5.30 The four tier-C types: unverified page types
What you'll do in this section: recognise that these four types have been seen only in an external teardown and that we have measured none of them ourselves. When you're done, you'll have a blueprint for the Buyer's selection framework (pt43), which is the strictly regulated side's lawful substitute for getting onto the list shelf, plus a one-line scheduling call for each of the other three types: all four types come after tier A and tier B.
⚠️ None of the four types has been measured by us: not one of the citations we measured supports them, and the teardown target's own pages of these types don't even rank organically. The teardown measures organic rankings and we measure AI citations; numbers from the two rulers cannot be read as one. We still write them up below so that the catalogue is complete and the next round can take them straight into testing. Evidence: see → General Edition A.4 Page-type measurements (2): tier B and C samples, and the AI Mode retest list.
pt43 Buyer's selection framework
When to use: buyers ask "how do I choose a <provider type>?" It looks like → General Edition 5.18 Eligibility and process page (pt07) but the intent differs: pt07 answers "can I do this, what does it take, how do I apply"; this type answers "how do I choose a provider". Which leg cites it has not been measured. Going by the two-leg pattern, we infer it leans toward AI Mode, so only a follow-up measurement on the AI Mode leg can give the first piece of evidence: any citation moves it up from tier C; 0 citations keeps it at n = 0.
Why this is the only tier-C type we draw a blueprint for: the strict side cannot self-build a list (see → General Edition 5.16 List page (pt05)), and a "how to choose X" criteria-based selection guide (it lists criteria, does not rank and names no one) is its lawful substitute for getting onto that shelf. Not measured, 65% confidence; we recommend scheduling one per industry as a control.
Compliance points specific to this page type: how comparisons and lists are written on each of the three sides is covered only in → General Edition 5.3 Quick reference by side (2): testimonials and reviews, comparisons, lists, titles, outbound links, FAQ and captions. Applied to this type: on the strict side, and whenever switch E (peer comparison banned) is on, delete the two blocks marked law in the diagram (the comparison matrix and the per-provider cards), and keep only three blocks in the main body: evaluation dimensions, the limits of the diagnosis and the RFP questions. The lightly regulated side may include how fees are charged and a verification checklist, and its result numbers must pass the six checks for numbers. The unregulated side uses the blueprint as it is, per-provider comparison included.
Length and sample sentences: the external teardown gives 2,100–3,700 words, 11–19 H2s and 1–2 tables. Treat these as a reference only: set the length by the page type and stop when the page is complete (see → General Edition 5.7 Seven rules that hold for every page type). Sample sentence (not measured): write the own sentence as "a firm fact about us on <a dimension> + the check date".
Most common mistake (inferred, not measured): writing it as "here's how to choose, and by the way we're the best". Restraint is the precondition for this type: the FAQ names your own brand in at most 2 items, and one item states "always confirm current scope with the vendor directly".
The other three types: one row each
| Page type | The measured neighbour to do first | Why it comes later | How to schedule it |
|---|---|---|---|
| pt44 Concept pillar page | pt12 Definition page | pt12 has measured citations; pt44 has 0 | Do pt12 first; pt44 is still to be verified. For how to split it from the Comparison page, see the figure below |
| pt45 News and policy explainer | pt34 Change notice / old-vs-new page (about changes to your own business or your own jurisdiction) | Citations for rule-type questions land almost entirely on the official original page; commercial pages get 0 citations. AI is more likely to cite the original page directly than your explainer | Schedule it for defence and to piggyback on the rule-question leg, not as a traffic page. On the regulated sides, the strongest case is an explainer of a regulation amendment (for wording by side, see the page-type row in → General Edition 5.3 Quick reference by side (2): testimonials and reviews, comparisons, lists, titles, outbound links, FAQ and captions) |
| pt46 Market observation page | None | The weakest evidence of all, and there is counter-evidence: the teardown target's own articles of this type are dead ends in the site's internal linking and do not even appear in the blog index | Without first-party data, don't write it and don't schedule it. A service provider may run it on its own blog for its own use, but there it works as a brand asset, not as a page that gets cited |
pt12's card is in → General Edition 5.23 Tier-B questions and rules types (1): regulatory obligations, definitions, pt34's is in → General Edition 5.25 Tier-B questions and rules types (3): schedules, collected FAQ, policy hubs, change notices, misconceptions. The blueprints for these three types are not in the main text; each is labelled in full "not measured, spec taken from an external teardown" and placed in → General Edition B.5 Blueprints for unverified page types (for industry editions to include). When you test the four types, test 43, 44 and 45 first; 46 comes last.
The same applies to English titles: "which is better" belongs to pt04, "what's the difference" belongs to pt44. If the two can't be cleanly split, merge them into one page.
Example (medical, not measured): the title "Dental implants vs bridges: differences, indications and cost difference" contains "differences", so it belongs to pt44, not to the Comparison page. The strict side can build it too, but it compares procedures only, not clinics.
For pt45 to piggyback on the rule-question leg, there is only one way to write it: quote the rule word for word, date it, link back to the original page, then add one sentence on "what it specifically means for your line of business". In our measurements, what got copied was always these four things: "who / from which date / what must be done / the penalty for not doing it"; not one sentence of opinion was ever copied (inferred, with indirect support from measurements). Sample sentence (not measured): "As of <effective date>, <the new rule> requires <who> to do <what>; the direct impact on <a category of people in this industry> is <one sentence>."
5.31 Handing over: five steps per page, the red line on lying, and self-checks
What you'll do in this section: take every page through the same five steps before it goes live (brief → draft → non-author fact check → licence-holder compliance sign-off → launch acceptance, about 7 hours for an English page), and stop right there if any step gets stuck. Before launch, grep the whole site once against the banned-word list; before handing over, go through the self-check list for every page, and any question answered "no" sends the page back.
- 1 · 90 minutesWrite briefFewer than 5 exclusive facts: stop on the spot, change cluster
- 2 · 3 hoursWrite draftMissing a source: write a placeholder sentence, never make one up
- 3 · 60–90 minutesFact checkChecked by a non-author; if any item can't be found, it doesn't go live
- 4 · 30–45 minutesCompliance sign-offLicence holder checks the draft item by item and signs; unsigned means not live
- 5 · 45 minutesLaunch acceptanceIf a non-cached load doesn't show the new H1, or the page source has no body text: roll back
What each step delivers, and who accepts it:
| Step | Who does it | What it delivers | Who accepts it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Brief | The brief writer drafts it; the person running probes produces the gap table | brief-<intent-cluster>.md: the cluster's 3–6 intents in the buyers' own words, H1/H2 questions, 5 or more exclusive facts + fact-table row numbers, 3 or more outbound-link candidates, a gap table of cited sources, and a list of banned phrases picked out by side | The owner's signature |
| 2 Draft | The page writer | draft-<slug>.md, with frontmatter carrying intent_ids, page type, language and side; wherever a source is missing, write [Source needed] | — |
| 3 Fact check | Non-author (a different person) | factcheck-<slug>.md: an item-by-item verdict + where the evidence is + the checker's signature and date | The checker signs and is personally responsible |
| 4 Compliance | The owner + the licensed signatory | The compliance memo with every item ticked + the scan result against the Chinese–English banned-word list (hits must be zero) + the written sign-off | The signatory |
| 5 Launch | The person who edits the site | The site change record + the accept-<slug>.md acceptance sheet + the page-register entry (intent cluster, buyer type, URL, launch date = split day, version) + one off-site target | The brief writer |
A Chinese page counts as about 0.8 of a page of work and is scheduled on a separate day, through the same five steps. Only step 3 differs: it does not look for new evidence; it only checks that the fact-table row numbers and figures match the English page. None of the other four steps is cut: rewriting the question phrasing and writing independent answer sentences are done in step 2, and the three Chinese-page hard gates (the H1 contains the country name; the amount in the first paragraph carries its currency and says whether tax is included; the body names at least one real station or area, see → General Edition 5.9 Content form, FAQ, Chinese pages and other-language pages) are checked in step 5.
At step 5, when you accept the page, also log one off-site target, "which source should cite this page", and hand it to the off-site queue. If you write the page but push nothing off-site, the output never leaves your own site (for the other constraints on assigning tasks, see → General Edition B.4 Headers for work orders, ledgers and monthly reports).
Self-check list
Before handing over, check every page in this order: "positive gate → form → numbers → compliance → launch". Any row answered "no" is handled as the rightmost column says.
| Gate | What to check | What to do if the answer is "no" |
|---|---|---|
| Positive gate | First run the ban scan; sentences it removes don't count. Then list, one by one, the checkable facts on this page that can't be found anywhere outside your own site, and check that there are at least 5, each of which would change a buyer's choice between candidates (generic information every peer has doesn't count). You can name which independent source (an official register, a government page, a third-party review, a ranking body) confirms what you are a fit for or your credibility, with its name and URL written out | Fewer than 5: send it back to step 1 to change the intent cluster; no patching facts in during review, and no keeping a sentence the ban gate hit just to make up the count. Can't name an independent source: fill in the off-site source plan before launch |
| Form | The conclusion sits right under the H1 or in the first sentence of the first H2, and both sentences are in the first 30% of the body (on the strict side, and whenever switch E (peer comparison banned) is on, check that the second sentence is an official-basis sentence, see → General Edition 5.6 Two legs, two kinds of sentence); the first sentence of every paragraph makes sense out of context, and none opens with "it depends" or "it's complicated"; one URL fully answers only one intent and one buyer scenario; length and how H2 questions are written follow → General Edition 5.7 Seven rules that hold for every page type, and the conclusion block's spec follows → General Edition 5.8 The conclusion block, the density gate and the source gate | Fix it on the spot. A missing conclusion block, or one that doesn't match the body, is not an on-the-spot fix: send it back to step 2 to be completed |
| Numbers | Every number carries its unit, threshold and how it is counted; the numbers in the conclusion block match the table, number for number; every fact has a source and a check date, and anything out of date is marked historical or deleted; Ctrl+F in the page source finds your own prices, results and specs; the fact-check file is complete, and prices, registration numbers, rule text and statutory deadlines have been read back word for word by a non-author; the organisation's operating figures have a ledger export and a written sign-off | Wording problems: fix on the spot. Any item missing from the fact-check file: does not go live |
| Compliance | First decide the side, then scan item by item down your column in → General Edition 5.2 Quick reference by side (1): identify the advertiser first; prices, promotions and freebies, result numbers and → General Edition 5.3 Quick reference by side (2): testimonials and reviews, comparisons, lists, titles, outbound links, FAQ and captions, including a word-by-word scan against the Chinese–English banned-word list; scan the FAQ and the end-of-page Q&A as well, because they are not an exempt zone. Also scan for the general red lines: traffic multiples, ROI, conversion lift, guaranteed first place, exclusive, "independent review", and method leaks such as small numbers from a single question, how the probes are run, or the question list. The page passes professional review (pages that touch personal safety carry a reviewer's signature; remedy pages follow the order in → General Edition 5.19 Remedy and second-opinion page (pt08); statutory deadlines cite the original text). The compliance-reviewed draft carries the licence holder's written sign-off, and the banned-word scan shows zero hits; before launch, grep the whole site once against the banned-word list | Delete every hit and fill the same slot with the replacement wording from 5.2–5.3; the delivery note states "deleted X, replaced with Y"; after deleting, go back to the positive gate and recount. No written sign-off: does not go live |
| Launch | A non-cached load shows the new H1; view source shows the body text (no reliance on JS); fetches as the four identities match; IndexNow has been pinged and the receipt kept; the visible "Updated" line matches dateModified; the page register has logged the intent cluster, buyer type, URL, split day and version; the off-site target is logged; a test enquiry has been recorded | Roll back |
| Chinese pages: extra checks | The three Chinese-page hard gates (see 5.9); whether each H2 is in the Chinese buyer's own words or a literal translation of the English heading; whether the answer sentences were written independently or translated | Any hard gate missing: send it straight back, no fixing on the spot. An H2 or answer sentence that was translated: send it back to step 2 to be rewritten |
Example (education and training): grep the whole site for the six "approval"-type words "approved / accredited / endorsed / supported / validated / recognised", and replace each instance with a sourced factual sentence or with "registered".
The red line on lying
Neither the non-author fact check nor the compliance review may be skipped under any scheduling pressure, and not a minute of either may be cut. The sign-off has limits too: A written sign-off resolves only the three stop-and-escalate situations; it never turns something banned as Statute text into something publishable (see → General Edition 0.4 The three labels for compliance sentences, and the stop-and-escalate rule).
5.32 Master table of common mistakes
What you'll do in this section: go through this master table before handing over. Fix, one by one, the mistakes in the figure below that aren't written up elsewhere; for mistakes already covered in the page-type cards and neighbouring sections, this section keeps only one line and a link and does not repeat them.
dateModifiedThe two rows marked rule of thumb are not measured, the one row marked "not measured" is inferred, and the other six rows have measured evidence behind them. Evidence: see → General Edition A.2 Evidence for picking targets, writing pages, off-site and retests.
Mistakes covered elsewhere: one line and a link
| Mistake | Fix | See |
|---|---|---|
| Padding the word count to reach a minimum | Set the length by page type; stop when the page is complete | → General Edition 5.7 Seven rules that hold for every page type |
| Writing the H1 as a question, or every H2 as a question | The H1 is a statement; only the first H2 is a question | → General Edition 5.7 Seven rules that hold for every page type |
| A comparison page that compares only your own models, or puts the verdict mid-page | Competitors must be included; the verdict goes in the first sentence of the first H2 | → General Edition 5.15 Comparison page (pt04) |
| Turning one question, one page into one page with ten questions | One question, one URL | → General Edition 5.17 One question, one page (pt06) |
| Several H1s on one page | One H1 per page | → General Edition 5.19 Remedy and second-opinion page (pt08) |
| A remedy page that starts with the cause, is written as a self-test checklist, merges the two skeletons, or has an H1 blaming "another business did it badly" | Personal-safety type: order it "what to do now → red flags → what not to judge yourself → examinations → pathway → cost"; split the personal-safety type and the rights-deadline type into two pages; the subject is the buyer's situation | → General Edition 5.19 Remedy and second-opinion page (pt08) |
| 301-redirecting a byline after the person leaves | Keep the person profile page and mark it "formerly", or 301 the whole page to the directory; on business pages, only change the name to the person currently responsible | → General Edition 3.3 Person pages and six-trace alignment |
| Writing your own "best" list to answer "who's best" | Neither leg cites a self-built list, and on the regulated sides it also breaks the rules; use business profiles, third-party rankings, the product feed and the organisation facts page instead | → General Edition 5.6 Two legs, two kinds of sentence |
| Putting a market-range sentence into the feed or the Offer schema (not measured) | The feed and schema carry only your own real price | → General Edition 5.2 Quick reference by side (1): identify the advertiser first; prices, promotions and freebies, result numbers |
