# Chapter 5 · Writing pages (3): common questions, treatment facts and risk pages > GEO Playbook · Dental & Aesthetics v1.0 · Canlah AI · CC BY 4.0 · Web page: https://canlah.ai/playbook/dental/fact-pages/ > Markdown edition for AI assistants, same content as the web page. Figures are code blocks (wireframe / mermaid / bars / steps / split); "→" links open the matching section on the web, and the same URL with .md is its Markdown edition. ## 5.9 ⑥ One question, one page: Medisave-type questions **What you'll do in this section**: Give each high-frequency question about MediSave, CHAS and similar schemes its own page (one question, one page), with the first sentence giving a straight Yes/No or a number. Keep the regulation section and the price section apart: this page carries only the regulation section, and the final tax-inclusive price stays on the single-service price page. When you're done, you'll have a regulation-section template you can fill in as it stands, and you won't get into trouble by squeezing both sections onto the same screen. ```wireframe id=pt06 Figure: one question, one page, short version; what AI copies is the answer paragraph right under the H1 H1 | The buyer's original question, word for word | req Answer paragraph | First sentence gives Yes/No or a figure, conditions in the 2nd and 3rd sentences, 40–90 words | req,cite,law Boundary sentence | Which part cannot be judged online, and who judges it | opt Source line | Source + check date | req,law Own-fact paragraph | Sub-heading "At ", 1–2 sentences of own facts only | opt Byline and date | One line | opt Related questions | 3–4 items, each linking to its own URL | opt ``` ```mermaid Figure: first check whether the question mentions symptoms, then decide how to write this page flowchart LR q{"Claim limit/eligibility, or symptoms?"} -->|mentions symptoms or complications| eight["Switch to the 5.11 remedy-page approach"]:::warn q -->|only claim limit or eligibility| six["Stay here: regulation section + price-page link"]:::hl ``` What the figure cannot show: why the clinic's own price does not go on this page. Putting the official figure and the clinic's own price side by side in the same table is banned by Statute text (see Appendix A.1), and by default the two do not appear even in the paragraphs directly above or below each other [Conservative line (not statute text)]; the short version of this page type has only a few paragraphs to begin with, so two sections on the same page are hard to keep truly apart. For how to judge this, see chapter 1, 1.3. Dental-specific approach: 1. The answer is general information, not a diagnosis for a specific patient. If the question contains any word for a symptom or complication, do not use this page type; switch to the 5.11 clinical skeleton instead. 2. For subsidy figures such as MediSave and CHAS, check them word for word against the official CPF and MOH pages, and note the check date on the page. 3. The regulation section states the table number and the check date; not a single one of the clinic's prices appears inside it, and it does not sit next to the clinic's own-price section. 4. The brand name appears only in the own-price section, and that section states only the final tax-inclusive price and the mandatory inclusions. Until you have settled how to keep the two sections apart, put the whole own-price section on the single-service price page and leave only one link to it on this page (Conservative line (not statute text)). Do not link to vendor pages. > **Example** (dental) An official CPF page answers the question whether MediSave can be used for dental implants, with the H1 "Can I use MediSave to pay for my dental implant?": the H1 matches the buyer's original wording, and the answer section runs three sentences — first Yes with the condition attached, then the claim limit, and the last sentence is a worked example. Both AI legs cited this passage. See （→ 通用版 5.17 一问一页（pt06）） for the general-edition approach. ## 5.10 ⑦ Eligibility and process page: can I have it, how many visits, how long **What you'll do in this section**: Write the H1 as a task-style statement, and put the spec strip first and the step table after it; write eligibility conditions as "to be judged by the treating doctor after an examination", and state duration only as how long the procedure itself takes. When you're done, you'll have an eligibility and process page template that never hands the reader a self-diagnosis. ```wireframe id=pt07 Figure: eligibility and process page; AI most often copies the verdict in the first H2's first sentence and the steps table H1 | Task-style statement | req Byline and date line | Named reviewer for personal-safety pages; "Last updated" for others | opt Conclusion block | Five-cell spec strip + own sentence + market sentence | req,law H2 main question | First sentence answers directly, ≤35 words | req,cite Steps table | Step / Result, each row states the duration and the number of visits | req,cite Conditions H2 | Numbered H3s covering every case, or a fact × explanation × when-it-applies table | req Bring-list H2 | 3–8 items | opt Itemised fees H2 | Item or service / Fees | req Parts that cannot be judged online H2 | 40–80 words | opt,law Branches after assessment H2 | Four-column branch table; the price cell states the final price or "confirmed after assessment" | opt Risks and exceptions H2 | General risks only, never written as an individual diagnosis | opt,law Alternatives H2 | Option / When / Time / Price | opt Who makes the final call H2 | Who decides, and at what point, ≤50 words | opt FAQ | H3 questions, 40–60 words each | opt ``` ```split Figure: eligibility conditions and duration — every cell has a way to write it that does not hand the reader a diagnosis Never || Rewrite as A self-test checklist saying "if you have these, you're a candidate" || "Whether you're a candidate is judged by the treating doctor after an examination" Conditions reduced to one line, "it depends" || Spell out the conditions: bone volume, whether an extraction is needed first, healing time Duration written as when the results show up || State only how long the procedure takes: number of surgeries, number of months Stating a success rate || State the branches after examination: what's found, what happens next ``` What the figure cannot show: why the first cell on the left cannot stay. Writing the eligibility conditions as a checklist the reader can test themselves against is the same as letting the reader diagnose themselves. That is a safety issue, not a style preference. Outside the figure, one more point: state only the final tax-inclusive price; where it can only be fixed after an examination, write "to be determined after examination". Do not link to vendor pages; government pages may be linked. > **Example** (dental) Sample wording, not a measured original sentence. Own sentence: "At , a single implant without bone grafting takes 2 surgeries and 4–6 months from placement to the final crown; whether bone grafting is needed is decided by the treating dentist after reviewing the CBCT." Market sentence: "In Singapore, a single implant generally takes 3–9 months, depending on bone volume, whether an extraction is needed first, and healing time." See （→ 通用版 5.18 资格流程页（pt07）） for the general-edition approach. ## 5.11 ⑧ Remedy and second-opinion page: the clinical skeleton **What you'll do in this section**: Lay out the blocks by the clinical skeleton — safety first, causes after — and do not move a single block out of order. Write the subject as the patient's situation, assign no blame, state no rescue rate, and put no CTA after the red-flag section. When you're done, you'll have a remedy-page template you can hand straight to the medical reviewer for written sign-off and launch. ```wireframe id=pt08-safety Figure: personal-safety remedy page; not one slot in the order may move; AI copies the first-screen definition sentence and the red-flag table H1 + byline line | H1 states the situation; the line below carries both the author's and the reviewer's names + date | req What to do now | First-screen labelled box: one definition sentence + 3–4 actions | req,cite Red-flag table | If you notice / Do this / How soon, in three levels | req,cite,law Things not to judge yourself | 3–5 items | req Assessment process | Step / What happens / Time + a "please bring" list | req Possible pathways | Conditional branch table; this is the first place on the page where "cause" appears | req,law Itemised fee table | The assessment states the final price; treatment fees state "confirmed in writing after assessment" | req Complaint and regulatory channels | Written only when there's a complaint or harm, one sentence per channel stating what it covers | opt Author bio + References | ≤100 words each | req FAQ | H3 questions, 3–6 items | opt ``` The cited sample for this type is only 2 pages (n = 2); treat the basis for the blueprint as a small sample. ```split Figure: wording for the remedy page — the subject is the patient's situation, not another clinic Never || Rewrite as "another clinic messed it up", "failed elsewhere", "to the rescue" || "what checks are needed for a loose implant" rescue rate, success rate || the checks involved and how long they take case history, before-and-after photos || the procedures available and when each one is suitable a "free check-up" CTA right after the red-flag section || no CTA follows; move to the next block in the skeleton explaining the cause first, letting the reader self-diagnose || what to do now, plus the three levels of red flag, come first ``` The exception the figure cannot show: the H1 may neutrally mention where earlier treatment was done (for example, "including implants placed at another clinic"); what's banned is only assigning blame, disparaging another clinic, and unproven claims of failure. For the fixed public-facing wording, see chapter 4, 4.2. Dental-specific approach: 1. Do not move a single block out of order: what to do now → three levels of red flag → what you should not judge yourself → the examination process → possible pathways (the first time "cause" appears on the whole page) → itemised fees → complaints and regulatory channels → author bio and References. When AI answers this type of question itself, it puts safety first 2 times out of 2 — order the page this way to match. 2. Use these exact table headers: red flags `If you notice / Do this / How soon`; pathways `If the assessment finds / Possible pathway / Who does it`; indications and contraindications `May be suitable / Not suitable`; triggers and prevention `Trigger / Why It Matters / Prevention Step`. 3. State the final tax-inclusive price for the check-up and CBCT; write the treatment fee as "to be determined in writing after the examination" — never dress up a range as a final price. Do not link to vendor pages. 4. Before the page goes live, the medical-accuracy reviewer gives a written sign-off. A written sign-off resolves only the three stop-and-escalate situations; it never turns something banned as Statute text into something publishable. Before-and-after photos, for one, cannot go back on the page even with a sign-off (see chapter 1, 1.1; see Appendix A.1, A.2). > **Example** (dental) Sample wording, not a measured original sentence. Own sentence: "At , an implant review + CBCT costs S$___ (incl. GST); any treatment fee is determined in writing after this examination." Market sentence: "In Singapore, a problem implant is generally treated by salvage, removal and replacement, or a different restoration, depending on infection, bone loss and whether the implant is still stable." Both cited pages carry close to 0 numbers across the whole page; they rely on conditions and indications instead. Besides the last row in the figure (that's a safety issue, not a formatting one), the most common mistake is a page using multiple H1s: one of the cited-sample pages marked TL;DR, FAQ and CTA all as H1. A page is allowed only one H1. See （→ 通用版 5.19 补救与二次评估页（pt08）） for the general-edition approach. ## 5.12 ⑫ Definition page: MedicalWebPage **What you'll do in this section**: Nail down the reviewer line, the six fixed H2 blocks and the schema — all three. Write every H3 as the buyer's original question, and the first sentence under each one must be a conditional "if … then …" sentence: AI can write the definition itself; what it goes online to find is the conditions. When you're done, you'll have a definition-page template that passes compliance review. ```wireframe id=pt12 Figure: Definition page; AI copies the conditional sentence under each H3 question Reviewer line | named reviewer + date, above the summary | opt,law First-screen summary | 100–150 words, in this fixed order: what it is / when it's needed / how long recovery takes | req One-sentence definition, written twice | once under H1, then word for word again under the first H2 | req Every H3 written as the buyer's original question | What is / How painful / How long… | req First sentence under each H3 is a conditional | if , then | req,cite ``` What the figure cannot show: why the "Recovery" block is where you are most likely to cross the line. It is one of the fixed H2 blocks the medical version must have, and it runs straight into the banned item "recovery time" in chapter 1, 1.5. This block holds only the original text and aftercare instructions quoted word for word from the IFU / NEA, with the source marked; do not write a recovery time in the clinic's own words (Conservative line (not statute text)). Handle the "how long to recover" sentence in the first-screen summary the same way. See 5.15 for the full approach. Dental-specific approach: 1. The reviewer line is mandatory, placed above the H1: named doctor + SDC/SMC registration number + month and year. 2. The medical version has six fixed H2 blocks, in this order, not to be changed: Overview, Procedure Details, Risks and Benefits, Recovery, When to See a Doctor, Doctor's Note. 3. Use the MedicalWebPage + Person (reviewer) schema. 4. Align the risk section item by item with the IFU / NEA original text and mark the source; handle the "Recovery" block the same way — see the previous paragraph. 5. Do not state a success rate, and do not use superlatives such as "most advanced". > **Example** (dental) A hospital's bone-grafting definition page was copied 10 times, every time landing on the first sentence under an H3 question, and every one a conditional sentence — not once was the first-screen summary copied. See （→ 通用版 5.23 问题与规则类档 B（一）：监管义务、定义词条） for the general-edition approach. ## 5.13 ⑬ Procedure steps, ⑭ preparation lists and ⑯ schedule pages **What you'll do in this section**: All three types are pure fact pages — write one page each for steps, the checklist and the dates, with no efficacy adjectives mixed in anywhere. When you're done, you'll have three page skeletons you can fill in directly, where the time field states only how long the process takes, never when the results arrive. ### Step-by-step procedure page (pt13) ```wireframe id=pt13 Figure: Step-by-step procedure page; what AI copies are cells from the step table and the form table H1 | starts with a verb + track qualifier | req Deliverable sentence | one sentence stating what this page provides | req Step table | Step / Result, with the time limit fixed in the cell | req,cite Form table | document name / form number and source | req,cite Official fee table | Item or service / Fees | req H3s split by channel | one block each for online / offline | opt ``` Dental-specific approach: 1. State time frames only as how long the process takes, never as when results show up: the regulator lists claims like "straight teeth in 2 weeks" directly as soliciting (Statute text; see Appendix A). Writing that into the step table is the same as slipping a results promise into a facts field. 2. Keep the application steps for official subsidies in their own section, not mixed in with ordinary visit steps. ### Preparation and bring-list page (pt14) ```wireframe id=pt14 Figure: Preparation and bring-list page; AI copies the timing sentence and "what we already provide" Timing sentence | at the top, when to start preparing | req,cite ID/document group | institutions' proper names written out in full | req Fasting or emergency-referral items | their own bullet, never folded into a paragraph | req,law Reverse checklist | already provided / no need to bring, a two-column table | req,cite Grouping rule | grouping by identity copies best, then by time, then a one-page checkbox sheet | req ``` Dental-specific approach: 1. This is the second-safest page type in the industry, after the store/branch page — the whole page is factual items, with no price or efficacy content. 2. Three ways to lay it out, ranked by how copyable they are: grouped by who the reader is > grouped by timing > a one-page PDF with checkboxes. Prefer the one ranked higher. 3. Do not use efficacy adjectives such as "painless" or "quick recovery". > **Example** (dental) A national dental centre's pre-treatment preparation page had 3 items copied by AI — arrange for someone to take you home if you're having sedation or general anaesthesia; bring your NRIC, referral letter and Medisave-related documents; call ahead if you have upper respiratory symptoms such as fever or cough — AI laid the answer out directly as checkboxes, one checkbox per page item. ### Schedule and deadline page (pt16) ```wireframe id=pt16 Figure: Schedule and deadline page; AI copies the first-screen date range and the date table H1 | the process name, no year | req First-screen sentence | who can apply + this year's opening date | req,cite Four fixed H2 sections | Criteria→Procedure→Schedule→Enquiries | req Two-column date table | Period / Actions, three rows for application/shortlisting/results | req,cite Eligibility judgement | this type does not write conditional reasoning | no ``` Dental-specific approach: 1. State appointment windows and follow-up intervals only as how long the process takes, never as when results happen. See （→ 通用版 5.24 问题与规则类档 B（二）：办事步骤、准备清单） for the general-edition approach to the step-by-step procedure page and the preparation list page; see （→ 通用版 5.25 问题与规则类档 B（三）：日程、集合 FAQ、政策 hub、变更公告、误解纠正） for the schedule page. ## 5.14 ㉒ Collected FAQ page: the most useful page for dental and aesthetics **What you'll do in this section**: Turn ten real questions about the brand's services into one page — one block per question, 40–80 words per answer, the conclusion in the first sentence, and a footnoted source for every key number. When you're done, you'll have the most useful page type for regulated clinics, where a single URL can feed several citations at once. ```wireframe id=pt22 Figure: Collected FAQ page; several Q&A blocks on the same page get copied separately Whole page alternates Q and A | no body paragraphs, no lead-in | req Question written in the buyer's own words | each one independent | req Each answer 40–80 words | the first sentence is the conclusion | req,cite One-sentence answer with a threshold | copied even when placed further down | req,cite Footnote numbers | superscripts 1, 2, 3 on key claims | opt schema | FAQPage | opt ``` What the figure cannot show: this type can be built on the regulated sides, and it's the most useful one for regulated clients (measured sample); but an FAQ is not an exempt zone: every answer sentence still goes through the banned-word list in chapter 1, 1.5. Dental-specific approach: 1. Scale claims such as "2 million cases worldwide" go up only after passing the six checks for numbers; see （→ 通用版 5.10 页型共用件：数字六项检查、无公开价、计价单位、日期与 schema） for how. 2. Align the side-effects section item by item with the IFU / NEA original text — no softening, no omissions; see 5.15 for how. The "Pain" and "Recovery" blocks hold only the side-effects text and aftercare instructions quoted word for word from the IFU / NEA, with the source marked; do not write a pain level or recovery time in the clinic's own words (Conservative line (not statute text)). 3. Do not write "free consultation". > **Example** (aesthetics) On an aesthetic clinic's FAQ page, 3 of the 7 citations in a single answer came from this page, copied respectively from its what-it-is, pain and recovery question-and-answer blocks — one page supplied three fragments. See （→ 通用版 5.25 问题与规则类档 B（三）：日程、集合 FAQ、政策 hub、变更公告、误解纠正） for the general-edition approach. ## 5.15 ㉜ Regulatory document alignment page: side-effect sections for aesthetic devices **What you'll do in this section**: Align the side-effects section item by item with the regulatory document's original text and mark the source, in the fixed format "Per (): 'original text'". Link only to government sources; for vendor documents, state only the document name and version. When you're done, you'll have a side-effects section that can stand next to the regulatory document, without the compliance risk of writing a softer version than the original. ```wireframe id=pt32 Figure: Device and product regulatory documents; the side-effects sentence goes into the answer almost unchanged Carrier 1 | IFU relay page, very short body + PDF link | opt Carrier 2 | regulator explainer page, single H2 grouping, four blocks | opt Carrier 3 | official approval document, indications listed clause by clause | opt Side-effects wording | matches the regulatory document verbatim and cites its source | req,cite Scope of indications | listed clause by clause | req,cite Writing your own softer wording | inconsistent with the regulator's own wording | no ``` ```split Figure: two ways to write the side-effects section — AI only trusts the one aligned with the regulatory document Clinic's own account || Aligned with the regulatory document "mild discomfort, recovery within a day or two" || copy the IFU / NEA original text item by item — no softening, no omissions no source marked || "Per (): ''" linking to the vendor's IFU page || state only the vendor document's name and version; NEA and FDA pages may be linked own-page side-effects section: 0 citations || the regulatory document: goes into the answer almost verbatim ``` What the figure cannot show: why writing it "softer" is actually more dangerous — for claims about efficacy and side effects, AI trusts only the regulator's wording, not the clinic's own account. A softer version you write yourself won't get cited, and being inconsistent with the regulator's wording is itself a compliance risk. The cited regulatory documents come in three formats: an IFU relay page with only 30 words of body text and three PDF links; an NEA educational page written in four blocks (what the device is / who can operate it / what adverse reactions it has / how long they take to ease); and an FDA 510(k) filing that lists indications item by item — all three were cited. Outside the figure, two more points: 1. On the "don't link to vendor pages" cell: for dental pages this is Statute text (SDC 5.4.6, last paragraph; see Appendix A.2). That rule only governs dentists; on aesthetic pages the practitioner is a doctor, and Appendix A has no equivalent original sentence on the doctors' side (the original SMC ECEG document was not opened), so for aesthetic pages this cell is treated as Original text not obtained (still no vendor links; see 1.1). 2. Aesthetic devices fall under HSA, matching switch C (regulated products); see 0.2 for how that's decided. Of the 46 page types, dental clinics do not build the case-law page; in healthcare, this page is its equivalent (see 0.3). > **Example** (aesthetics) The side-effects sentence on NEA's page about high-intensity focused ultrasound devices, which lists pain, swelling, bruising, tingling and erythema during or after treatment as mostly temporary and easing in about a week (paraphrased), was carried almost verbatim into the AI's answer. See （→ 通用版 5.28 源头类档 B（一）：法条、监管指引、官方答复、器械文件、判例） for the general-edition approach.