hand experience	Major	4	4	1-2 days	3	2	4.64	TA-01
Recommendation for TA-02 First-hand experience: Publish the method, the numbers, and the artifact behind at least one claim per topic: a repository, a dataset, a template, or a documented before-and-after measurement.
10	TA-01 Priority-question coverage	Unresolved	3	2	1-2h	1	2	3.77	CI-01
Recommendation for TA-01 Priority-question coverage: Agree a bounded set of customer questions drawn from real sales conversations, then map each to one owning page.
11	EN-02 Product and service identity	Unresolved	3	3	half a day	3	2	3.64	EN-01
Recommendation for EN-02 Product and service identity: Give each offering one page with a stable URL, a one-sentence definition, a named audience, and structured data that ties it to the organization.
12	EN-03 People and authorship identity	Minor	3	3	half a day	3	2	3.64	EN-01
Recommendation for EN-03 People and authorship identity: Attribute every substantive page to a named person with a linked biography, role, and credentials, and connect that person to the organization in structured data.
13	AC-01 Intentional crawler treatment	Unresolved	2	1	under 1h	3	1	2.88	None
Recommendation for AC-01 Intentional crawler treatment: Decide explicitly which AI crawlers may retrieve the site, record the decision, and express it in robots.txt so a future deploy cannot silently change it.
14	CI-05 Content freshness signals	Minor	2	2	1-2h	5	1.5	2.72	None
Recommendation for CI-05 Content freshness signals: Show a visible published and updated date on every article, and emit the same values as datePublished and dateModified in structured data.
15	TE-01 Ownership and accountability	Minor	2	2	1-2h	5	1	2.51	None
Recommendation for TE-01 Ownership and accountability: Name the operating entity, the responsible people, and a working contact path on a linked page, and mirror those facts in structured data.
16	TE-02 Expertise and credential support	Minor	2	2	1-2h	3	2	2.49	None
Recommendation for TE-02 Expertise and credential support: State the issuing body, the scope, the date, and the entity the credential belongs to next to every credential claim.
17	CI-04 Source attribution	Minor	2	2	1-2h	3	1.5	2.32	None
Recommendation for CI-04 Source attribution: Cite the standard, study, or filing next to the claim it supports, with the source name and date visible in the text rather than only in a link.
18	TE-04 Policy and limitation clarity	Minor	2	2	1-2h	3	1.5	2.32	None
Recommendation for TE-04 Policy and limitation clarity: Publish a dated privacy policy covering analytics and form data, and a terms or engagement-scope page that matches what is actually sold.
19	CR-03 Sitemap quality	Minor	2	2	1-2h	5	0.5	2.3	None
Recommendation for CR-03 Sitemap quality: Correct the entries identified in the evidence and ensure lastmod reflects real content changes.
20	MR-03 Recheck discipline	Unresolved	2	1	under 1h	1	0.5	2.18	MR-01
Recommendation for MR-03 Recheck discipline: Fix a recheck cadence and record the rubric version, crawl sample, and question set used for each run so score movement can be attributed to the site rather than the method.
21	EN-04 External identity reconciliation	Unresolved	2	2	1-2h	1	1.5	1.91	EN-01
Recommendation for EN-04 External identity reconciliation: Link every owned profile from the site and declare it in sameAs, and retire or update profiles carrying a former brand.
22	MR-01 Baseline question set	Unresolved	2	2	1-2h	1	1	1.76	None
Recommendation for MR-01 Baseline question set: Agree and version a question set covering buying questions, brand variations, comparison questions, and geography, dated before the first measurement.
23	AC-03 Agent-facing transaction boundaries	Unresolved	2	2	1-2h	1	0.5	1.61	None
Recommendation for AC-03 Agent-facing transaction boundaries: Document what each form or endpoint commits the visitor to, require authentication for anything that creates an obligation, and state the approval step in public documentation.
24	CR-05 Rendered content availability	Unresolved	2	3	half a day	1	1.5	1.51	None
Recommendation for CR-05 Rendered content availability: Serve primary claims, headings, navigation, and supporting evidence in the initial HTML response.
25	MR-02 Referral and conversion attribution	Unresolved	2	3	half a day	1	1	1.4	MR-01
Recommendation for MR-02 Referral and conversion attribution: Configure a referral segment for AI answer surfaces and connect it to a defined qualified-outcome event, or record the implementation backlog to do so.
26	AC-02 Machine-readable guidance quality	Minor	1	1	under 1h	5	0.5	1.1	None
Recommendation for AC-02 Machine-readable guidance quality: Keep the guidance file generated from the same source as the sitemap so it cannot go stale.
27	SD-04 Metadata consistency	Minor	1	2	1-2h	5	0.5	0.81	None
Recommendation for SD-04 Metadata consistency: Generate title, description, canonical, og:url, and structured-data values from one source per page so they cannot drift apart.

What is working

10 of 33 checks reached Substantial or Complete. These are the foundations the remediation work builds on, and they are worth protecting when the site changes.

TE-01 Ownership and accountability (Substantial) — About-style page(s) found: 7. Contact path(s) found: 2. 2 distinct mailto destination(s) and 1 form(s) appear in the sample. 2 organization or person entit(ies) are declared in structured data.
CR-01 Stable successful retrieval (Complete) — 25 of 25 sampled URLs returned a successful response (100.0%). Median response time was 1133 ms.
CR-02 Robots and crawler directives (Complete) — robots.txt was retrieved and parsed: 16 group(s) covering user-agents *, AdsBot-Google, AdsBot-Google-Mobile, Applebot, Bingbot, DuckDuckBot, Googlebot, Googlebot-Image, Mediapartners-Google, Msnbot, Qwantify, Slurp, Yandex, YandexImages, msnbot-media, 1 declared sitemap(s). The group matching this crawler allows 1 and disallows 13 path pattern(s). No sampled page declared a noindex directive in markup or headers.
SD-01 Valid core entities (Complete) — 25 of 25 sampled pages carry JSON-LD (100.0%), producing 30 entit(ies). Declared types: BreadcrumbList (24), Person (2), WebSite (2), Organization (1), WebPage (1), CollectionPage (1). Core identity types present: Organization, Person, WebSite.
SD-02 Entity relationships (Complete) — 30 of 30 entit(ies) declare an @id (100.0%), producing 28 distinct identifier(s). 5 relationship reference(s) were found across 3 relationship type(s). 2 entit(ies) declare sameAs links to external profiles.
AC-02 Machine-readable guidance quality (Substantial) — 1 machine-readable guidance file(s) are served: /llms.txt (62861 bytes, 120 link(s)). These conventions are voluntary. Serving them is not a ranking or citation guarantee, and no engine is known to require them.
CR-03 Sitemap quality (Substantial) — 8 sitemap document(s) were retrieved; 8 parsed cleanly and 0 did not. 573 unique URL(s) are listed. 3 duplicate entr(ies) were listed. 576 of 576 entries carry a lastmod value (100.0%). 25 listed URL(s) were sampled and returned a successful response.
CR-04 Canonical and duplicate control (Complete) — 25 of 25 sampled pages declare a canonical URL. Host and protocol variants: http://tln.example/ -> HTTP 200 at https://tln.example/; https://www.tln.example/ -> HTTP 200 at https://tln.example/.

and 2 further check(s) rated Substantial or better.

Page-structure checklist

7 good, 3 weak, 3 missing across 13 structural elements. This table scores nothing — it presents observations the checks already made, so the last column names where each row came from.

Structural elements an answer engine looks for.
Element	The question it answers	State	What was observed	From
Answer passages	Does any heading pose the question a buyer asks?	Missing	0 question-phrased heading(s) across 25 sampled page(s).	`CI-01`
Linkable passages	Can a single passage be cited by URL?	Missing	0 of 25 page(s) give a heading an id.	`CI-03`
Claim support	Does a material claim have something behind it?	Good	92 material claim candidate(s); 0 sit on a page with no possible source.	`CI-02, CI-04`
Source attribution	Does the site cite anything outside itself?	Good	25 of 25 page(s) link a destination that could serve as a source.	`CI-04`
Freshness	Can a reader tell when this was last true?	Weak	3 of 25 page(s) expose a date.	`CI-05`
Organization identity	Is it unambiguous who publishes this?	Weak	1 declared identity name(s); 0 structured contact value(s).	`EN-01, SD-01`
People and authorship	Does a named person stand behind the expertise?	Good	2 Person entit(ies); 0 article-style page(s) unattributed.	`EN-03`
Offering definition	Can an engine name what is actually sold?	Missing	0 Product/Service entit(ies).	`EN-02, SD-01`
Comparison and fit	Does the site say who it is not for?	Good	2 page(s) with comparison language, 1 stating a limitation or fit boundary.	`TA-03`
Structured data	Is the machine-readable description connected?	Good	30 entit(ies), 30 carrying a stable @id.	`SD-01, SD-02`
Contact path	Can a convinced reader reach a human?	Good	2 contact destination(s), 7 about page(s).	`TE-01`
Policies	Are the data and service boundaries stated?	Weak	1 privacy reference(s), 0 terms reference(s).	`TE-04`
Machine-readable guidance	Is there an index written for machines?	Good	/llms.txt	`AC-02`

Delivery context

Context for reading the findings. None of this is scored, and no request was made to collect it — it is read from response headers and page text already captured.

Observed delivery characteristics.
Signal	Observed
Transport	Every retained response was served over HTTPS.
HSTS	not declared
Serving infrastructure	Apache (41 response(s))
Reading ease (median)	16 — Very difficult, across 20 page(s). Hardest: 0 at `https://tln.example/home/`.

Read from response headers already captured during collection. No additional request was made, and none of this is scored. Reading ease is a readability proxy, not a rubric check. It carries no points. A low score is not automatically a defect: a technical audience may want dense prose.

Findings and evidence

How to read this section. The measurements are the tool's; the judgements are a person's; the score is arithmetic over both. No part of this report was written or rated by a language model.

automated means the tool observed it and the observation is reproducible from the evidence record. operator means a named reviewer read that evidence and made a judgement, with the reason recorded beside it. Weigh them differently — you should.

CR · Crawl and retrieval accessibility (15 points)

CR-06 · Body text is machine-readable prose

MissingCriticalautomated0 of 2 pts · confidence high

What was observed

4 of 25 sampled page(s) print template syntax as body text, where a reader and a retrieval system see it: https://tln.example/home/ (90% of visible text, shortcode); https://tln.example/about-us/ (90% of visible text, shortcode); https://tln.example/blog-2/ (68% of visible text, shortcode). 1 further page(s) are affected.

Why it matters

A passage made of markup cannot be quoted, summarised, or cited. The page looks populated to the CMS and to a word count, and carries nothing an engine can use.

Recommendation

Render or remove the template syntax so the published text is the text, and re-check the pages that a buyer reads first.

Limitations

Detection is by pattern and names only the conventions it knows: page-builder shortcodes, merge fields, and raw template tags. Other template systems may leak syntax this check does not recognise.
Code and preformatted blocks are excluded, so a page that deliberately documents template syntax is not reported.

Evidence: 26 record(s)

ev_99d14a7a9a1356f6 (html_parse on https://tln.example/ at 2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00)
ev_606797b76fc96939 (html_parse on https://tln.example/home/ at 2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00)
ev_b445e84670f54e32 (html_parse on https://tln.example/news/ at 2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00)
ev_d1f573c71d58c005 (html_parse on https://tln.example/blog-2/ at 2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00)
ev_fe5fd6c5ea2e9d0b (html_parse on https://tln.example/ignite/ at 2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00)
ev_beab59f1a0d75efa (html_parse on https://tln.example/stayfit/ at 2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00)
ev_533a947e75fb1454 (html_parse on https://tln.example/clients/ at 2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00)
ev_20db27d55bf0d2ce (html_parse on https://tln.example/hpleads/ at 2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00)
and 18 more record(s) in the JSON appendix

CR-05 · Rendered content availability

InconclusiveUnresolvedautomatedunscored · confidence low

What was observed

Raw HTML (no JavaScript execution) already carries a median of 191 words and a median of 40 script element(s) per sampled page. 19 of 25 pages carry 150 or more words before rendering, and 25 expose an H1 in raw HTML. 0 page(s) include noscript content.

Why it matters

Content that exists only after client-side execution is unavailable to any retrieval path that does not render, and unreliable for those that do.

Recommendation

Serve primary claims, headings, navigation, and supporting evidence in the initial HTML response.

Outstanding manual step

Load the sampled pages in a browser with JavaScript enabled and compare the rendered text and headings against the raw HTML excerpt in the evidence. Rate Complete only if the raw HTML already carries the primary claims, navigation, and headings.

Limitations

Rubric v0.1 collects raw HTML only. Whether rendering adds or removes meaningful content was not measured, so this check cannot be rated from the collected evidence alone.

Evidence: 26 record(s)

CR-03 · Sitemap quality

SubstantialMinorautomated1.5 of 2 pts · confidence high

What was observed

8 sitemap document(s) were retrieved; 8 parsed cleanly and 0 did not. 573 unique URL(s) are listed. 3 duplicate entr(ies) were listed. 576 of 576 entries carry a lastmod value (100.0%). 25 listed URL(s) were sampled and returned a successful response.

Why it matters

A sitemap is the cheapest way to tell every retrieval system which URLs are canonical and when they last changed.

Recommendation

Correct the entries identified in the evidence and ensure lastmod reflects real content changes.

Limitations

Only 25 of 573 listed URLs were sampled within the configured page limit.

Evidence: 11 record(s)

ev_22600255b991efe6 (robots_parse on https://tln.example/robots.txt at 2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00)
ev_d154ab37597a9b73 (sitemap_parse on https://www.tln.example/sitemap_index.xml at 2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00)
ev_fa39beb45d74a750 (sitemap_parse on https://tln.example/sitemap_index.xml at 2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00)
ev_f353c2379dbf2b58 (sitemap_parse on https://tln.example/sitemap_index.xml at 2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00)
ev_fb024d14a488d2b4 (sitemap_parse on https://tln.example/sitemap-index.xml at 2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00)
ev_16a3d2a633709343 (sitemap_parse on https://tln.example/post-sitemap1.xml at 2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00)
ev_3cb6b839c57551e4 (sitemap_parse on https://tln.example/post-sitemap2.xml at 2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00)
ev_ad35824500b46269 (sitemap_parse on https://tln.example/post-sitemap3.xml at 2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00)
and 3 more record(s) in the JSON appendix

CR-01 · Stable successful retrieval

Completeautomated3 of 3 pts · confidence high

What was observed: 25 of 25 sampled URLs returned a successful response (100.0%). Median response time was 1133 ms.
Why it matters: Answer engines can only use content they can retrieve reliably. Intermittent errors and empty successful responses both reduce the amount of a site that any retrieval system will hold.
Recommendation: Retrieval is stable across the sampled pages; no action is required for this check.

Evidence: 26 record(s)

CR-02 · Robots and crawler directives

Completeautomated3 of 3 pts · confidence high

What was observed: robots.txt was retrieved and parsed: 16 group(s) covering user-agents *, AdsBot-Google, AdsBot-Google-Mobile, Applebot, Bingbot, DuckDuckBot, Googlebot, Googlebot-Image, Mediapartners-Google, Msnbot, Qwantify, Slurp, Yandex, YandexImages, msnbot-media, 1 declared sitemap(s). The group matching this crawler allows 1 and disallows 13 path pattern(s). No sampled page declared a noindex directive in markup or headers.
Why it matters: Crawl directives decide what any retrieval system is permitted to hold. A directive that blocks content the owner wants cited removes that content from every engine at once.
Recommendation: Directives are consistent with an intent to be discoverable. Keep robots.txt under version control so a deploy cannot change it silently.

Evidence: 1 record(s)

ev_22600255b991efe6 (robots_parse on https://tln.example/robots.txt at 2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00)

CR-04 · Canonical and duplicate control

Completeautomated2 of 2 pts · confidence high

What was observed: 25 of 25 sampled pages declare a canonical URL. Host and protocol variants: http://tln.example/ -> HTTP 200 at https://tln.example/; https://www.tln.example/ -> HTTP 200 at https://tln.example/.
Why it matters: When one page answers at several addresses, retrieval systems must guess which address to hold and cite. Consolidating on one origin removes that guess.
Recommendation: Canonical control is consistent across the sample; no action is required.

Evidence: 27 record(s)

EN · Entity clarity (15 points)

EN-01 · Organization identity consistency

PartialMinoroperator2 of 4 pts · confidence high

What was observed

Structured-data identity names: 'TLN' on 4 page(s). Declared og:site_name values: 'TLN'. No email, telephone, or postal address appears in structured data. 24 distinct meta description(s) were served across 25 pages.

Why it matters

An engine has to decide which entity a page is about before it can recommend that entity. Conflicting names and missing contact facts force it to guess.

Recommendation

State one organization or person name, one description, and one contact path consistently in visible content and in structured data on every page.

Operator decision

Rated by Claude Code (operator-assisted review), pending Chris Brock sign-off on 2026-08-31T02:30:00+00:00. Reason: One identity name, 'TLN', is used consistently in structured data and in og:site_name, with no competing variant anywhere in the sample, and 24 of 25 pages carry a distinct meta description. Two things hold it short of substantial. The organization is declared in structured data on only 4 of the 25 sampled pages, so on the other 21 an engine has to infer from visible text which entity the page belongs to. And although the footer carries a complete contact block sitewide — a postal address in a US city, a toll-free and a local number, a fax, and info@tln.example — none of those facts appear in structured data on any page. The information exists and is consistent; it is simply not declared in the form a machine reads.

Limitations

Whether 'TLN' is the operating legal entity, and whether any other name is a legitimate brand, is a business fact the site does not settle.
The contact path was not exercised: the collector never sends mail or submits a form, so whether the published address and numbers reach anyone was not tested.

Evidence: 33 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

ev_d371929ed472fd56
ev_dd7a0953c4cd4d19
ev_6ea47fbdbca89d34
ev_be45aba7a3ecf70d
ev_455889d2c7763e3f
ev_12e3ae621637940c
ev_893c0071102a33c5
ev_0f56fdbdd53f3ca8
and 25 more record(s) in the JSON appendix

EN-03 · People and authorship identity

PartialMinoroperator2 of 4 pts · confidence moderate

What was observed

2 Person entit(ies) and 0 structured author reference(s) were found. 2 Person entit(ies) link to external profiles via sameAs.

Why it matters

Expertise content that no identified person stands behind is difficult to weigh, and difficult to defend when a buyer asks who wrote it.

Recommendation

Attribute every substantive page to a named person with a linked biography, role, and credentials, and connect that person to the organization in structured data.

Operator decision

Rated by Claude Code (operator-assisted review), pending Chris Brock sign-off on 2026-08-31T02:30:00+00:00. Reason: Four individual team pages were sampled — Staff member A, Staff member B, Staff member C and Staff member D — and two Person entities are declared in structured data with sameAs links to external profiles, so named people are attached to the organization rather than an anonymous 'we'. What is missing is authorship: zero structured author references were found across the sample, and the blog posts on /marketing-blog/ are attributed in visible text to 'TLN Marketing' rather than to any of the named people. The site says who works there and does not say who wrote anything, which is the half that carries weight when an engine decides whether a claim has a person behind it.

Limitations

Whether each named person currently holds the stated role, and whether their credentials are real and in scope, cannot be established from the site and was not verified against any issuer.

Evidence: 33 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

EN-02 · Product and service identity

InconclusiveUnresolvedautomatedunscored · confidence moderate

What was observed

No offerings were supplied at intake, so offering coverage could not be measured. No Product, Service, or SoftwareApplication entity is declared in structured data on any sampled page.

Why it matters

An engine can only recommend an offering it can name, locate at a stable URL, and define. Offerings that live only in prose are hard to recommend specifically.

Recommendation

Give each offering one page with a stable URL, a one-sentence definition, a named audience, and structured data that ties it to the organization.

Outstanding manual step

Confirm each offering has one owning page and that the page states what is sold, to whom, and how it relates to the organization.

Limitations

Term overlap identifies candidate pages, not whether a page defines the offering well enough to sell it.

Evidence: 25 record(s)

EN-04 · External identity reconciliation

InconclusiveUnresolvedautomatedunscored · confidence low

What was observed

The site links out to 21 distinct external host(s); 3 sameAs URL(s) are declared in structured data. No owned profiles were declared at intake, so nothing could be reconciled.

Why it matters

Owned profiles that the site never links, and profiles carrying an old brand, split one identity into several that an engine must reconcile on its own.

Recommendation

Link every owned profile from the site and declare it in sameAs, and retire or update profiles carrying a former brand.

Outstanding manual step

Open each declared and each linked profile, confirm ownership, and record any inconsistency in name, description, or domain.

Limitations

Off-domain properties are outside the authorized crawl scope and were not retrieved. Whether a linked profile is owned, current, and consistent must be confirmed by the operator.

Evidence: 25 record(s)

CI · Citation readiness (20 points)

CI-01 · Direct answer passages

MinimalCriticaloperator1.25 of 5 pts · confidence high

What was observed

0 heading(s) across the sample are phrased as questions. 0 of 25 pages open with a definitional sentence in the first 400 characters. No priority questions were supplied at intake, so question-level coverage could not be measured.

Why it matters

An answer engine reuses passages that stand on their own. Copy that requires the surrounding page to make sense is rarely quotable.

Recommendation

Give each priority question its own heading and a self-contained two-to-four sentence answer directly beneath it.

Operator decision

Rated by Claude Code (operator-assisted review), pending Chris Brock sign-off on 2026-08-31T02:30:00+00:00. Reason: Not one heading across 25 sampled pages is phrased as a question, and not one page opens with a definitional sentence in its first 400 characters. Every page instead opens with the full navigation menu, so the first several hundred characters of every page in the sample are the same list of menu labels. The two longest content pages compound it: /home/ and /about-us/ carry their body text as unrendered page-builder shortcodes (see TE-04 and the backlog), so the passages an engine would most likely quote from those pages are markup rather than prose. There is real substance on the site — the services overview and the best-practices page both make clear statements — but nothing is structured as a self-contained answer to a question a buyer would ask.

Limitations

No priority questions were supplied at intake, so this rating measures whether passages are answer-shaped at all. It does not measure coverage of the questions this business is actually asked, which is the stronger test and needs the question set.

Evidence: 34 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

CI-02 · Claim support

PartialMajoroperator2.5 of 5 pts · confidence high

What was observed

67 distinct material claim candidate(s) were detected across 25 page(s) in 92 occurrence(s): superlative (55), money (6), percentage (3), count (2), compliance (1). 1 of the distinct claims repeat on more than half the sample, which is navigation, footer, or banner text rather than a claim a page makes for itself. 0 appear only on pages carrying no external link that could serve as a source. Links to the organization's own social or code profiles are excluded from this count: they identify the publisher, not the origin of a number.

Why it matters

An unsupported number is a liability in an AI answer: it can be repeated without its caveats, and it cannot be defended when a buyer asks where it came from.

Recommendation

For each material claim, state the source, the measurement period, and the scope next to the claim itself, or remove the claim.

Operator decision

Rated by Claude Code (operator-assisted review), pending Chris Brock sign-off on 2026-08-31T02:30:00+00:00. Reason: The site does one thing here well and one thing poorly, and they are worth separating. The [certification name redacted] claim is properly evidenced: the footer badge links sitewide to /about-tln/#certification, and that page links to the certificate document itself. That is better sourcing than most sites manage. Against it, the homepage presents four headline figures — 210,600 decision-maker interviews, 7.3 touches to sales-readiness, 46,800 qualified leads and $1.06 billion in pipeline value — under the heading 'Numbers Don't Lie', with no period, no method, and no source for any of them. Those four are the most quotable numbers on the site and the most load-bearing in a buying decision, and an engine asked to justify them has nothing to point at.

Limitations

Whether the four figures are accurate was not assessed and is not assessable from public pages. The finding is about their sourcing, not their truth.
The linked ISO certificate document was not retrieved; off-domain and binary assets are outside the authorized crawl.

Evidence: 34 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

CI-03 · Stable passage structure

PartialMinorautomated2 of 4 pts · confidence high

What was observed: Across 25 sampled pages the median page carries 3 heading(s). 15 declare exactly one H1, 0 give at least one heading an id that can be linked directly, and 25 use a table or list. 10 page(s) declare more than one H1. 7 page(s) skip a heading level: https://tln.example/: h1 followed by h3; https://tln.example/home/: h1 followed by h3; https://tln.example/about-us/: h1 followed by h3. No sampled heading carries an id, so no passage on the site can be linked or cited directly.
Why it matters: Headings and anchors are the unit an engine extracts. A page with no internal structure can only be cited whole, which usually means it is not cited at all.
Recommendation: Give every page one H1, a descriptive H2 for each distinct answer, and a stable id on each H2 so a passage can be linked directly.

Evidence: 26 record(s)

CI-04 · Source attribution

PartialMinoroperator1.5 of 3 pts · confidence moderate

What was observed

25 of 25 sampled pages link to an external destination that could serve as a source (100.0%). 445 external link(s) were found in total, but own social and code profiles are excluded from the source count. 0 link(s) point at a standards body, government, academic, or research host. 0 page(s) exceed 600 words while citing no external source.

Why it matters

Attribution is how a claim survives being repeated. A page that cites its sources gives an engine a reason to trust the passage it is about to reuse.

Recommendation

Cite the standard, study, or filing next to the claim it supports, with the source name and date visible in the text rather than only in a link.

Operator decision

Rated by Claude Code (operator-assisted review), pending Chris Brock sign-off on 2026-08-31T02:30:00+00:00. Reason: Every sampled page carries at least one external link, and no page exceeds 600 words while citing nothing, so the site is not a closed loop. The attribution that exists is also real rather than decorative: the [certification name redacted] badge resolves to a page that links the certificate. But no link in the sample points at a standards body, a government, an academic or a research host, so where the site makes claims about industry practice or performance it is citing itself. That is the difference between a page an engine can corroborate and one it can only repeat.

Limitations

Off-domain links were not followed, by design, so whether each cited source resolves and supports the claim beside it was not verified.

Evidence: 34 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

CI-05 · Content freshness signals

PartialMinorautomated1.5 of 3 pts · confidence high

What was observed: 3 of 25 sampled pages expose a date in visible text, structured data, or a time element (12.0%). 1 page(s) show structured dates that do not overlap the visible dates: https://tln.example/: structured dates ['2012', '2017'] do not overlap visible dates ['2021', '2022', '2023', '2024', '2025', '2026'].
Why it matters: A dated page can be judged current. An undated page has to be treated as possibly stale, which is a reason not to cite it.
Recommendation: Show a visible published and updated date on every article, and emit the same values as datePublished and dateModified in structured data.

Evidence: 26 record(s)

TA · Topical coverage and authority (15 points)

TA-03 · Comparative and decision content

MinimalCriticaloperator1 of 4 pts · confidence moderate

What was observed

2 of 25 sampled pages contain comparison language, 1 state a limitation or fit boundary, and 0 use a table. No competitors were supplied at intake.

Why it matters

Buyers ask comparison questions, and so do the people prompting answer engines. A site that never states who it is not for cannot be matched to who it is for.

Recommendation

Publish one honest comparison or decision page with a criteria table, and state explicitly where the offering is not the right fit.

Operator decision

Rated by Claude Code (operator-assisted review), pending Chris Brock sign-off on 2026-08-31T02:30:00+00:00. Reason: Two pages in 25 contain any comparison language, one states a limitation or fit boundary, and no page uses a table to lay options side by side. The services overview states what the firm does but never states who it is not for, at what size it stops making sense, or how outsourced appointment setting compares with building the function in house — which is the actual decision a buyer in this category is making. A prospect weighing options, and an engine asked to weigh them on the prospect's behalf, will not find the criteria here and will get them from somewhere else.

Limitations

No competitors were supplied at intake, so the comparative dimension of this check — whether named alternatives are addressed — was not measured. The rating reflects the absence of decision content of any kind.

Evidence: 34 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

TA-04 · Internal topic relationships

MinimalMajorautomated0.75 of 3 pts · confidence moderate

What was observed

Across 25 sampled pages the median page carries 60 internal link(s). 19 sampled page(s) received no internal link from any other sampled page, and 0 received exactly one. Pages with no inbound internal link in the sample: https://tln.example/about-us, https://tln.example/best-practices, https://tln.example/blog-2, https://tln.example/clients, https://tln.example/home, https://tln.example/hpleads.

Why it matters

Internal links are how evidence pages get discovered and how a crawler learns which pages a site treats as important. An orphaned page carries its authority nowhere.

Recommendation

Link every evidence and educational page from the commercial page it supports, and from a topic index.

Limitations

Only the 25 sampled pages were analysed; a page may receive links from pages outside the sample.

Evidence: 26 record(s)

TA-02 · First-hand experience

PartialMajoroperator2 of 4 pts · confidence moderate

What was observed

5 of 25 sampled pages carry 600 or more words. First-hand markers were detected on 2 page(s): first person operator on 0, measurement on 1, artifact on 2. No link to a public repository, dataset, or downloadable artifact was found in the sample.

Why it matters

First-hand detail is the part of a page a competitor cannot copy and a summariser cannot generate. It is the strongest reason for an engine to prefer this source.

Recommendation

Publish the method, the numbers, and the artifact behind at least one claim per topic: a repository, a dataset, a template, or a documented before-and-after measurement.

Operator decision

Rated by Claude Code (operator-assisted review), pending Chris Brock sign-off on 2026-08-31T02:30:00+00:00. Reason: There is genuine first-hand material. /about-tln/ carries an attributed quote from Gregg Garrett, named as co-founder, and describes the [certification name redacted] programme in the firm's own voice with a certificate to back it. The blog carries a 25-year anniversary post written from inside the company. What is thin is the artifact layer: only 5 of 25 sampled pages reach 600 words, measurement language appears on a single page, and no link to a dataset, repository, or downloadable resource was found anywhere in the sample. The firm plainly has two decades of operating experience; very little of it is written down in a form that shows the work rather than asserting it.

Limitations

Phrase detection finds the shape of first-hand reporting. Whether the described experience is genuinely the author's own was not verified.

Evidence: 34 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

TA-01 · Priority-question coverage

InconclusiveUnresolvedautomatedunscored · confidence low

What was observed

No priority-question set was supplied at intake, so question-to-page coverage could not be built.

Why it matters

Without a bounded question set there is no way to say which buying questions the site answers.

Recommendation

Agree a bounded set of customer questions drawn from real sales conversations, then map each to one owning page.

Outstanding manual step

Collect the priority questions from the customer and re-run this check.

Limitations

The question set is an intake input, not a website property.

Evidence: 26 record(s)

TE · Trust and evidence (15 points)

TE-03 · Customer and outcome evidence

MinimalCriticaloperator1 of 4 pts · confidence high

What was observed

6 of 25 sampled pages reference customers, clients, or engagements in their own text rather than in a block repeated across the sample; 3 state an outcome-shaped result; 6 long quotation(s) that could be testimonials were found; and 0 page(s) mention a baseline or measurement period.

Why it matters

Outcome claims without a baseline and a scope cannot be checked, and an engine that repeats them exposes the business to a claim it cannot defend.

Recommendation

Publish at least one case example with the situation, the intervention, the measurement window, the baseline, and the result, with the customer's permission recorded.

Operator decision

Rated by Claude Code (operator-assisted review), pending Chris Brock sign-off on 2026-08-31T02:30:00+00:00. Reason: The site has the shelf and not the books. /success-stories/ is titled 'Case Studies & Success Stories' and contains 103 words, all of which are navigation, heading and footer — there is no case study on it. /clients/ is 95 words on the same pattern, and /our-work/ is 190 words of which most is unrendered shortcode. Six long quotations that read as testimonials do exist elsewhere in the sample, and three pages state an outcome-shaped result, so there is raw material. But no page in the sample states a baseline or a measurement period for any outcome, and the three pages a buyer would click first to find proof are empty. A named client, a starting position, a period and a result would move this further than any other single change on the site.

Limitations

Whether the testimonials are genuine and authorized for publication cannot be established from the site.
Case studies may exist behind the contact form or off the sampled 25 pages; the finding is that they are not publicly reachable in the sample.

Evidence: 34 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

TE-02 · Expertise and credential support

PartialMinoroperator2 of 4 pts · confidence moderate

What was observed

7 distinct credential-shaped claim(s) were detected across 25 page(s) in 55 occurrence(s); 0 appear within 120 characters of a date. 2 of the distinct claims repeat on more than half the sample, so they are stated as site furniture rather than in the page that would explain them. 11 page(s) show six or more images with under 400 words, a pattern consistent with an unexplained logo wall.

Why it matters

A credential without a scope, a date, and a responsible entity cannot be verified, and an unverifiable claim is a risk rather than an asset when repeated by a machine.

Recommendation

State the issuing body, the scope, the date, and the entity the credential belongs to next to every credential claim.

Operator decision

Rated by Claude Code (operator-assisted review), pending Chris Brock sign-off on 2026-08-31T02:30:00+00:00. Reason: The [certification name redacted] certification is handled properly — announced on /about-tln/, linked sitewide from the footer, and backed by the certificate document itself. That is the model the rest of the site does not follow. The sample carries seven distinct credential-shaped claims, repeated 55 times — two of them site furniture rather than a statement any page makes for itself — and not one appears within 120 characters of a date, so a reader cannot tell which are current, the [certification name redacted] certification included. Twelve pages carry six or more images with under 400 words of text, the pattern of a logo wall standing in for an explanation: the logos assert association without stating what the relationship is or when it held. The certification shows the firm knows how to evidence a credential; the pattern is not applied to the others.

Limitations

The linked ISO certificate was issued in 2020 on the evidence of its URL path. Whether the certification is currently in force was not verified and cannot be verified from the site; it requires a check against the issuing body.
Whether each logo represents a client, a partner, or a vendor was not established.

Evidence: 34 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

TE-04 · Policy and limitation clarity

PartialMinoroperator1.5 of 3 pts · confidence moderate

What was observed

Privacy policy reference(s): 1. Terms reference(s): 0. 1 form(s) appear in the sample. 25 page(s) show evidence of third-party analytics being loaded. No terms or service-boundary page was found in the sample.

Why it matters

Policies set the boundaries a buyer and an agent both need before acting. Their absence is a friction point at exactly the moment a recommendation would convert.

Recommendation

Publish a dated privacy policy covering analytics and form data, and a terms or engagement-scope page that matches what is actually sold.

Operator decision

Rated by Claude Code (operator-assisted review), pending Chris Brock sign-off on 2026-08-31T02:30:00+00:00. Reason: A privacy policy exists and is substantial at 1,711 words, and the contact form states in line that submitted information will not be shared with an outside party, which is a clearer disclosure than most sites give at the point of collection. Against that, no terms of service or service-boundary page was found anywhere in the sample, and all 25 sampled pages load third-party analytics — Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager. A visitor is therefore measured on every page by a third party, with the disclosure of that fact living only in the policy rather than where it happens.

Limitations

The privacy policy was sampled but its content was not audited against actual data practice, which is outside the scope of a public-content audit.
Whether the policy is dated and current was not assessed.

Evidence: 34 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

TE-01 · Ownership and accountability

SubstantialMinoroperator3 of 4 pts · confidence high

What was observed

About-style page(s) found: 7. Contact path(s) found: 2. 2 distinct mailto destination(s) and 1 form(s) appear in the sample. 2 organization or person entit(ies) are declared in structured data.

Why it matters

Accountability is a precondition for being recommended. An engine asked to suggest a provider has little reason to name one whose operator and contact path are unclear.

Recommendation

Name the operating entity, the responsible people, and a working contact path on a linked page, and mirror those facts in structured data.

Operator decision

Rated by Claude Code (operator-assisted review), pending Chris Brock sign-off on 2026-08-31T02:30:00+00:00. Reason: This is the strongest dimension on the site. Seven about-style pages — two entry points, /about-us/ and /about-tln/, and five pages beneath the second — a dedicated contact page, and a footer repeated sitewide that carries a full postal address at 1915 New Jimmy Daniel Road in a US city, a toll-free number, a local number, a fax number and a monitored-looking email address. Two organization or person entities are declared in structured data, and named individuals have their own pages. A reader or an engine can establish who is behind this site and how to reach them without guessing. It stops short of complete only because none of those contact facts is expressed in structured data, which is the same gap recorded under EN-01.

Limitations

Whether the published contact path reaches a human was not tested. The collector never submits a form or sends mail.

Evidence: 34 record(s) (records the reviewer cited are listed first)

SD · Structured data (10 points)

SD-04 · Metadata consistency

SubstantialMinorautomated1.5 of 2 pts · confidence high

What was observed: Across 25 sampled pages: 25 declare a title, 25 a meta description, 25 an html lang attribute, and 25 Open Graph titles. 1 title(s) are reused across multiple pages: 'Get a healthy strategy with powerful results - TLN' on 2 pages.
Why it matters: When a page describes itself differently in its title, its social metadata, and its structured data, an engine has to choose one description and may choose the wrong one.
Recommendation: Generate title, description, canonical, og:url, and structured-data values from one source per page so they cannot drift apart.

Evidence: 26 record(s)

SD-01 · Valid core entities

Completeautomated3 of 3 pts · confidence high

What was observed: 25 of 25 sampled pages carry JSON-LD (100.0%), producing 30 entit(ies). Declared types: BreadcrumbList (24), Person (2), WebSite (2), Organization (1), WebPage (1), CollectionPage (1). Core identity types present: Organization, Person, WebSite.
Why it matters: Structured data is the one place a site states its identity in a form a machine does not have to infer from prose.
Recommendation: Core entities are valid and consistent with visible content; no action is required.

Evidence: 25 record(s)

SD-02 · Entity relationships

Completeautomated3 of 3 pts · confidence high

What was observed: 30 of 30 entit(ies) declare an @id (100.0%), producing 28 distinct identifier(s). 5 relationship reference(s) were found across 3 relationship type(s). 2 entit(ies) declare sameAs links to external profiles.
Why it matters: Stable identifiers let an engine merge the same organization or person across pages instead of treating each mention as a new entity.
Recommendation: Identifiers and relationships are complete and resolvable; no action is required.

Evidence: 25 record(s)

SD-03 · Page-specific markup

Completeautomated2 of 2 pts · confidence high

What was observed: No article-style pages were present in the sample. 24 of 25 sampled pages declare BreadcrumbList markup.
Why it matters: Page-type markup tells a retrieval system what a page is, which is what lets an article be treated as dated, authored evidence rather than undated site copy.
Recommendation: Page-type markup matches the visible content on every sampled page; no action is required.

Evidence: 25 record(s)

AC · AI and agent controls (5 points)

AC-01 · Intentional crawler treatment

InconclusiveUnresolvedautomatedunscored · confidence moderate

What was observed

No named AI crawler has an explicit robots.txt group; all are covered by the wildcard group. The wildcard group allows 1 and disallows 13 path pattern(s). No crawler intent was stated at intake, so alignment cannot be judged.

Why it matters

Crawler treatment should be a decision, not an accident. Defaults that nobody chose are the common case, and they are the easiest thing to get wrong in either direction.

Recommendation

Decide explicitly which AI crawlers may retrieve the site, record the decision, and express it in robots.txt so a future deploy cannot silently change it.

Outstanding manual step

Confirm with the owner which AI crawlers should be allowed, then rate whether the current directives match that decision.

Limitations

Whether the observed directives match the owner's intent requires the owner to state that intent.

Evidence: 1 record(s)

ev_22600255b991efe6 (robots_parse on https://tln.example/robots.txt at 2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00)

AC-03 · Agent-facing transaction boundaries

InconclusiveUnresolvedautomatedunscored · confidence low

What was observed

1 page(s) expose a form and 3 mention a purchase surface. The collector never submits a form or performs any state-changing request, so interaction boundaries were not exercised.

Why it matters

An agent acting on a customer's behalf needs to know what commits the customer and what does not. Ambiguity here creates unintended commitments.

Recommendation

Document what each form or endpoint commits the visitor to, require authentication for anything that creates an obligation, and state the approval step in public documentation.

Outstanding manual step

Read the public documentation for each interactive surface and record what authentication and approval each requires.

Limitations

No form was submitted and no state-changing request was made, by policy. Boundaries can only be read from public documentation.

Evidence: 26 record(s)

AC-02 · Machine-readable guidance quality

SubstantialMinorautomated1.5 of 2 pts · confidence high

What was observed

1 machine-readable guidance file(s) are served: /llms.txt (62861 bytes, 120 link(s)). These conventions are voluntary. Serving them is not a ranking or citation guarantee, and no engine is known to require them.

Why it matters

A machine-readable index is cheap to publish and cheap to get wrong: a stale one misleads, and an overstated one invites claims the site cannot support.

Recommendation

Keep the guidance file generated from the same source as the sitemap so it cannot go stale.

Limitations

Whether the content of a guidance file is accurate and current is a reviewer judgement.

Evidence: 4 record(s)

ev_62b65440572d4ba4 (http_get on https://tln.example/llms.txt at 2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00)
ev_eaf0dcced0528513 (http_get on https://tln.example/llms-full.txt at 2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00)
ev_0b7f8ce041452a69 (http_get on https://tln.example/ai.txt at 2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00)
ev_c9beb38676fa86cf (http_get on https://tln.example/.well-known/security.txt at 2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00)

MR · Measurement readiness (5 points)

MR-01 · Baseline question set

InconclusiveUnresolvedautomatedunscored · confidence low

What was observed

No versioned baseline question set was recorded at intake.

Why it matters

Without a question set fixed before results are known, any later movement can be explained after the fact.

Recommendation

Agree and version a question set covering buying questions, brand variations, comparison questions, and geography, dated before the first measurement.

Outstanding manual step

Record the agreed question set, its rationale, the target engines, and the baseline date, then rate this check.

Limitations

This is a property of the engagement, not of the public website. It cannot be observed by crawling and stays inconclusive until the operator records the agreed baseline.

No evidence record is attached to this finding.

MR-02 · Referral and conversion attribution

InconclusiveUnresolvedautomatedunscored · confidence low

What was observed

Public markup and response headers indicate 2 analytics or measurement provider(s): google-analytics.com, googletagmanager.com. Whether referrals from AI answer surfaces can be isolated and tied to qualified outcomes cannot be determined from public pages.

Why it matters

Reporting mentions or impressions without connecting them to qualified behaviour cannot justify continued spend.

Recommendation

Configure a referral segment for AI answer surfaces and connect it to a defined qualified-outcome event, or record the implementation backlog to do so.

Outstanding manual step

Review the analytics configuration with the customer and record whether AI referrals can be isolated and tied to a meaningful outcome.

Limitations

This is a property of the engagement, not of the public website. It cannot be observed by crawling and stays inconclusive until the operator records the agreed baseline.

Evidence: 26 record(s)

MR-03 · Recheck discipline

InconclusiveUnresolvedautomatedunscored · confidence low

What was observed

No recheck schedule for the rubric, crawl sample, question set, competitors, and evidence was recorded at intake.

Why it matters

Changing method between reports without disclosure makes movement uninterpretable.

Recommendation

Fix a recheck cadence and record the rubric version, crawl sample, and question set used for each run so score movement can be attributed to the site rather than the method.

Outstanding manual step

Agree the recheck cadence and record it against this audit's recheck baseline.

Limitations

This is a property of the engagement, not of the public website. It cannot be observed by crawling and stays inconclusive until the operator records the agreed baseline.

No evidence record is attached to this finding.

Page-by-page collection results

25 page(s) collected in 63.07 seconds across 48 request(s), 3,794,534 bytes.

Every URL the collector attempted, with the evidence record produced for it.
URL	Status	Outcome	Title	Words	Depth	Evidence
`https://tln.example/`	200	success	TLN Marketing - Lead Generation, Lead Nurturing, Market Targeting	3619	0	`ev_99d14a7a9a1356f6`
`https://tln.example/home/`	200	success	Home - TLN	1925	1	`ev_606797b76fc96939`
`https://tln.example/news/`	200	success	Marketing News	97	1	`ev_b445e84670f54e32`
`https://tln.example/blog-2/`	200	success	Blog - TLN	189	1	`ev_d1f573c71d58c005`
`https://tln.example/ignite/`	200	success	Select The Right B2B Telepartner - TLN	282	1	`ev_fe5fd6c5ea2e9d0b`
`https://tln.example/stayfit/`	200	success	Get a healthy strategy with powerful results - TLN	232	1	`ev_beab59f1a0d75efa`
`https://tln.example/clients/`	200	success	Clients	95	1	`ev_533a947e75fb1454`
`https://tln.example/hpleads/`	200	success	Get a healthy strategy with powerful results - TLN	188	1	`ev_20db27d55bf0d2ce`
`https://tln.example/services/`	200	success	Services	249	1	`ev_b37377d0b34709dd`
`https://tln.example/our-work/`	200	success	Our Work - TLN	190	1	`ev_ace5d25f7b5f281a`
`https://tln.example/about-us/`	200	success	About Us - TLN	2276	1	`ev_74a7afb5944f24b4`
`https://tln.example/staff-profile-1/`	200	success	Staff member A - TLN	158	1	`ev_7e00cac0856f7903`
`https://tln.example/contact-us/`	200	success	Contact Us	149	1	`ev_f54d4bae51c56146`
`https://tln.example/post-a-job/`	200	success	Post a Job - TLN	121	1	`ev_b0f870cbf41d2903`
`https://tln.example/staff-profile-2/`	200	success	Jené Şenyüz - TLN	221	1	`ev_256d9221cb55fc9d`
`https://tln.example/staff-profile-3/`	200	success	Staff member C - TLN	191	1	`ev_aa2e9ab6dd1e8f25`
`https://tln.example/about-tln/`	200	success	About TLN	359	1	`ev_78bd5fdee77211b6`
`https://tln.example/privacy-policy/`	200	success	Privacy Policy	1711	1	`ev_39623d4996324664`
`https://tln.example/staff-profile-4/`	200	success	Staff member D - TLN	165	1	`ev_71a73f58da570fbf`
`https://tln.example/marketing-blog/`	200	success	Marketing Blog & News	4703	1	`ev_f8786f28d904928e`
`https://tln.example/best-practices/`	200	success	Best Practices	262	1	`ev_d8980d07a0f5aa30`
`https://tln.example/success-stories/`	200	success	Case Studies & Success Stories	103	1	`ev_2250433ade140bec`
`https://tln.example/request-for-proposal/`	200	success	Request for Proposal	135	1	`ev_f1e6c7ff8c323ad6`
`https://tln.example/ignite-your-lead-funnel/`	200	success	Ignite Your Lead Funnel	291	1	`ev_04bd20d2f7beefa2`
`https://tln.example/improve-campaign-results/`	200	success	Improve Campaign Results	171	1	`ev_7d6559a31700f0a0`

Entity and source-consistency map

How this site names itself, who it attributes work to, and which external properties it connects to.

Declared identity values across the sample.
Source	Value	Seen on
Structured data name	TLN	4 page(s)
og:site_name	TLN	25 page(s)

People and authorship

TLN (links to external profiles)
TLN (links to external profiles)

Structured-data identifiers

30 of 30 entities declare a stable @id. Unresolvable references:

None

Answer-ready content briefs

No uncovered priority question was identified from the supplied question set and the sampled pages.

Structured-data backlog

Outstanding structured-data work, with the parser output that raised it.

SD-04 — currently substantial

Generate title, description, canonical, og:url, and structured-data values from one source per page so they cannot drift apart.

Parser output behind SD-04.
duplicate titles	{"Get a healthy strategy with powerful results - TLN": ["https://tln.example/stayfit/", "https://tln.example/hpleads/"]}

Evidence: ev_99d14a7a9a1356f6, ev_606797b76fc96939, ev_b445e84670f54e32, ev_d1f573c71d58c005, ev_fe5fd6c5ea2e9d0b

Thirty-day implementation sequence

Ordered so that no item is scheduled before the work it depends on.

Days 1-7: retrieval, identity, and directives

#1 CR-06 Body text is machine-readable prose: Render or remove the template syntax so the published text is the text, and re-check the pages that a buyer reads first.
#7 EN-01 Organization identity consistency: State one organization or person name, one description, and one contact path consistently in visible content and in structured data on every page.
#13 AC-01 Intentional crawler treatment: Decide explicitly which AI crawlers may retrieve the site, record the decision, and express it in robots.txt so a future deploy cannot silently change it.
#19 CR-03 Sitemap quality: Correct the entries identified in the evidence and ensure lastmod reflects real content changes.
#23 AC-03 Agent-facing transaction boundaries: Document what each form or endpoint commits the visitor to, require authentication for anything that creates an obligation, and state the approval step in public documentation.
#24 CR-05 Rendered content availability: Serve primary claims, headings, navigation, and supporting evidence in the initial HTML response.
#26 AC-02 Machine-readable guidance quality: Keep the guidance file generated from the same source as the sitemap so it cannot go stale.

Days 8-16: structure, evidence, and structured data

#6 CI-03 Stable passage structure: Give every page one H1, a descriptive H2 for each distinct answer, and a stable id on each H2 so a passage can be linked directly.
#11 EN-02 Product and service identity: Give each offering one page with a stable URL, a one-sentence definition, a named audience, and structured data that ties it to the organization.
#12 EN-03 People and authorship identity: Attribute every substantive page to a named person with a linked biography, role, and credentials, and connect that person to the organization in structured data.
#14 CI-05 Content freshness signals: Show a visible published and updated date on every article, and emit the same values as datePublished and dateModified in structured data.
#15 TE-01 Ownership and accountability: Name the operating entity, the responsible people, and a working contact path on a linked page, and mirror those facts in structured data.
#16 TE-02 Expertise and credential support: State the issuing body, the scope, the date, and the entity the credential belongs to next to every credential claim.
#17 CI-04 Source attribution: Cite the standard, study, or filing next to the claim it supports, with the source name and date visible in the text rather than only in a link.
#18 TE-04 Policy and limitation clarity: Publish a dated privacy policy covering analytics and form data, and a terms or engagement-scope page that matches what is actually sold.
#21 EN-04 External identity reconciliation: Link every owned profile from the site and declare it in sameAs, and retire or update profiles carrying a former brand.
#27 SD-04 Metadata consistency: Generate title, description, canonical, og:url, and structured-data values from one source per page so they cannot drift apart.

Days 17-30: coverage, comparison, and measurement

#2 CI-01 Direct answer passages: Give each priority question its own heading and a self-contained two-to-four sentence answer directly beneath it.
#3 CI-02 Claim support: For each material claim, state the source, the measurement period, and the scope next to the claim itself, or remove the claim.
#4 TA-03 Comparative and decision content: Publish one honest comparison or decision page with a criteria table, and state explicitly where the offering is not the right fit.
#5 TE-03 Customer and outcome evidence: Publish at least one case example with the situation, the intervention, the measurement window, the baseline, and the result, with the customer's permission recorded.
#8 TA-04 Internal topic relationships: Link every evidence and educational page from the commercial page it supports, and from a topic index.
#9 TA-02 First-hand experience: Publish the method, the numbers, and the artifact behind at least one claim per topic: a repository, a dataset, a template, or a documented before-and-after measurement.
#10 TA-01 Priority-question coverage: Agree a bounded set of customer questions drawn from real sales conversations, then map each to one owning page.
#20 MR-03 Recheck discipline: Fix a recheck cadence and record the rubric version, crawl sample, and question set used for each run so score movement can be attributed to the site rather than the method.
#22 MR-01 Baseline question set: Agree and version a question set covering buying questions, brand variations, comparison questions, and geography, dated before the first measurement.
#25 MR-02 Referral and conversion attribution: Configure a referral segment for AI answer surfaces and connect it to a defined qualified-outcome event, or record the implementation backlog to do so.

Measurement plan and limitations

Baseline question set

No baseline question set has been recorded.

Analytics providers visible in public markup: google-analytics.com, googletagmanager.com.

Next steps

Version the question set and date it before the first measurement.
Create a referral segment for AI answer surfaces and connect it to a defined qualified-outcome event.
Fix a recheck cadence and record the rubric version, crawl sample, and question set used for each run.

What this measurement cannot tell you

Whether any AI answer product currently cites the site.
Whether a change to the site causes a change in citation, ranking, traffic, or revenue.

Limitations of this audit

This audit sampled 25 page(s) against a configured limit of 25 at a maximum depth of 2. Findings describe the sample, not every page on the site.
Scored against rubric version 0.2 using tool version adia/0.1.0. Score movement between runs can come from a rubric change as easily as a site change.
Collection used plain HTTP retrieval with no JavaScript execution. Content that appears only after client-side rendering was not observed.
Off-domain properties were not retrieved. The run was restricted to the authorized registrable domain.
No form was submitted, no authenticated content was accessed, and no state-changing request was made.
9 check(s) are inconclusive and contribute no points in either direction: CR-05, EN-02, EN-04, TA-01, AC-01, AC-03, MR-01, MR-02, MR-03. Their 22 points were removed from the denominator rather than scored as zeroes.
Collection stopped at a configured bound (max_pages=25). A larger sample may change coverage-dependent findings.
This audit measures conditions a site can control against rubric version 0.2. It does not guarantee placement, ranking, citation, recommendation, traffic, leads, or revenue in any search engine or AI answer product, and a low score does not prove a site is absent from AI-generated answers.

Machine-readable JSON appendix

The complete audit result, including every evidence record, is not published with this copy: the result names the audited site in full, and this copy is redacted. The evidence index below is the same index that file carries, with the same identifiers and hashes.

Evidence index (42 records)

Every observation captured during this run.
Evidence ID	Method	URL	Status	Outcome	Observed (UTC)	Content hash	Checks
`ev_22600255b991efe6`	robots_parse	`https://tln.example/robots.txt`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:2077314e55d454dd…`	CR-02, CR-03, AC-01
`ev_d154ab37597a9b73`	sitemap_parse	`https://www.tln.example/sitemap_index.xml`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:4d6732ce00845d6f…`	CR-03
`ev_fa39beb45d74a750`	sitemap_parse	`https://tln.example/sitemap_index.xml`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:4d6732ce00845d6f…`	CR-03
`ev_f353c2379dbf2b58`	sitemap_parse	`https://tln.example/sitemap_index.xml`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:4d6732ce00845d6f…`	CR-03
`ev_fb024d14a488d2b4`	sitemap_parse	`https://tln.example/sitemap-index.xml`	404	failed	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:49d36c58e4108c88…`	CR-03
`ev_16a3d2a633709343`	sitemap_parse	`https://tln.example/post-sitemap1.xml`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:8eba989e647f4640…`	CR-03
`ev_3cb6b839c57551e4`	sitemap_parse	`https://tln.example/post-sitemap2.xml`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:3ca6024c1ea785f3…`	CR-03
`ev_ad35824500b46269`	sitemap_parse	`https://tln.example/post-sitemap3.xml`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:f9a2c7fdb2b53fec…`	CR-03
`ev_3edbd1aef52d3dce`	sitemap_parse	`https://tln.example/page-sitemap.xml`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:32ca158a8dab10b8…`	CR-03
`ev_7f2f70056886646a`	sitemap_parse	`https://tln.example/category-sitemap.xml`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:a2158b1c1dca51de…`	CR-03
`ev_99d14a7a9a1356f6`	html_parse	`https://tln.example/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:d93a201a7c953514…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_606797b76fc96939`	html_parse	`https://tln.example/home/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:82ffeb27648765ba…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_b445e84670f54e32`	html_parse	`https://tln.example/news/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:4639eea6c391c6a9…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_d1f573c71d58c005`	html_parse	`https://tln.example/blog-2/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:45ba7a8210e88da2…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_fe5fd6c5ea2e9d0b`	html_parse	`https://tln.example/ignite/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:429cdc330557513b…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_beab59f1a0d75efa`	html_parse	`https://tln.example/stayfit/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:f9d094987291e0b9…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_533a947e75fb1454`	html_parse	`https://tln.example/clients/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:c463bb5afd6c5cc6…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_20db27d55bf0d2ce`	html_parse	`https://tln.example/hpleads/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:7e6f1c5bbcaca836…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_b37377d0b34709dd`	html_parse	`https://tln.example/services/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:41e4841d845fab8d…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_ace5d25f7b5f281a`	html_parse	`https://tln.example/our-work/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:80b35404d8929c2e…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_74a7afb5944f24b4`	html_parse	`https://tln.example/about-us/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:4b2fb343e2406a3e…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_7e00cac0856f7903`	html_parse	`https://tln.example/staff-profile-1/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:e1ed620cb4a942a9…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_f54d4bae51c56146`	html_parse	`https://tln.example/contact-us/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:e0a66cfef90def27…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_b0f870cbf41d2903`	html_parse	`https://tln.example/post-a-job/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:25abf9f1355063a0…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_256d9221cb55fc9d`	html_parse	`https://tln.example/staff-profile-2/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:94242496cd02d5b1…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_aa2e9ab6dd1e8f25`	html_parse	`https://tln.example/staff-profile-3/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:5ee98a29f3d47f22…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_78bd5fdee77211b6`	html_parse	`https://tln.example/about-tln/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:4cd6744b602f99f4…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_39623d4996324664`	html_parse	`https://tln.example/privacy-policy/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:d3799ce27be4542a…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_71a73f58da570fbf`	html_parse	`https://tln.example/staff-profile-4/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:3a9ef1878018b306…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_f8786f28d904928e`	html_parse	`https://tln.example/marketing-blog/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:6386f84ef2199203…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_d8980d07a0f5aa30`	html_parse	`https://tln.example/best-practices/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:39563ff5fb55429f…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_2250433ade140bec`	html_parse	`https://tln.example/success-stories/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:eab3559e09b1155d…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_f1e6c7ff8c323ad6`	html_parse	`https://tln.example/request-for-proposal/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:46994447ad3df79a…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_04bd20d2f7beefa2`	html_parse	`https://tln.example/ignite-your-lead-funnel/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:e3354d9254af5a4f…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_7d6559a31700f0a0`	html_parse	`https://tln.example/improve-campaign-results/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:f4b7400b7bc570f6…`	CR-01, CR-04, CR-05, CI-01, CI-02, CI-03
`ev_62b65440572d4ba4`	http_get	`https://tln.example/llms.txt`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:0e31cc0cc50b4968…`	AC-02
`ev_eaf0dcced0528513`	http_get	`https://tln.example/llms-full.txt`	404	failed	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:5842cfb0faa31e56…`	AC-02
`ev_0b7f8ce041452a69`	http_get	`https://tln.example/ai.txt`	404	failed	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:d5cf56ea425d9e97…`	AC-02
`ev_c9beb38676fa86cf`	http_get	`https://tln.example/.well-known/security.txt`	404	failed	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:d7cb2c3b4080c8ff…`	AC-02
`ev_6c59284a5b78e0fe`	http_head	`https://tln.example/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:e3b0c44298fc1c14…`	CR-04
`ev_49f05d0c66d4af2e`	http_head	`https://tln.example/`	200	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:e3b0c44298fc1c14…`	CR-04
`ev_1d50b84123a82be3`	derived_analysis	`https://tln.example/`	—	success	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00	`sha256:3e5202d9e6da4411…`	CR-01, CR-03, TA-01, TA-04

Scoring methodology and rating scale

Rubric version 0.2 carries 100 points across 8 dimensions and 33 checks. A check marked not applicable, or left inconclusive, is removed from the denominator rather than scored as zero.

Rating scale.
Rating	Points awarded	Meaning
Complete	100% of the check's points	Clear, consistent, and evidenced implementation
Substantial	75% of the check's points	Strong implementation with limited gaps
Partial	50% of the check's points	Useful implementation with material gaps
Minimal	25% of the check's points	Weak or inconsistent evidence
Missing	0% of the check's points	No support found or a reproducible failure exists
Inconclusive	Unscored; removed from the denominator	Collection or scope prevents a reliable decision
Not applicable	Unscored; removed from the denominator	The check does not apply to this target; its points leave the denominator

Scoring rules

Every awarded or deducted point requires captured evidence.
Evidence must include the URL, observation time, collection method, and relevant excerpt or machine result.
Deterministic checks run before LLM interpretation.
An LLM may summarize evidence but may not create a fact, credential, relationship, or technical result.
A check marked not applicable removes its points from the denominator. The report must show the adjusted denominator.
A technical failure to retrieve evidence is not automatically a customer failure. Record it as inconclusive until reproduced.
Scores compare a site to this rubric version, not to an absolute guarantee of AI visibility.

The interpretation is advisory. A high score does not guarantee visibility, citation, sentiment, traffic, or revenue. A low score does not prove that a site is absent from AI-generated answers.

Audit record

What this report was produced from. A reader who wants to reproduce or challenge a finding starts here.

Provenance for this run.
Field	Value
Audited domain	tln.example
Audit identifier	aud_20260901T114719Z_77cb07cf
Audit date (UTC)	2026-09-01T11:48:22+00:00
Rubric version	0.2
Tool version	adia/0.1.0
Operator	Chris Brock LLC
Reviewer	Claude Code (operator-assisted review), pending Chris Brock sign-off
Authorized by	Chris Brock (owner, 2026-08-30)
Pages sampled	25 of a 25 page limit, depth 2
Collection methods	bounded HTTP GET/HEAD over the standard library, robots.txt parsing, XML sitemap parsing, HTML parsing, JSON-LD parsing, operator review
Crawler user agent	ChrisBrockLLC-AIDiscoverabilityAudit/0.1 (+https://chrisbrock.io/crawler; operator-run audit; contact via site)
Excluded paths	None
Report retention	2027-08-30

Executive summary and fit classification

The three highest-value actions

Overall score, adjusted denominator, and confidence

Why the denominator is not 100

Highest-value actions

What is working

Page-structure checklist

Delivery context

Findings and evidence

CR · Crawl and retrieval accessibility (15 points)

CR-06 · Body text is machine-readable prose

CR-05 · Rendered content availability

CR-03 · Sitemap quality

CR-01 · Stable successful retrieval

CR-02 · Robots and crawler directives

CR-04 · Canonical and duplicate control

EN · Entity clarity (15 points)

EN-01 · Organization identity consistency

EN-03 · People and authorship identity

EN-02 · Product and service identity

EN-04 · External identity reconciliation

CI · Citation readiness (20 points)

CI-01 · Direct answer passages

CI-02 · Claim support

CI-03 · Stable passage structure

CI-04 · Source attribution

CI-05 · Content freshness signals

TA · Topical coverage and authority (15 points)

TA-03 · Comparative and decision content

TA-04 · Internal topic relationships

TA-02 · First-hand experience

TA-01 · Priority-question coverage

TE · Trust and evidence (15 points)

TE-03 · Customer and outcome evidence

TE-02 · Expertise and credential support

TE-04 · Policy and limitation clarity

TE-01 · Ownership and accountability

SD · Structured data (10 points)

SD-04 · Metadata consistency

SD-01 · Valid core entities

SD-02 · Entity relationships

SD-03 · Page-specific markup

AC · AI and agent controls (5 points)

AC-01 · Intentional crawler treatment

AC-03 · Agent-facing transaction boundaries

AC-02 · Machine-readable guidance quality

MR · Measurement readiness (5 points)

MR-01 · Baseline question set

MR-02 · Referral and conversion attribution

MR-03 · Recheck discipline

Page-by-page collection results

Entity and source-consistency map

People and authorship

External properties linked from the site

Structured-data identifiers

Answer-ready content briefs

Structured-data backlog

SD-04 — currently substantial

Thirty-day implementation sequence

Days 1-7: retrieval, identity, and directives

Days 8-16: structure, evidence, and structured data

Days 17-30: coverage, comparison, and measurement

Measurement plan and limitations

Baseline question set

Next steps

What this measurement cannot tell you

Limitations of this audit

Machine-readable JSON appendix

Scoring methodology and rating scale

Scoring rules

Audit record