# Chapter 5 · Writing pages (1): the 46 page types AI cites, and the rules for every page

> GEO Playbook · General Edition v1.0 · Canlah AI · CC BY 4.0 · Web page: https://canlah.ai/playbook/write-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.

## 5.1 The page-type map: 46 types, six families, three evidence tiers, availability by side

**What you'll do in this section**: look at one master map to see which of the six families each of the 46 cited page types belongs to, and which leg mainly cites each family. Then use the index tables that follow to look up each type's id, evidence tier, which leg mainly cites it, typical length, and availability by side. Schedule your work by these 46 types, not by the content-format list.

```mermaid id=page-families Figure: The buyer's question shape decides the page-type family; the family decides which leg mainly cites it
flowchart LR
  q["How the buyer asks"] -->|how much| f1["Price family"]
  q -->|who's best / which to pick| f2["Selection and reputation family"]
  q -->|is it allowed / what do I do| f3["Questions and rules family"]
  q -->|who is this / where| f4["Entity and product facts family"]
  q -->|what's the basis / which rule| f5["Primary sources family"]
  q -->|what to make of it| f6["Commentary family"]
  f1 --> both["Both legs cite it"]
  f2 --> aim["Mainly AI Mode"]:::hl
  f3 --> gpt["Mainly ChatGPT"]
  f4 --> gpt
  f5 --> src["ChatGPT looks for the source"]:::hl
  f6 --> unk["Not measured"]:::warn
```

Two things the figure cannot show. First, each type belongs to exactly one family and is never double-counted across families. Second, "which leg mainly cites it" is a family-level tendency: there are still exceptions inside the same family, and the leg for each individual type is in the index tables below.

The nine tier-A types have been measured on both legs, so they are the best-evidenced. The figure below looks at the same batch of tier-A types to see which lean ChatGPT and which lean AI Mode:

```bars Figure: Within tier A, official pricing and the official versions of one-question-one-page and eligibility-and-process pages skew ChatGPT; comparison pages and lists skew AI Mode
unit: %
Official pricing page · ChatGPT share | 87 | 27 / 31
One question, one page (government) · ChatGPT share | 87 | 20 / 23
Eligibility and process page (official) · ChatGPT share | 72 | 21 / 29
Comparison page · ChatGPT share | 15 | 3 / 20
List page · ChatGPT share | 21 | approx. 6 / 29
```

Why the split works this way: ChatGPT looks for the source (official pricing, government Q&A, process conditions) and then writes its own conclusion; AI Mode looks for second-hand summaries (comparisons, lists). Remember the exception: the one-question-one-page and eligibility-and-process figures above are for the government or official versions; when commercial sites write the same page types themselves, those pages appeared only on AI Mode in our measurements, on a very small sample (evidence in Appendix A.3).

### 46-type index, grouped by the six families

How to read this: **A** = measured in round 1, on both legs, followed by which leg mainly cites it; **B** = measured in round 2, on the ChatGPT leg only; **C** = seen only in an external teardown, not measured by us. Length is English word count. Text after "switch E →" shows how the cell changes once switch E (peer comparison banned) is on. **There are only four availability values**: build = may self-build, adapt = may do after rewriting, cite only = downstream citation only or fill in your own row only, stop = do not build. Labels follow the rule text; a cell without a label does not mean you may relax it. On the unregulated side you may self-build by default; exceptions are noted under each table.

#### Price family (8 types)

| id | page type | evidence · leg · length | strictly regulated side (strict side) | lightly regulated side (light side; "switch E →" = once switch E (peer comparison banned) is on) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pt01 | Single-service price page | A · mainly ChatGPT · 62–1,609 words | Build (write only the fixed final price; Statute text) | Build (a range must state the span and what's excluded) |
| pt02 | Price guide page | A · both legs, more AI Mode · 900–2,000 words | Adapt (no peer range; the official benchmark stands alone as its own section; label per the official-benchmark row in 5.2) | Build (a market range only as a stand-alone fact section with its source cited; Conservative line (not statute text)); switch E (peer comparison banned) → no peer range; feed the official-basis sentence and the procedure-variable sentence instead |
| pt03 | Official pricing page (/pricing) | A · mainly ChatGPT · 1,691–8,265 words | Stop, do pt01 instead | Adapt (switch B (legally required fields) → make it an all-in price page for the course or product, matched item by item to the official approved name); switch E (peer comparison banned) → stop, do pt01 instead |
| pt17 | Subsidy and limit rules page | B · approx. 1,600 words | Adapt (subsidies only as a stand-alone fact section, kept apart from your own price, no case-by-case confirmation tier; label per the official-benchmark row in 5.2) | Build (copy the subsidy rate from the official page and mark the check date) |
| pt27 | Parameter and rate basis page | B · 150–503 words | Adapt (must be the final tax-inclusive price; no ranges) | Build |
| pt37 | Category list page | B · 885 words | Stop (no listing peers, no category-by-category comparison); do the organisation's own service catalogue instead | Adapt (do the organisation's own catalogue; the name matches your registration); switch E (peer comparison banned) → stop |
| pt38 | Calculator page | B · 2,500–3,000 words | Adapt (only a process estimate; the output must not be a price commitment) | Build (the raw billing unit + a conversion formula); switch E (peer comparison banned) → write "final figure to be confirmed on formal engagement" |
| pt42 | Time-limited promotion page | B · length not retrieved (page blocked) | Stop (a discounted price with an expiry date; Statute text); do pt01 instead | Build (switch B (legally required fields) → a discount must state the full validity period and conditions) |

Exceptions on the unregulated side: the official version of pt17 cannot be self-built on any of the three sides; your own version only holds in industries that have a subsidy or limit system.

#### Selection and reputation family (8 types)

| id | page type | evidence · leg · length | strict side | light side ("switch E →" = once switch E (peer comparison banned) is on) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pt04 | Comparison page (A vs B) | A · AI Mode · approx. 1,200 words (brand's own) / approx. 4,000 words (media) | Adapt (compare approaches only, not businesses) | Adapt (compare approaches and delivery formats only, not businesses; Conservative line (not statute text)); switch E (peer comparison banned) → compare procedures only, not businesses (Statute text) |
| pt05 | List page (Best X for Y) | A · AI Mode · 2,100–9,000 words | Stop (Conservative line (not statute text) at the page-type level; ranking is itself a comparison, and it runs into the Statute text ban on comparisons — a sign-off cannot produce a publishable version) | Stop (Conservative line (not statute text); the client can relax it with written reasons); switch E (peer comparison banned) → stop |
| pt24 | Third-party single-business review | B · 1,200–5,000 words | Stop (Conservative line (not statute text)) | Stop (Conservative line (not statute text)) |
| pt25 | Sentiment, forum and news pages (a defensive item) | B · varies | Stop (cannot be self-built on any of the three sides; only add facts, never a reactive comparison) | Same as the strict side |
| pt28 | Review aggregate page | B · 800–2,200 words | Stop (a rating is itself a testimonial; Statute text) | Adapt (testimonials carry a name, relationship and year); switch E (peer comparison banned) → stop |
| pt29 | Self-built reputation and credentials page | B · 2,300–75,000 words | Stop (testimonials, star ratings; Statute text) | Adapt (testimonials carry a name, relationship and year); switch E (peer comparison banned) → adapt (write only provable expertise, years in practice, and the year of any third-party list) |
| pt41 | Verdict-first page | B · 2,436 words | Stop (the verdict is itself a comparison; Conservative line (not statute text)) | Adapt (a scenario table only; never "best" or "best value"); switch E (peer comparison banned) → stop (you may still borrow the "boundary conditions get their own section" structure) |
| pt43 | Buyer's selection framework | C · 2,100–3,700 words | Adapt (cut the business-by-business comparison; keep only the evaluation criteria and question list) | Build; switch E (peer comparison banned) → adapt (same approach as the strict side) |

Exceptions on the unregulated side: pt25 cannot be self-built on any of the three sides; if you put yourself first on pt05, you must disclose it.

#### Questions and rules family (12 types)

| id | page type | evidence · leg · length | strict side | light side ("switch E →" = once switch E (peer comparison banned) is on) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pt06 | One question, one page | A · government version, mainly ChatGPT · 40–1,500 words | Build (the answer makes no case-by-case judgement; move personal-safety symptom questions to pt08) | Build; switch E (peer comparison banned) → cost questions carry no peer range |
| pt07 | Eligibility and process page | A · mainly ChatGPT · 900–2,500 words | Build (general conditions are not written as a case-by-case judgement; duration is only the process's own timing) | Build (quote the statutory time limits clause by clause; no case-by-case judgement) |
| pt08 | Remedy and second-opinion page | A · cited by both legs · 900–1,600 words | Build (the [Safety] block order for personal-safety items must not be rearranged) | Build; switch E (peer comparison banned) → do not criticise or rate a previous provider (Statute text) |
| pt10 | Regulatory obligations and penalties page | B · 366–3,650 words | Cite only (make it a regulation summary page; schedule it as a trust asset, not a traffic page) | Cite only |
| pt12 | Definition page | B · 200–2,875 words | Build (anything touching personal safety needs a named reviewer and a date) | Build (tie each term to its statutory clause number; no success rates) |
| pt13 | Step-by-step procedure page | B · 650–2,600 words | Build (your own version writes "how it works here") | Build |
| pt14 | Preparation and bring-list page | B · 200–860 words | Build (the second-safest page type on this side) | Build |
| pt16 | Schedule and deadline page | B · 650–700 words | Build (booking windows state only the process's own timing) | Build (dates must match the registered name of the course or product) |
| pt22 | Collected FAQ page | B · 613–1,370 words | Build (the single most useful type for a regulated client) | Build; switch E (peer comparison banned) → no peer comparison inside the answers |
| pt26 | Policy hub page | B · 441–6,653 words | Build (process and the official position only, no peer-by-peer comparison) | Build |
| pt34 | Change notice / old-vs-new page | B · 1,700–2,400 words | Build (state the rule and the date only, not a rise or fall) | Build (explaining a regulatory change is a natural strength here) |
| pt40 | Misconception page | B · up to 7,500 words | Build (one of the few page types on a regulated side that can write a "conclusion") | Build (tie fact sentences to statutory clause numbers; never a veiled dig at peers) |

Exceptions on the unregulated side: pt10 is downstream citation only on all three sides.

#### Entity and product facts family (8 types)

| id | page type | evidence · leg · length | strict side | light side ("switch E →" = once switch E (peer comparison banned) is on) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pt09 | Entity anchor page(s) (organisation / person / PDP) | A · the organisation page mainly ChatGPT, the PDP ChatGPT only · organisation page varies, PDP 400–1,500 words | Build; testimonials, star ratings and before-and-after photos: stop (Statute text; no confirmation route) | Build (expertise must be backed item by item with evidence); switch E (peer comparison banned) → no statement of standing relative to peers |
| pt11 | Store / branch page | B · 60–1,500 words | Build (the safest page type on this side) | Build (whether you offer a given service goes in the same line as the address) |
| pt21 | Vendor legal terms page | B · 1,500–9,800 words | Adapt (its equivalent is the data handling and confidentiality policy page) | Adapt (same as the strict side) |
| pt30 | Verification and lookup page | B · 267–716 words | Build (one of the safest trust assets; link only to government sources) | Build |
| pt31 | Help centre / how-to page | B · 660–2,500 words | Adapt (its equivalent is the operations page: how to book, reschedule, get results; process only, no outcomes) | Build |
| pt33 | Third-party directory listing | B · 128–800 words | Cite only (your self-supplied blurb is still bound by the price and advertising rules) | Cite only |
| pt35 | Integration / marketplace listing | B · varies (JS-rendered) | Adapt (its equivalent is "which institutions and payment methods you work with"; name them, do not link out) | Adapt (same equivalent) |
| pt39 | Trust centre / compliance proof page | B · 3,600–8,650 words | Build (a harder version: a licence and credential wall) | Build (a practising-qualification and insurance wall) |

Exceptions on the unregulated side: pt33 is downstream citation only on all three sides.

#### Primary sources family (7 types)

| id | page type | evidence · leg · length | strict side | light side ("switch E →" = once switch E (peer comparison banned) is on) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pt15 | Legislation text page | B · 2,500–3,300 words | Cite only (a legislation summary page built on your own site was never cited in our measurements; schedule it as a trust asset, not a traffic page) | Cite only |
| pt18 | Regulator guidance PDF | B · 20–62 pages | Build (the price section inside the PDF still follows the final-price rule) | Build |
| pt19 | Statistics source page | B · 300–2,540 words | Adapt (data must pass the six checks and then the compliance officer; no success rates) | Build (no success rates) |
| pt20 | Register / approved list page | B · 13–66-row table | Cite only (your own job is to fill in your own row) | Cite only |
| pt23 | Official replies and speech records | B · 1,700–5,700 words | Cite only (make it an official-reply restatement page only; never imply the official body is endorsing your organisation) | Cite only |
| pt32 | Device and product regulatory documents | B · 30–1,008 words | Cite only (your side-effects paragraph must be matched clause by clause to the official wording) | Cite only |
| pt36 | Case-law page | B · 689–16,152 words | Stop (its equivalent is pt32) | Decided by the industry edition (holds only in industries with a body of case law; a summary only, never a record of wins, never a win rate) |

Exceptions on the unregulated side: pt15, pt20, pt23 and pt32 are downstream citation only, or fill-your-own-row only, on all three sides; pt36 only holds in industries with a body of case law.

#### Commentary family (3 types)

| id | page type | evidence · leg · length | strict side | light side ("switch E →" = once switch E (peer comparison banned) is on) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pt44 | Concept pillar page | C · 4,500–5,000 words | Build (compare approaches and forms only, not businesses; must carry a named reviewer) | Build (no success rates, no peer comparison) |
| pt45 | News and policy explainer | C · 1,250–1,400 words | Adapt (official figures stand alone in their own section; never use a new rule to solicit) | Build (the strongest type in this family) |
| pt46 | Market observation page | C · 1,500–1,750 words | Stop (do not schedule it: no first-party market data, and it slides easily into promotion) | Stop (where it barely holds up, write it as pt45 instead) |

Exceptions on the unregulated side: pt46 is really only suited to a service provider's own blog; we do not recommend scheduling it for clients.

### A list of content formats is not a list of cited page types

```split Figure: The 30 formats are what you publish; the 46 types are which page AI copies from
The 30 content-format list || The 46 cited page types
Podcasts, short videos, livestreams, infographics, email || Not web pages; AI cannot cite them; no equivalent
Whitepaper || Roughly equivalent to the statistics source page (pt19)
Case study || Roughly equivalent to the verdict-first page (pt41)
Template || Roughly equivalent to the preparation and bring-list page (pt14)
Not on the list at all || The five most-cited types: regulatory obligations, store/branch, definitions, step-by-step procedures, preparation lists
```

"The 30 content formats" answers "what carrier are we publishing this month"; the 46 types answer "which page does AI copy a sentence from when it answers a buyer's question." The most-cited types are not on the format list because they are not "content" — they are fact carriers. **The number of page types is not a property of the industry; it is a function of how much question-space you have covered** — ask a fresh batch of questions you have not asked before ("what happens if you use X", "who do I call if X breaks", "what are the alternatives to X"), and this number will keep growing.

**46 is a counted number**: round 1 measured both legs only on purchase-decision questions ("how much", "who's best", "A vs B", "can this be done"), which turned up 9 types; round 2 switched to questions like "what is X", "how do I do this step by step", "what percentage", "what do I need to bring", "is this allowed", "which one is nearby", "what is this business like", "complete guide", which added 33 more; adding 5 from an external teardown and merging 1 duplicate brought the total to 46. Whether two things "count as the same type" is decided on exactly three criteria, and all three must be met — otherwise they are counted separately: ① the question shapes that trigger them belong to the same family; ② the copied sentence sits in the same position and form on the page; ③ the layout can be written from the same blueprint. The three disputed calls are in Appendix A.3.

**A ruler bias**: the 33 tier-B types were measured on the ChatGPT leg only (the AI Mode leg was not measured because the probe quota ran out), so the skew toward the Primary sources family is a bias caused by the ruler, not the whole picture; "not measured" does not mean "not cited" — page types that skew toward second-hand summaries (lists, comparisons, peer articles, video pages) could not be measured in round 2, and that is a known blind spot. We have no measurement of the 4 tier-C types (pt43–46); of the teardown subject's archetypes, the only one proven to work for that subject itself is the list, and the list is exactly the type the strict side can least use (evidence in Appendix A.4).
## 5.2 Quick reference by side (1): identify the advertiser first; prices, promotions and freebies, result numbers

**What you'll do in this section**: identify the advertiser before you write a word, and stop and escalate if you cannot; before writing the price, the price hook in the title, promotions and freebies, or result numbers, check this section for what your side can write, what it bans, and what fills the same slot once something is banned — then check the row for any switch that is on for you. Together with （→ 通用版 5.3 三侧速查（二）：证言与评价、比较、榜单、头衔、外链、FAQ 与图注）, this section is the whole book's only summary of "how to adapt for the regulated sides" — the page-type cards no longer rewrite all three sides; they leave one line pointing back here.

```mermaid Figure: Identify the advertiser first; stop and escalate if you cannot
flowchart LR
  a{"Who is the advertiser"} -->|cannot tell| stop["Stop and escalate to the compliance officer"]:::warn
  a -->|organisation or individual identified| b{"Does this service need a licence"}
  b -->|cannot tell| stop
  b -->|identified| c{"Can you find it in an official register"}
  c -->|not found, or registration period missing| stop
  c -->|found, and a screenshot is kept on file| d{"How many identities at once"}
  d -->|two or more| both["Obligations stack; write to the stricter one"]:::hl
  d -->|one| side["Decide the side per 0.2"]
  both --> side
```

Identity is not the only reason to stop and escalate. The five stop conditions: **identity unclear; price cannot be a final price; a number fails the six checks in this section's result-numbers part; no client authorisation; comparison bases differ**. Hit any one of them, hand it to the compliance officer — never fill in a number yourself. Once you have identified the advertiser, decide the side per （→ 通用版 0.2 先判你属于哪一侧）. For how a stop-and-escalate item goes to sign-off, see （→ 通用版 0.4 合规句的三档标签与停笔规则）: a written sign-off resolves only the three stop-and-escalate situations; **it never turns something banned as Statute text into something publishable**.

Once you have decided the side, check whether any of the following switches also apply — a switch is not a new side; it is a condition added on top of the three sides:

| switch | hard gate added once it's on |
|---|---|
| A (agency liability) | The party writing and publishing on the client's behalf shares liability with the client; do not publish with fields missing, and authorisation comes before work starts |
| B (legally required fields) | The legally required fields sit together in a fixed position, then repeat once more in the facts block; a mandatory disclosure item gets its own page; in some industries a missing field is presumed a violation outright — the fields are a hard gate before hand-over |
| C (regulated products) | The category you sell is itself governed by dedicated regulation; the copy is split by side according to the category |
| D (spans two sides) | If the business spans two sides, the whole site is built to the stricter side; it is not split by subdomain |
| E (peer comparison banned) | Peer price ranges and rankings are never written, whether named, unnamed, calculated by you or quoted from a third party |
| F (referral commissions banned) | You may only buy at a fixed rate-card price; you cannot pay per lead, per sale or by commission |

```split id=ban-rewrite Figure: Every banned item has a legal replacement that fills the same slot
Banned: writing this breaks the rules on the strict side || Replace: fill the same slot with this
Peer price ranges, market sentences || The official benchmark stands alone in its own section + a procedure-variable sentence
"From / as low as / original price / discount" || A fixed final price by tier, with the defining conditions spelled out
"Free replacement / free check-up" || "Included in the quoted price, once only"
The post-subsidy price in the same table as your own price || The subsidy stands alone in its own section, with the table number and update date
Success rate, rescue rate || Process duration, risks and the conditions it suits
"Most cases" / "extensive experience" || Organisation operating facts, backed by a ledger, free of adjectives
```

### Prices: official benchmarks, subsidised prices, peer ranges, and whether market sentences go into feeds

```mermaid id=price-sides Figure: The price field is written by side, with one more split by half-life (how often the actual figure changes)
flowchart LR
  p["The price field"] --> s{"Which side"}
  s -->|strict| f1["A fixed final price, item by item"]
  s -->|light| f2["Your own range + billing method"]
  f2 -->|switch B, legally required, is on| f2b["State all legally required fee items"]
  f2 -->|switch E, peer comparison banned, is on| f2e["Market sentence → official-basis sentence"]
  s -->|unregulated| f3["Structure + the variables that affect price"]
  f3 --> h{"How often the actual figure changes"}
  h -->|changes daily| feed["The actual figure goes only into the feed"]:::hl
  h -->|rarely changes| html["The actual figure goes into visible HTML"]
```

**The detail on each side**: on the strict side, write one final tax-inclusive figure for each specific service, and list what is mandatorily included; for case-by-case variation, use tiered, itemised pricing, with the defining condition spelled out for each tier — never just "mild / moderate / complex"; where a figure can only be set after an examination, write "confirmed after examination" and give the fixed price of the examination itself; you may state the effective date, what is included, and exclusions. On the light side, your own range must state the span, what is excluded, and the fees the official body charges; never write "lowest" or "cheapest"; once switch B (legally required fields) is on, write out the fee elements item by item (the name and form of the charge, whether it includes miscellaneous fees, how long the quote is valid, which terms apply, discount conditions and amounts, currency, tax, and whether a payment method is specified). On the unregulated side, write the structure: the billing unit, tier boundaries, the minimum starting price, the variables that affect price, the contract term, and how overage is calculated. When the actual figure changes daily, putting it in the body text means manufacturing your own factual errors, so it goes only into the feed; a product detail page still shows the real price on the first screen, and it must match the feed.

**The official benchmark**: on the strict side it can only stand alone in its own section, with none of your own prices appearing in that section, and it carries a table number and an update date; putting it in the same table alongside your own price counts as a comparative listing of prices, and no change of position can save it — there is no confirmation route (Statute text). Appearing in the same paragraph, an adjacent paragraph or the same Q&A, or writing "we are within the benchmark / below the benchmark", is Conservative line (not statute text) — the rule does not spell out these specific cases item by item, so the default is not to write it; relaxing it needs written reasons from the client's compliance officer, kept on file. On the unregulated side you may add an official-benchmark column to your price list. On the light side, write the fees the official body actually charges, copied verbatim from the official fee table, with the table name and date retrieved noted; if you cannot get the original table, write no figure at all — write "priced separately per the official fee table, see <link>" instead — never estimate, never carry over an old value.

**The post-subsidy price**: the strict side does not write "$X after subsidy" or "up to $X in subsidies" — anything that folds the subsidy into the price; the subsidy amount appears only in the official-benchmark section. The light side and the unregulated side may write it, but the post-subsidy amount stands on its own, noting the eligibility conditions + the official page's URL + the check date, and it is never written as if it applies to everyone.

**Peer price ranges**: never write these on the strict side or wherever switch E (peer comparison banned) is on — named, unnamed, calculated by you or quoted from a third party all count. The structure "give the market range first, then your own price" is itself banned (for what a market sentence is, see （→ 通用版 5.6 两条腿，两种句子）); deleting the words "within the market range" does not count as fixing it — delete the whole sentence, and fill the gap per the next paragraph. Once switch E is on, the basis splits into two tiers: a named range, or one that can be traced to an identifiable business, is Statute text; an unnamed, anonymously aggregated range is Conservative line (not statute text) — but a range whose sample and basis cannot be checked is separately ruled out by the rule that information that cannot be checked is itself misleading (Statute text), so in practice it cannot be written either. On the light side, where switch E is not on: a market range can only be written as a stand-alone fact section with its source cited (the sample definition, source, date); it must not sit in the same table as your own price, in an adjacent paragraph, or in the same Q&A, and you do not write "we are within the range" (Conservative line (not statute text)). Only the unregulated side may put a market range and your own price in the same table.

**What fills the empty slot**: on the strict side, fill it with the stand-alone official-benchmark fact section and a variable sentence that carries no peer price. Where switch E (peer comparison banned) is on, fill it with two sentences: the **official-basis sentence** — swap "what peers charge" for "what the regulation / the regulator / the procedure itself sets", matching the market sentence's own position, word count and sentence form (one sentence in the conclusion block + one first sentence under "what affects the price", 40–60 words); and the **procedure-variable sentence** — its subject is the process or the treatment option, not peers, and it explains how your own price varies with the process.

**Whether the market sentence goes into the feed**: the market sentence and any range never go into the feed or into structured data — the feed and structured data hold only your own actual price; this applies on all three sides (per platform merchant rules, not measured).

**Off-site self-supplied blurbs**: on the strict side, and wherever switch E (peer comparison banned) is on, the blurb you supply for a third-party directory is bound by the same price rules — no "From", no discount, no "best".

### Price hooks in the title

```split Figure: The price hook in the title, at each extreme
The unregulated side || The strict side
"From $X" + a unit or condition || A fixed, final tax-inclusive price + unit + brand
You may also write a three-tier price || For several services: "Service A price · Service B price (incl. GST)"
Never write "cheapest" or "best price" with no source || Never write "From", "starting", "as low as", a range, a post-subsidy price, or a discount
```

The light side sits between the two extremes: you may write "From $X", but X must be followed immediately by the defining condition and any variable that could push the total up, or it amounts to leaving out a material fact; you may also write "$X nett + defining condition"; never compare prices with peers, never write a success rate. Once switch B (legally required fields) is on, the course or product name must match the officially approved name word for word, and the wording of your status may only use the word the law allows (such as "registered") — it must not be upgraded to "recognised / approved", and you do not write guarantee-type wording or score-improvement percentages. A post-subsidy price written into the title needs the eligibility conditions attached; never write it as if it applies to everyone. Titles with a price prefix and subsidy wording were cited in our measurements, but they break the rules on the strict side: ranking criteria do not apply to compliance (measured, 2 cases).

### Promotions and freebies; rework and replacement policies

| item | strict side | light side | unregulated side |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time-limited offers, countdowns | Stop: do not write a discounted price with an expiry date (Statute text) | Once switch B (legally required fields) is on, write out the full validity period and conditions; once switch E (peer comparison banned) is on, write only a fixed price or a tiered price, no time-limited discount | May write it; an expired price is taken down automatically |
| Original price, discounts, price rises and falls | Stop: do not write an original price, a discount, or a rise or fall (Statute text) | Once switch B (legally required fields) is on, write out the discount conditions and amount in full | May write it; the original price must be a genuine price it was actually sold at |
| Free, complimentary | Stop: do not write "free", "complimentary", "at no extra charge" or "$0" (Statute text); write "included in the quoted price" instead | Once switch B (legally required fields) is on, write out the full terms in the same block; do not use "free" for an item that is really just deferred payment | May write it; it must be genuine and not misleading |
| Bundles, package prices | Adapt: write each bundle as one standing, fixed final price, one URL per bundle, never alongside a discount | May write it | May write it |
| Rework, review and replacement policies | Adapt: write only the time limit, the number of times, and what is included in the quoted price | May write it; write it as a fee term, not a guarantee of outcome | May write it, same as the light side |

Promotions and referral incentives on the strict side are not themselves banned; they can only be disclosed in person at the point of payment (Statute text). This table applies equally to business profiles, off-site material and review replies. Once switch B (legally required fields) is on, the moment a promotion appears on the page, the full legal terms must be written in the same block (a complete description, the eligibility conditions, whether it can be declined, when it expires; a scholarship-type item also needs the amount, the payout schedule, the deadline, the conditions for payment, and the penalty). If there is no room, give a prominent link to the specific page that has them; a phone number or "ask for details" alone is not enough.

### Result numbers: success rates, grades, employment, case counts, operating figures

Grades, case volumes, case counts, student numbers and ratings all count as "result numbers". Missing even one of the six checks means it does not go on the page: **definition** (what counts as one success), **denominator** (how many people or items in total), **period** (which year, which cohort), **sample selection** (everyone, or only those who stayed to the end), **calculation method** (where the data comes from), and **permission to publish** (client authorisation, personal data, whether industry rules allow it). Build the definitions table before you write, following （→ 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）. Once all six are filled in, run the number through the by-side gate below.

```mermaid Figure: How result numbers are written on each side
flowchart LR
  n["You have a result number"] --> c1{"Has it passed the six checks"}
  c1 -->|no| drop["Does not go on the page"]:::warn
  c1 -->|yes| s{"Which side"}
  s -->|strict| a["No adjectives + ledger + never with outcomes"]:::hl
  s -->|light| b["Facts that already happened, no guarantees"]
  s -->|unregulated| c["May write it once the six checks pass"]
```

**Four gates on the strict side; missing any one means do not write it**: ① no adjectives, no comparatives ("most cases", "extensive experience", "a large number of cases", "senior" are all banned, whether or not they are true); ② a ledger + sign-off: every number carries its basis definition, the statistical period, and the source system it came from, and the organisation's head signs off confirming it is accurate, with the export kept on file; ③ it is never placed next to outcomes, the conditions a service suits, or results; it appears only in the organisation-facts paragraph; ④ percentage price rises or falls are deleted entirely. This opening is narrow: what is banned is outcomes, results and every form of subjective praise; what is not banned is an operating fact with a clear basis, provable, free of adjectives (70% confidence, not measured; the signed compliance memo is the final basis). Numbers like case count and procedure volume are deleted by default — there is no confirmation process, and no tier that says "usable once confirmed".

**The light side** may only write facts that have already happened (how many were actually admitted in a given cohort, how many of N graduates were employed within a given time, the survey response rate), never a guaranteed result; once switch B (legally required fields) is on, there are also statutory banned phrases: do not write guaranteed admission, guaranteed employment, or guaranteed to obtain a licence, and do not write that "the qualification will be recognised by a given institution, employer or school". The regulator can demand the collection method and calculation, so the definitions table is built first, not patched in afterwards. In some industries the rules absolutely ban writing a success rate, and a case volume may not be written or implied as one either. **The unregulated side** may write it once it passes the six checks, and it still must not mislead. One rule applies on all three sides: a result number cannot live only inside a chart — write it as a self-contained sentence that can be lifted whole, in the form "M of N, that is X%, over <time window>".

### Rows for the price-family page types

| id | page type | strict-side essentials | light-side and switch essentials |
|---|---|---|---|
| pt01 | Single-service price page | The price list has no column for "results" (implying an outcome within a given time counts as soliciting) | No peer price mixed into the page |
| pt02 | Price guide page | The official benchmark goes after the table, in its own section, in no column of the main table | Switch E (peer comparison banned): delete the peer range, swap in the official-basis sentence + the procedure-variable sentence |
| pt03 | Official pricing page | No bundle cards, no recommended ordering — use pt01's row-format master table instead | Switch E (peer comparison banned): same as the strict side; switch B (legally required fields): make it an all-in price page for the course or product instead, each item matched word for word to the official approved name |
| pt17 | Subsidy and limit rules page | The subsidy stands only as a stand-alone fact section, with no case-by-case confirmation tier; your own three-column table (item / limit / what you pay) does not hold up | Your own three-column table holds up on the light side and the unregulated side |
| pt27 | Parameter and rate basis page | The parameter must be the final tax-inclusive price; write "which tier applies is set after examination" as one standalone sentence | Write the billing unit and the effective date |
| pt37 | Category list page | No peer or category-by-category comparison — use the organisation's own service catalogue instead | Switch E (peer comparison banned): same as the strict side; switch B (legally required fields): the catalogue's name matches your registration |
| pt38 | Calculator page | A process estimate only; the output must not be a price commitment | Switch E (peer comparison banned): write "final figure to be confirmed on formal engagement"; no comparison with peer prices |
| pt42 | Time-limited promotion page | Adapt into a standing fixed-price page, one URL per bundle, drop the words "time-limited" | Switch E (peer comparison banned): write only fixed prices or tiered prices; switch B (legally required fields): write out the full discount terms |

The unregulated side is bound only by consumer-protection law: the price on the page, in the feed, in structured data, and at checkout must all agree; the original price and any discount must be genuine; an expired price is taken down automatically. Where the identity rule is Original text not obtained, even a sign-off does not clear it: write the default wording from the book — it is not used as a basis for judgement, and you assume neither that the rule exists nor that it does not.
## 5.3 Quick reference by side (2): testimonials and reviews, comparisons, lists, titles, outbound links, FAQ and captions

**What you'll do in this section**: before writing testimonials and reviews, comparisons, lists, titles, outbound links, or FAQ and captions, check this section's four diagrams and the by-side approach; the page-type rows give each affected type one pattern sentence, and each page-type card leaves only one line pointing back to （→ 通用版 5.1 页型总图：46 种、六个家族、三档证据、三侧开放） and these two sections, instead of rewriting the rules.

### Testimonials and reviews

```mermaid id=review-control Figure: Whether a review counts as your advertising depends on who controls the content
flowchart LR
  r["A review"] --> c{"Who controls this content"}
  c -->|you invited, screened or rewarded it| ours["Counts as your advertising"]:::warn
  c -->|zero involvement; buyer posted unprompted| theirs["Does not count as your advertising"]
  c -->|you reposted or restated it on your site| ours
  c -->|you reply to it on the platform| reply["A reply is your content too"]:::hl
```

```mermaid id=review-sides Figure: What each side can do with reviews; on every side, a reply never confirms whether the reviewer is a client
flowchart LR
  s{"Which side"} -->|strict| a["Never request, display or repost"]:::warn
  s -->|light| b["May request; no benefits, no drafting for them"]
  s -->|unregulated| c["May request & display; genuine & provable"]
  a --> reply["Reply: never confirm whether they are a client"]:::hl
  b --> reply
  c --> reply
```

**The strict side**: "a channel you control" includes your own site, landing pages, blog, owned social media, brochures and PDFs, email, and any review widget embedded in a page. On these channels, never place testimonials, positive reviews, star ratings, rating widgets, or before-and-after photos (including "after"-only images); moving a screenshot of a positive third-party review, restating it, or turning it into a review column on your own site does not work either (Statute text). No variant survives: anonymising it, blurring it, adding a disclaimer, writing "individual results vary", or having the person sign written consent — none of these save it, and a sign-off cannot turn it into something publishable. A review is only a passive observation; it is never a work target or an acceptance measure.

The client's marketing team may point to a sentence in the official FAQ along the lines of "a testimonial handed directly to the organisation by the person themselves may be displayed" and ask for testimonials to be put up: that sentence only lifts the ban at the organisation level — it does not lift the ban at the practitioner ethical-code level. Stack the two and take the stricter one, and the result is still that it cannot be displayed.

**Replying to a review**: the rules in the example industry do not cover this (Original text not obtained), so apply the most conservative reading: a reply is content you control, and it is self-checked against the full set of bans — no praise-type wording, no price, no discussion of outcomes or results, neither confirming nor denying that the reviewer is your client (Conservative line (not statute text)), and no steering toward a booking; it can only be a single line of thanks or a single line saying "please contact us at <phone number> to follow up"; keep the reply templates on file. You may delete offensive language (swearing) only — never edit the review's own text.

**The light side**: you may request reviews, but never give a benefit for one, write one on someone's behalf, screen them, or specify the content — the only metric is "number of requests sent". You may quote a third-party platform's aggregate score on the page, stating the platform, the denominator and the check date. Reposting a single review's own text onto your own page follows the testimonial rule: written consent, with a name, relationship and year attached, representing a typical experience; for law firms, this is decided by the industry edition.

**The unregulated side**: you may request and display reviews, but they must be visible text (not a screenshot), stating the sample size, the statistical period and the source, and the original text is never edited.

**Testimonials**: on the light side and the unregulated side, a testimonial must be genuine, provable, and given with the person's written consent; some industries also require a name + relationship to the organisation + year, and it must represent a typical experience — pick the median case, not an extreme one (Statute text in the example industry). For how to send the request and how to write the reply, see （→ 通用版 6.5 评价：请求怎么发、回复怎么写、空出来的格怎么补）.

**What fills the slot once it is deleted**: registration and qualification fields, technical-standard certifications, a fixed final price with what is included, plainly stated rework or refund terms (written as how the fee is calculated, never as a guarantee of outcome), the real model numbers of devices and materials (a plain statement of fact only, no link to the manufacturer, no adjectives), the organisation's operating figures that fit through the narrow opening, and process duration with the risks and the conditions it suits. A sentence such as "the cases we don't take on" is the most valuable of all: it cannot possibly be advertising copy, and AI is actually the most willing to cite it.

### Comparisons and lists

```mermaid id=compare-sides Figure: The comparison field is written by side
flowchart LR
  s{"Which side"} -->|strict| a["Only approaches and methods, not businesses"]:::warn
  s -->|switch E, peer comparison banned, is on| b["Compare procedures only, not peers"]:::hl
  s -->|light| c["Only approaches and forms, not businesses"]
  s -->|unregulated| d["May compare with peers, source + check date"]
```

```mermaid Figure: The list field is written by side; only the unregulated side can self-build freely
flowchart LR
  s{"Which side"} -->|strict| a["No self-build; never repost rankings"]:::warn
  s -->|switch E, peer comparison banned, is on| b["No self-build; use third-party judging"]:::warn
  s -->|light| c["No self-build: conservative line, written waiver"]:::warn
  s -->|unregulated| e["May self-build; disclose if you rank first"]:::hl
```

**Comparisons**: on the strict side, rewrite "better, more advanced" as "suited to which conditions"; never compare success rates, never steer the comparison towards "us". Once switch E (peer comparison banned) is on, comparison is treated the same as criticism: a comparison table must not contain any peer column or market-range column (Statute text). On the light side, quoting another organisation's name or mark needs written authorisation and a clear statement of the relationship.

**Lists**: on the strict side, your own page never reposts a third-party ranking, rating or positive review as promotion (Statute text). Once switch E (peer comparison banned) is on, you may write your own entry's ranking from a third-party ranking body as evidence of expertise, but you may not use it to imply standing above peers — "ranked above a given business" and "the only one on the list" both count as comparison (Statute text).

**Remedy and second-opinion pages**: once switch E (peer comparison banned) is on, criticising a previous provider is banned (including generalising criticism such as "many clients come to us and find that…"); describe only, neutrally, which stage the buyer is at now and what paths are open to them; the page never actively points toward ending an existing engagement — the basis is the soliciting ban, since the specific rule governing "urging a client to switch providers" is Original text not obtained. The strict side also bans assigning blame.

### Titles and credentials

**The strict side**: never write "Leading", "Expert", "best", "senior", "authoritative" or "extensive experience"; you may not call yourself a specialist without the credential; case counts and procedure volumes are deleted by default. A practitioner's credentials are written only as the qualification and the registration field approved by the registering body — never a manufacturer-granted tier (Conservative line (not statute text), the basis is in the industry edition's appendix; relaxing it needs written reasons from the client's compliance officer). Once switch B (legally required fields) is on, the wording of your status may only use the single word the law allows, and it must not be upgraded to "recognised / approved"; without a written document from the regulator, do not claim government or departmental recognition. **The light side**: expertise must be provable and kept on file against the factors the law recognises (qualifications, experience, share of practice, complexity, peer review and so on); "Leading" or "Expert" is deleted wherever there is no evidence on file to back it. You may use "the level of success achieved" as one factor when arguing expertise internally, but you do not write a success rate on the page — the two do not conflict, so do not mix them up. **Turn a ban into a trust signal**: use one sentence on the page to explain why a given kind of content is not there, and link to the rule's own text; for how to write it, see （→ 通用版 5.8 结论块、密度闸、出处闸）.

### Outbound links

**On the strict side**, an outbound link from your own site never connects to a manufacturer or a commercial company, including a manufacturer's locator page; naming the other party is fine, linking to them is not (Statute text in the example industry: the ethical code's own wording says "must not"). Linking only to government and regulatory bodies (including a professional registration lookup page), and not linking out to an association page either, is Conservative line (not statute text). Being listed in a manufacturer's official locator is an inbound link, which is fine (see （→ 通用版 3.4 第三方资质分级、Wikidata 与五处商家档案）). An outbound link is not a condition for being cited, on any of the three sides (evidence in Appendix A.3).

**Off-site boundaries** (not measured; mandatory): on all three sides, never pay for a ranking, never fake reviews, never do an undisclosed placement. Three further points for the strict side: technical SEO is not itself advertising; a pure directory listing that contains only factual contact details is exempt and may be done; do not join or buy into a platform that scores businesses on buyer reviews, or its review packages, rating packages or ranking packages; do not submit to, supply content to, supply material for, or pay for a listing in a "best N businesses"-type list. If a third party lists you entirely on its own initiative, the client is not liable — but the moment we supply content, supply material, or pay for it, that protection stops immediately, and the party publishing on the client's behalf is the one penalised. Once you know you are listed on a "best N businesses"-type page, what the example industry's regulator wants is for you to take steps to get it removed and then check that it has been removed completely, not to get it corrected (original text in the *Dental & Aesthetics Edition*, Appendix A); a correction letter that changes one line is itself supplying material, so on the strict side, send only a removal request for pages like this, never a correction letter (Conservative line (not statute text)). Once switch F (referral commissions banned) is on: paid listings and referral commissions are both banned; on any third-party page we supplied content to, submitted on the client's behalf, or paid for, a peer price comparison is equally not allowed.

### FAQ and captions

FAQ, table headers and captions have no exempt zone — they pass through the compliance gate the same as everything else. A draft that only deletes without filling the slot back in is returned for insufficient density; it is not passed as compliant — the delivery note states "deleted X, replaced it with Y".

### Rows by page type

| id | page type | pattern sentence |
|---|---|---|
| pt04 | Comparison page | Compare approaches only, not businesses; switch E (peer comparison banned) → compare procedures only, no peer column or market-range column in the table |
| pt05 | List page | Never self-built on the strict side (Conservative line (not statute text) at the page-type level; ranking is itself a comparison, and it runs into the Statute text ban on comparisons — a sign-off cannot produce a publishable version); never self-built once switch E (peer comparison banned) is on; also never self-built on the light side (Conservative line (not statute text); the client can relax it with written reasons); only the unregulated side may self-build, and if you rank first, you must disclose it; on the restricted sides, your only job is to make sure a third party writing about you can find checkable facts |
| pt06 | One question, one page | The answer gives general information and makes no case-by-case judgement; move personal-safety symptom questions to pt08; naming a specific product makes the page advertising; switch B (legally required fields) → carries the statutory marking |
| pt07 | Eligibility and process page | Duration is only the process's own timing, never a promise of outcome; general conditions are not written as a case-by-case judgement |
| pt08 | Remedy and second-opinion page | On the strict side, the [Safety] block order must not be rearranged; never write a rescue rate, never assign blame, never place before-and-after photos; switch E (peer comparison banned) → never rate a previous provider |
| pt09 | Entity anchor page | On the strict side, testimonials / star ratings / before-and-after photos are all stopped; persuasion comes from checkable facts instead; switch E (peer comparison banned) → no statement of standing relative to peers |
| pt10 | Regulatory obligations and penalties page | Never the primary source on any of the three sides — make it a regulation summary page only: quote verbatim + link back to the original page + a check date |
| pt11 | Store / branch page | Only the address, hours, phone number and registration fields, zero adjectives; whether you offer a given service goes in the same line as the address |
| pt12 | Definition page | Anything touching personal safety needs a named reviewer + a registration number + a date; tie each term to its statutory clause number; no success rates |
| pt13 | Step-by-step procedure page | Your own version writes "how it works here"; steps state only the process's own timing; on the strict side, any subsidy step stands in its own section |
| pt14 | Preparation and bring-list page | Works fully on all three sides; on the strict side, never write outcome words like "painless" or "quick recovery" |
| pt15 | Legislation text page | Cannot be self-built on any of the three sides; a downstream citation page: verbatim + a clause-number anchor + a check date |
| pt16 | Schedule and deadline page | Works fully on all three sides; a booking window or interval states only the process's own timing; the course or product name a date belongs to matches your registration |
| pt18 | Regulator guidance PDF | You may produce your own compliance long-form PDF; a price inside the PDF still states only the fixed final price, and switch B (legally required fields) → the fee elements written out in full |
| pt22 | Collected FAQ page | Answers give only general information; any scale claim passes the six checks; side-effects wording is matched clause by clause to the official document; never write "free consultation" |
| pt23 | Official replies and speech records | A restatement page only: verbatim + link back to the original page + dated, never using the reply to imply the official body is endorsing your organisation |
| pt24 | Third-party single-business review | Never self-built on the strict side, the light side, or wherever switch E is on (Conservative line (not statute text)); only the unregulated side may self-build |
| pt25 | Sentiment, forum and news pages | Cannot be self-built on any of the three sides; facing something negative, never a reactive comparison, never offset with a testimonial — add facts only |
| pt28 | Review aggregate page | Never self-built on the strict side or wherever switch E (peer comparison banned) is on (a rating is itself a testimonial; Statute text); on the light side, may do it after rewriting, with testimonials carrying a name, relationship and year; beyond that, only make sure you are listed on directories and review platforms, and that the name, address and phone number there match your own site |
| pt29 | Self-built reputation and credentials page | Not done on the strict side (testimonials, star ratings; Statute text); on the light side, may do it after rewriting, with testimonials carrying a name, relationship and year; switch E (peer comparison banned) → write only provable expertise, years in practice, and the year of any third-party list, with ratings stating the platform and the check date; switch B (legally required fields) → testimonials carry a name, relationship and year |
| pt30 | Verification and lookup page | State only the registration number and the official lookup link, with no claim of any kind; on the strict side, never link to a manufacturer's locator |
| pt32 | Device and product regulatory documents | Side-effects wording is matched verbatim to the regulatory document, never softened, never abridged; link only to government sources; a manufacturer's document states its own file name and version |
| pt33 | Third-party directory listing | Downstream citation only, with the information matching your own site word for word; a self-supplied blurb carries no "From", discount, or "best" |
| pt34 | Change notice / old-vs-new page | State only the rule and the effective date, never a rise or fall, never an original price or discount; a subsidy change stands in its own section |
| pt36 | Case-law page | The ruling sentence has the court as its subject; never write a win rate; never write "represented by us" unless the person gave written consent and it passes the six checks |
| pt40 | Misconception page | Every fact sentence is matched word for word to the regulatory text with a source attached; never write a misconception as a veiled dig at peers |
| pt41 | Verdict-first page | Not done on the strict side (Conservative line (not statute text); the verdict is itself a comparison); not done once switch E (peer comparison banned) is on, though you may still borrow the "boundary conditions get their own section" structure; on the light side, only a scenario comparison table after rewriting, never "best" or "best value"; the unregulated side may build it |
| pt44 | Concept pillar page | Compare approaches and forms only, not businesses; anything touching personal safety carries a named reviewer |
| pt45 | News and policy explainer | Official figures stand alone in their own section; never use a new rule to solicit |
| pt46 | Market observation page | Without first-party data, do not write it, do not schedule it |

Before handing over, decide the side first, then scan item by item against 5.2 and this section for your side's banned words and required fields — sweep the FAQ, captions, table column headers, title and meta description together.

**A sign-off is not a release from liability**: the client's compliance officer's sign-off is their own judgement; it does not remove the joint liability of the party publishing on the client's behalf. A sign-off can only relax two kinds of item — facts only the client knows, and items labelled Conservative line (not statute text); **a sign-off cannot turn something banned as Statute text into something publishable** (see （→ 通用版 0.4 合规句的三档标签与停笔规则）). The party writing and publishing on the client's behalf is penalised the same as the client: tick every item off before handing over, and do not publish with fields missing.

## 5.4 The 30-day writing order and the three mechanical gates

**What you'll do in this section**: lay out the first thirty days after fixing the door as a work schedule on the book's week numbering (who, which week, what to do), then fit every page with three mechanical gates; if any one fails, work stops. When you're done, you'll have a one-page work order, and the buyer types ranked 1–3 will each have a price guide page (English + Chinese) scheduled across W2–W4.

```steps Figure: the first thirty days, scheduled by the book's week numbers (W1 starts the day the door is fixed); the door must already be fixed before this point, and if a step isn't finished, the next one is wasted work
W1 day 1 | Work order | First line: side + switches + tier + top 3 buyer types by annual opportunity value
W1 | Shelf-map comparison table | Built from probe data you already have, not posted on a wall or forwarded
W1 | Entity anchor and person pages | See chapter 3; don't touch until the baseline is saved
W1–W2 | Group B and update letters | The four actions — profiles, registers, associations, manufacturers — plus letters to the already-present class
W2–W4 | Thick pages and video | One buyer type per week, by rank, English and Chinese in the same batch
W2–W3 | Bylined contributions | Under the named expert's own byline, linking back to the person page
W3–W4 | Off-site round 2 | Only the remaining Group B items and Group A items with all three conditions met
W4 end | Stocktake | The three rulers + next month's work order
```

The reasoning behind this order: most AI citations come from off-site, price questions trigger AI Overviews at the highest rate, and identity fixes show results the fastest (**not measured**). So identity comes in week one, the first page is on price, and off-site and page-writing run in parallel at the same level of effort. The numbers, sources and confidence behind each of these points are in （→ 通用版 A.2 选点、写页、站外与复测的证据）. How to calculate annual opportunity value and produce the ranking is in （→ 通用版 4.5 买家归堆、年机会值与三道关）.

| When | What to do | Who | How long | How to check |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W1 day 1 | *Work order*, one page, ≤30 lines. First line fixed: side + switches + acceptance tier this quarter + top 3 buyer types by annual opportunity value + English and Chinese pages; if access-log permission has not been granted yet, the red blocker and the date it will be supplied also go in the first line (template in （→ 通用版 B.4 工单、台账与月报表头）) | The brief writer | 4 h | One-page work order, **one line = one task that can be assigned** |
| W1 | Seat shelf map + a "why AI trusts them, not you" comparison table. Both are built from probe data you already have — **no new probe spend**; laid out in blocks by rank, with position 1 at the top | The person running probes + the report owner | 6 h | Two diagrams; **any that name third-party organisations carry the qualifier in the footer, and are not posted on a wall or forwarded** |
| W1 | Entity anchor and person pages (how-to in （→ 通用版 3.3 个人实体页与六处痕迹对齐）). After this, every thick page, every video and every off-site item's byline links back to the person page | The person running probes reads + the person who edits the site builds the pages + the profile owner fills in the profiles | 12 h + 40 min per person page | By the end of W1, deliver the first sentence-by-sentence, verbatim before-and-after screenshot + the live URL of the person page |
| W1–W2 | The four Group B actions, in fixed order 1→2→3→4: ① claim the five business profiles ② check government and statutory registers (**checking the details are correct, not submitting anything**) ③ complete professional association profiles and link back to the person page ④ apply to manufacturer official locators. **Do not skip any free item** | The profile owner + the off-site lead | 2.5–4 h | Log all four actions in the *Citation-slot table*, with claim receipts and live URLs |
| W1–W2 | Off-site round 1, **only the "already present" class**: send update letters or correction letters to sources already being cited. Only move to the type ranked 2nd once the 1st is done. On the strict side, never seek a listing on best-of pages titled Best / Top or pay for one; if you are already listed, send a removal request | The off-site lead | 6 h | The first version of the *Citation-slot table* + the number of letters sent |
| W2–W4 | Thick pages: W2 for the buyer type ranked 1st, W3 for 2nd, W4 for 3rd. The first page for each type is always the all-products price guide page (see （→ 通用版 5.12 价格指南页（一）：为什么第一页永远是它（pt02））), English and Chinese pages built in the same batch; the second page is decided by the three-state list (see the diagram below); the remedy and second-opinion page jumps the queue by rank and is not fixed as the third page | The page writer writes, the person running probes checks the facts, legal reviews the wording, the person who edits the site publishes | 7 h per English page; for the Chinese page's workload see 5.9 | Live URL for every page + acceptance sheet + second before-and-after screenshot |
| Within 14 days of each page going live | A long video narrated by the named expert (spec in （→ 通用版 6.7 本人口述长视频）) | The named expert appears on camera, the page writer prepares the transcript, the person who edits the site publishes | 1 h shooting per video + 40 min for upload and timestamps | Video URL + a day-14 "unique-sentence quote-back test" screenshot |
| W2–W3 | Bylined contributions: local news, trade media, association newsletters, and the practitioner directories and education columns run by government and statutory bodies. Under the named expert's own byline, linking back to the person page, giving your own unique checkable facts. In descending order of rank | The off-site lead (material supplied by the brief writer and the named expert) | 20–30 min per submission | *Outreach ledger* "submitted" rows, each row tagged with its target category |
| W3–W4 | Off-site round 2, **kept to a minimum**: send only the remaining reachable Group B items, and Group A items with all three conditions met (a specific URL + a usable contact method + a written basis for the billing method, and a compliance verdict of "can do"). Send in passing — no chasing, no follow-up, no reordering, **no minimum number of letters**; do not send enquiry letters to pure-directory Group C items | The off-site lead | 1.5–2 h | *Off-site asset ledger*, three numbers |
| W4 end | Stocktake: the three rulers + the competitor board + next month's work order. **Check the door and identity layers once each, unconditionally, even if seats have gone up**; close out each buyer type once, in rank order | The report owner + the brief writer | 2 h | Page 1 of the monthly report prints the three rulers (seat count / on the list and cited X/20 / factual errors, count); below that, print seat count + total names + noise band ±N + the web control leg's two overlap rates (print the non-extrapolation sentence if either is <50%) |

Two more fixed rhythms, not part of the schedule above:

- **Every Monday · weekly competitor seat report**: a fixed 5 questions × 3 rounds × 2 engines = 30 runs, the 5 questions frozen for the whole quarter. Log only three things: which businesses AI named this week, where you rank, and which URLs it cited. Whoever pushed you down, go after the source that carries them. The person running probes runs it, the report owner produces the chart, 2 h/week. Print a ruler statement at the bottom of the chart: this weekly sample of 30 runs and the monthly report's seat count **are not the same ruler — they cannot be added together or compared against each other**.
- **One day at the start of every month · the web control leg**: 40 min, spec in （→ 通用版 4.4 网页对照腿与冻结基线（全书唯一完整规格））. **For calibration only, never for acceptance.**

Off-site round 2 is kept to a minimum so the time freed up goes into pages. On the strict side, Group A off-site is mostly a structural gap: stake a whole front on third-party inventory you cannot create yourself, and it will come up empty every quarter.

During the W2–W6 page-writing period, also build a **citable annual dataset or comparison table**: 1–2 days for the first version, updated every quarter after that; its own URL + a clean HTML table + a downloadable CSV, with every row noting its basis, the period it covers and the date the data was pulled. This is the only action that gets third parties to come and cite you on their own. In year one it's a single high-density owned page; from year two on, your outreach letters change from "please list us" to "we have a dataset, want to use it?"

### The three gates every page must pass

```mermaid Figure: every finished page must pass three gates in a row; if any one fails, work stops and the next page may not open
flowchart LR
  p["Page finished"] --> g1{"Ranking gate: launch by annual opportunity value"}
  g1 -->|Pass| g2{"Language gate: Chinese and English both done"}
  g2 -->|Pass| g3{"Video gate: named-expert video within 14 days"}:::hl
  g3 -->|Pass| next["Open next page"]
  g1 -->|Fail| stop["Stop work"]:::warn
  g2 -->|Fail| stop
  g3 -->|Fail| stop
```

- **Ranking gate**: to change the order, add a line to the work order stating the reason, and the reason may only be one of two things: the page is held up by legal or internally; or the three-state list has ruled that this type's effort goes to off-site this quarter. "Do the easy ones first this quarter" does not count as a reason.
- **Language gate**: no moving a page to a later batch, no saving it up to do in bulk at quarter end. Anything done that way will end up as a translated draft, not a landing page (Chinese-page writing rules in 5.9).
- **Video gate**: a page with no video is marked "**video missing**" in the register, and the page does not count as finished. The video front always gets pushed to "later" — this gate is the only mechanism that stops that.

The three gates only control whether the next page may open. Whether a page may be marked "live" is a separate matter, the launch gate — see （→ 通用版 2.8 每页上线闸）.

### What the second page is: read the three-state list

```mermaid Figure: the second page for each buyer type is decided by which class dominates its cited sources, not by which page is easiest to write
flowchart LR
  q{"Which class dominates the three-state list"} -->|Lists and directories| a["No second page this quarter, effort off-site"]:::hl
  q -->|Own site| b["Selection and option-comparison page"]
  q -->|Already present| c["Update letter + landing page"]
```

How to build the three-state list: take the top 10 intent-level URLs for this buyer type, judge the four states per （→ 通用版 4.6 四态、两层分母与弃权线）, assign a disposition per （→ 通用版 4.7 逐态处置、十类问题与本季名额）, then count how many fall into each of the three classes: already present, lists and directories, own site.

### Fixed steps for every page, and how they change with your situation

```steps Figure: every page goes through these five fixed steps; you cannot move to the next until the previous one passes
1 | Set the work unit | One intent cluster, one page; see 5.5
2 | Density gate | ≥5 exclusive checkable facts, a veto; see 5.8
3 | Source gate | ≥3 outbound links to checkable originals; see 5.8
4 | Last-checked date | A visible line on the page; see 5.10
5 | The four launch steps | See 2.8
```

| Your situation | How the first batch of pages changes |
|---|---|
| Mostly spec-type questions | The first page must be a price, fee or spec guide page, not an introduction page |
| Mostly comparison-type questions | Add a comparison-page matrix: `X vs Y`, `X alternatives`, `best X for <segment>`. **Comparison pages must name competitors** — this rule applies only on the unregulated side; on the other sides, follow the comparison row in （→ 通用版 5.3 三侧速查（二）：证言与评价、比较、榜单、头衔、外链、FAQ 与图注） |
| Committee decision-making | Divide the page into H2 sections by role, each carrying its own checkable facts and sources (see 5.5) |
| Strictly regulated side | Every cell must first pass （→ 通用版 5.2 三侧速查（一）：先判身份；价格、促销与赠送、结果数字） and 5.3; organisational operating figures need a ledger + a written sign-off by the organisation's head in person |
| Mostly platform-managed | Build two landing pages, one on your own site and one on the platform, with facts identical word for word. **Do the platform one first** — its container is already inside the cited set |

**Add one free local spec every month**: when you open the account-level Top 20 during the monthly review, tag each URL with the five binary features while you're at it (price table / side-by-side comparison / author byline + credentials / visible update date / FAQ section); any feature that appears in ≥60% of them becomes a mandatory spec for every new page next month. The reason: the account-level Top 20 is the set of pages AI actually picked for your own question pool, closer to you than any outside average.

## 5.5 The page unit: one intent cluster, one page

**What you'll do in this section**: place every question in the frozen question pool into a "buyer type × four decision stages" grid, one page per cell, and count how many pages this quarter needs; improve an old page rather than build a new one wherever you can, divide the page into sections by who makes the decision, and register one off-site target every time a page goes live. When you're done, you'll have a page register, with every page marked with which buyer type and which decision stage it belongs to.

```split Figure: the number of pages follows the number of intent clusters, not the number of question forms; one page covers one cluster of adjacent intents
Common misunderstanding || How it's actually cut
One page per question form || One page covers 3–6 adjacent intents
A separate page for each question variant || Variants go into H2s on the same page, no separate page
No other page on the site may answer the same question || Old thin pages in the same cluster are 301-merged into the main page
A new page for every new cluster || Improve an old page instead of building a new one, wherever you can
```

"Adjacent" is not judged by feel — cut it mechanically using the grid below. **Rows are buyer types, columns are the four decision stages, and the four columns are fixed**: ① price and cost breakdown ② selection and option comparison ③ eligibility · process · duration ④ repeat purchase · remedy · second opinion.

> **Example** (dental) Row = dental implant (single): ① how much / cost breakdown / how the CPF deduction works ② implant vs bridge / how to choose the brand and procedure ③ how many visits, how long, which cases can't be done ④ a loose implant / wanting a second opinion.

```mermaid Figure: every question in the pool first drops into a cell; a cell becomes a page once it has 2 questions, otherwise it merges into the price cell
flowchart LR
  s["A question from the pool"] --> t{"Fits two cells at once?"}
  t -->|Yes| near["Take the cell closer to paying"]
  t -->|No| cell["Drop into one of the four cells"]
  near --> cell
  cell --> n{"Does this cell have 2 questions?"}
  n -->|Yes| page["Becomes a page, register type and stage"]:::hl
  n -->|No| merge["Merge into the adjacent cell, prefer price"]
  merge --> page
  page --> cap["Max 4 pages/type, launch by opportunity value"]
```

Outside the figure, three more points:

- When it could go either way, the priority order is **④ > ① > ② > ③** — the closer to paying, the higher the priority. A question can only drop into one cell.
- The four columns are fixed, so a buyer type has at most 4 pages, never a 5th. In practice, the first quarter is usually 1–2 pages: ① is always there, and whether ② or ④ appears depends on how the question pool falls into the cells.
- The monthly retest groups by the "buyer type + decision stage" columns on the register, not by how the page writer understands it. The column number only decides how many pages to cut, not which page to do first.

### Improve old pages before building new ones

```steps Figure: improving an old page: keep three constraints, let the body at most double, then re-check it and log a new split day
1 | URL unchanged | —
2 | H1 unchanged | Only change it if the old H1 doesn't follow the 5.7 style; log the old value at the same launch
3 | No paragraphs deleted | Paragraphs matching the top 10 GSC queries; export and mark them before editing
4 | Expansion cap | Body text at most doubles; 50% confidence, not measured
5 | Re-check | Redo the fact check and compliance review, log the new split day in the register
```

Expanding an old page comes before building a new one, because an old page has history, links and existing rankings. The expansion cap is a purely operational constraint that stops "expanding" from turning into "rewriting" and throwing away paragraphs that already rank.

An old page is only touched in four cases: the facts have changed; AI has produced a wrong statement about you; the monthly triage points to this page as the landing page (see （→ 通用版 7.3 没动分诊与下月三个点）); or a thin page in the same cluster needs to be merged in.

### How to divide a page: by who makes the decision

```mermaid Figure: how to divide a page depends on who makes the decision; AI extracts sections, not pages; one more section means one more intent it can copy from
flowchart LR
  q{"Who makes the buying decision"} -->|One person| a["No sections"]
  q -->|Two people| b["No sections, cover what both care about in full"]
  q -->|Buyer is not the user| c["Two fixed sections: buyer section + user section"]
  q -->|Committee| d["H2s by role, each with its own sources"]:::hl
  q -->|High-ticket durable good| e["H2s by who suits which model"]
```

The reasoning behind dividing into sections is one mechanism: AI extracts sections, not pages. Split one page into several sections, and the same URL has copyable text for that many intents (**not measured**, but the mechanism holds). In the committee type, each section carries its own checkable facts + source + check date, so a single section can be cited on its own. How to judge the number of decision-makers is in （→ 通用版 8.4 十个轴（二）：决策人数、产能、归因、半衰期、语言）.

### Register one off-site target per page

When each page goes live, also register an off-site target (the source that should cite this page) and hand it to the off-site queue. Within 14 days it must become either a sent letter, or a "not reachable + basis", per （→ 通用版 6.3 六种处置、具名供稿与外联信）. Write the page without pushing it off-site, and its output stays stuck inside that small owned-content share (basis in （→ 通用版 1.1 买家怎么问，AI 读什么）).

## 5.6 Two legs, two kinds of sentence

**What you'll do in this section**: write two kinds of sentence on every page at once: own sentences for ChatGPT, market sentences for AI Mode; on the strict side and wherever switch E (peer comparison banned) is on, replace the market sentence with an official-basis sentence; for "who's best" questions, don't write a best-of piece; put the effort into off-site instead. When you're done, your first sentence, your price table and your "what affects price" section will each have one sentence that can be copied whole.

```split Figure: the same page carries two kinds of sentence, one for each leg; on regulated sides only the subject matter changes, never the sentence shape
Own sentence || Market sentence
Subject is you || Subject is a range
An exact price or spec + unit + defining condition + GST status || A 40–60 word answer + 3–4 variables + source and date
Mainly for ChatGPT || Mainly for AI Mode, and ChatGPT uses it when writing round-ups too
First sentence under H1, or first sentence of the first H2; your own column in the price table || One sentence in the conclusion block; first sentence of the "what affects price" H2
Written on every side || Strict side and switch E (peer comparison banned) swap the subject matter, see below
```

Why two kinds of sentence: ChatGPT looks for the source (government pages, official pricing pages, product pages) and writes its own conclusion; AI Mode looks for second-hand summaries (peer articles, lists, videos, Google cards). The mechanism is in （→ 通用版 1.2 两条腿：ChatGPT 找源头，AI Mode 找二手）, the measured results in （→ 通用版 A.3 页型实测（一）：两条腿、七条规则、档 A 九型）.

**The market-sentence pattern**: "<scope> generally ranges from $X to $Y, depending on A, B, C", with a source and date. **The unregulated side writes this pattern as is; the light side (where switch E (peer comparison banned) is not on) only writes it inside a sourced, standalone facts section (see 5.2).** The example where both legs cite this sentence shape is in Appendix A.3; that example comes from a law-firm page, and law firms, on the stricter reading, do not write it this way (the label is on that entry in A.3) — it only proves the sentence shape works.

**Regulated sides only swap the subject matter, never the shape**:

- The strict side does not write peer price ranges; official benchmarks can only stand as their own section, with no price of your own inside it.
- Where switch E (peer comparison banned) is on, your own pages write no market sentence at all — the subject matter changes to a court, a regulation or a procedure, written as an "official-basis sentence". Position, length and sentence pattern follow the market-sentence spec.
- The rule basis and the compliance labels for both are in the price row and the switch row of （→ 通用版 5.2 三侧速查（一）：先判身份；价格、促销与赠送、结果数字） — not repeated here. Getting this wrong doesn't cost you one sentence: the whole page comes down, and that page's GEO gains go to zero.

> **Example** (family law, switch E (peer comparison banned)) Official-basis sentence: "Hearing fees are not payable for divorce hearings in the Family Justice Courts: Part 25, rule 5 of the Family Justice (General) Rules 2024 lists the Women's Charter 1961 among the Acts under which no hearing fee is payable, for cases commenced on or after 15 October 2024 (Singapore Statutes Online, rule text checked 29 September 2026; Singapore Courts, "Understand legal fees", last updated 27 August 2026). What moves your total is the filing and service fees, whether the other party contests, and how many hearings are needed." The subject matter is the court, not a peer; the sources are a government page and the rule text, and both check out. Rechecked on 2026-09-29: the court page gives the provision as "Part 2, Rule 5", but in the rule text the hearing-fee exemption is Part 25, rule 5 (Part 2, rule 5 covers replies and cross-applications); cite the provision number from the rule text.

### The first sentence under every H2: the answer sentence

```split Figure: the first sentence under every H2 must still work when lifted out whole; AI does not copy a sentence that cannot be lifted out
Sentence that cannot be lifted out || Answer sentence
"Costs depend on many factors" || A number or a clear condition; the own sentence carries the brand
Unreadable outside its context || Readable even outside its context
Starts with an adjective || Starts with a checkable fact
Buried in the middle of a paragraph || Placed as the first sentence under every H2
```

> **Example** (dental, strict side) "At <brand>, clear aligner treatment costs S$4,800 (incl. GST) in full for a mild case, S$6,800 for moderate, and S$8,600 for complex; the tier is defined by crowding at the first visit (mild ≤3mm, moderate 3–6mm, complex >6mm), each tier includes 3 follow-up visits and 1 retainer, and extractions and mini-implants are priced item by item per the table below. Effective 2026-01-01."

**The brand name appears in only four places**: the price subject, the actual service provider, the byline, and organisation facts. Do not insert the brand name into the first sentence of every H2, or educational content turns into soliciting copy (Conservative line (not statute text): the basis is that some professional guidelines require information to be objective, neutral and not persuasive, and the rule text does not say "four places"; **not measured**). On the strict side and wherever switch E (peer comparison banned) is on, this is the default, and any relaxation needs the client's compliance officer's written reasons; on the other sides it is recommended.

### "Who's best" questions are not won by writing a page

```mermaid Figure: neither leg cites a business's own best-of piece for "who's best" questions; put the effort into these places instead
flowchart LR
  q["Who's-best questions"] -->|Neither leg cites| bad["A business's own best-of piece"]:::warn
  q -->|Redirect to| a["Business profiles"]:::hl
  q -->|Redirect to| f["Organisation facts page or official pricing page"]
  q -->|Redirect to| b["Normal review: directories, third-party rankings"]
  q -->|Redirect to| c["Correcting third-party list data"]
  q -->|Redirect to| d["Product feeds and product pages"]
  q -->|Redirect to| e["Maintaining review-platform data"]
  q -->|Redirect to| g["A long video narrated by the named expert"]
```

> **Example** (B2B software) Ask "best CRM": the ChatGPT leg cites the official pricing page (4/4); the AI Mode leg cites Reddit, YouTube ×2, business.com, and the Slack blog. Redirect effort to: the official pricing page + YouTube + maintaining data on review platforms such as G2.

Which of these destinations are open to you depends on your side: what the strict side can and cannot do off-site is in the outbound-link row of （→ 通用版 5.3 三侧速查（二）：证言与评价、比较、榜单、头衔、外链、FAQ 与图注）, with the detail in chapter 6. The off-site red lines every side must hold (**not measured; mandatory**): do not pay for rankings, do not fake reviews, do not run undisclosed placements. Third-party rankings go through their own normal review process — some ranking organisations' pages state outright, "rankings cannot be purchased".

## 5.7 Seven rules that hold for every page type

**What you'll do in this section**: turn the seven writing rules that hold for every page type, plus two supplementary rules, into a single page blueprint in one pass; when writing a page, check its structure against this blueprint, without having to dig through the specific measured data again.

```wireframe id=seven-rules Figure: where each of the seven rules lands on the page, top to bottom
title | Pages whose content changes by year carry the year; the official pricing page is the exception (rule 4) | req
H1 | A statement; the exception is one-question-one-page, which uses the original question (rule 5) | req
Conclusion block | Core facts land in the first 30% (rule 2) | req,cite
First H2 | The main question (rule 5) | req
  First sentence | Stands alone, can be lifted out whole (rule 1) | req,cite
  Table | Make it a table wherever you can; column headers use buyer-comparison wording (rule 3) | opt
Other H2s | Statements, with the verdict written into the heading (rule 5) | req
  First sentence | Every paragraph's first sentence stands alone (rule 1) | req
FAQ H3 | Questions are concentrated here, only restating the body's conclusions (rule 6) | opt
Numbers | Precise, with unit, basis and date (rule 7) | req,law
Prices, results, specs | In the first-screen HTML, not dependent on JS, images or IP-based routing | req
```

Each block in the diagram maps to one rule:

1. **Every paragraph's first sentence must stand alone** — readable even outside its context, and never allowed to start with phrases like "it depends" or "this is complicated". This is the firmest rule in the whole sample.

   > **Example** (family law) A pre-nuptial agreement page's H2 first sentence read "is a complicated matter" and was never copied; the same page's FAQ line that gave the conclusion outright was copied.

2. **Put the core facts in the first 30% of the body** — after the H1 or as the first sentence of the first H2; both positions were counted, with the same effect.

```bars Figure: of the 75 cases where the copied text can be pinpointed in the original page (not all 526 citations), most fall before the second H2; a visual estimate, use it as a strong trend, not a precise value to cite
unit: %
Between H1 and the first H2 | 43 | 32/75
First sentence or first table of the first or second H2 | 31 | 23/75
Middle to later sections | 23 | 17/75
```

   The denominator only counts the 75 cases where the copied sentence can be located on the original page; the rest either could not be fetched, or the copied text is a multi-paragraph rewrite with no single source. Each case's position was estimated by eye against the length of the page, not coded down to the character.

3. **Turn any fact you can into a table**: tables are the most-copied carrier, and column headers should use the words buyers actually use when comparing — AI copies the column headers along with everything else.

4. **Put the year in the title** for pages whose content changes by year; once you add a year, name someone responsible for maintaining it, and check the content every time the year changes. The exception is the official pricing page, whose title carries no year — see （→ 通用版 5.14 官方定价页（pt03））; a one-question-one-page page only adds a year if the answer changes over time (**not measured**).

5. **H1 is a statement; the first H2 is the main question; the other H2s are statements with the verdict written into the heading. Questions are concentrated in the FAQ's H3s.** The one exception is one-question-one-page, where the H1 is the original question.

6. **FAQ is common but rarely the source of copied text**: its job is to restate the body's conclusions in full sentences again — it cannot replace the body's first sentence.

7. **Precise numbers with a clear basis matter more than clean layout**: every number carries a unit, a basis and a date.

The measured frequency of each of these seven rules, and the details by industry, are in （→ 通用版 A.3 页型实测（一）：两条腿、七条规则、档 A 九型）; only the rules themselves are listed here.

Two more rules hold for every page type:

- **Word count is not a criterion**: length follows the page type; stop once you're done, and don't pad content just to hit some range. Each page type's own length spec is in tier A's and tier B's own blueprints.
- **Prices, results and specs must be in the first-screen HTML**, not switched by JS, hidden in images, or served differently by IP address — mainstream AI crawlers do not execute JS; this rule shares its basis with the crawler-rendering criterion in the door chapter, see （→ 通用版 2.9 门层排查与本章验收）.

Outbound links and bylines are not themselves conditions for being cited — they are credibility norms; the exception is pages related to personal safety, which must carry a byline, see （→ 通用版 5.19 补救与二次评估页（pt08））.

## 5.8 The conclusion block, the density gate and the source gate

**What you'll do in this section**: write the conclusion block first on every page, putting the three most valuable facts up front; then pass the density gate: fewer than 5 exclusive checkable facts and the page may not go live, delete anything that hits a ban first, and never keep it just to make the count; finally pass the source gate: at least 3 outbound links to checkable originals. A page only counts as finished once it has passed all three.

### The conclusion block: the first thing to write on any page

```split Figure: what the conclusion block fixes, and what it must never contain
Fixed || Never allowed
Position: its own paragraph after the H1, before the first H2 || Lead-ins such as "this article covers" or "below is"
Length: 40–130 words (or per the page type's own spec) || New facts not found in the body
Content: the 3 most valuable checkable facts on the page || Adjectives, comparatives
Wording: identical, word for word, to the matching sentence in the body || A separate subheading such as "Summary" or "Introduction"
Form: a plain paragraph || Collapsed, in a sidebar, or rendered by JS
```

The reasoning for putting the conclusion block here is the same as rule 2 in 5.7; the evidence is in （→ 通用版 A.3 页型实测（一）：两条腿、七条规则、档 A 九型）, not repeated here. Length follows the page type: the general range is 40–130 words; where a page type has its own spec, follow that instead — for example the 60–120-word text box in （→ 通用版 5.15 对比页（pt04））, or the key-value strip + ≤80 words in （→ 通用版 5.18 资格流程页（pt07））. The Chinese version has no separate word count; it just needs to carry the same 3 facts.

Take the three facts in this order: ① tiered, fixed prices (GST status, what's included, how many tiers, each tier's defining condition) ② registration number or licence number (organisation + the named expert, with a link to the official lookup page) ③ process duration and number of visits. If the page is not a price page, swap ① for the hardest fact on that page's density-gate list. How to write each one on your side follows 5.2–5.3.

Repeating the conclusion block's content in the body does not count as padding, and these three facts do not count separately toward the density gate's 5.

At acceptance, do two things: check whether the length is within range; and compare the conclusion block's three sentences word for word, side by side, against the matching sentences in the body — any mismatch sends it back.

Adding a conclusion block costs nothing — a live old page can have one added tomorrow: add it while making any other edit to an old page, and update `dateModified` once it's done.

### The density gate: delete banned content first, then count to 5

Every page needs at least 5 exclusive checkable facts that cannot be found anywhere off your own site — this is a veto: fall short and the page may not go live. Fill this in at the brief stage, with every fact traceable to a fact-table row number or an external checkable original. The density gate stands alongside the ban gate (see 5.2–5.3), also as a veto: you may not keep a fact that hits a ban just because deleting it drops you below 5.

```mermaid Figure: delete facts that hit a ban first, then count whether there are still ≥5 exclusive facts; if not, switch cluster — never relax the rule
flowchart LR
  f["Candidate fact list"] --> d{"Hits the ban gate?"}
  d -->|Yes| del["Delete the whole fact"]:::warn
  d -->|No| keep["Keep it"]
  del --> cnt{"How many remain?"}
  keep --> cnt
  cnt -->|≥5| pass["Passes, may go live"]:::hl
  cnt -->|<5| swap["Send back, switch intent cluster"]:::warn
```

The table below lists 8 categories of qualifying facts; whether and how fully each can be written on your side follows （→ 通用版 5.2 三侧速查（一）：先判身份；价格、促销与赠送、结果数字） and （→ 通用版 5.3 三侧速查（二）：证言与评价、比较、榜单、头衔、外链、FAQ 与图注） — this table only gives the writing points themselves.

| # | Qualifying fact category | Writing points |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Price | See 5.2 for the rules by side; the strict side writes no price prefix and no range |
| 2 | Licence / registration number | Number + a link to look it up |
| 3 | Device / material model | The real brand and model + a link to the manufacturer's page (no link on the strict side) |
| 4 | Repeat-purchase / replacement / remedy policy | Write only the term, the number of times, and what's already included; the strict side does not use words like "free" |
| 5 | Process duration and number of visits | An exact number + unit |
| 6 | Scope and cap of subsidy / insurance coverage | State clearly what is and isn't covered |
| 7 | Byline and credentials | Name + registration number + one line of checkable credentials |
| 8 | Operating figures (allowed under restrictions) | See the four gates in the diagram below |

Category 8, operating figures, is allowed only through four gates; miss any one and do not write it. The first gate is no adjectives and no comparatives; the diagram below shows the rewrites:

```split Figure: operating figures must be written as evidenced facts, not adjectives
Banned: unsourced adjectives || Replace with: numbers with a clear basis
"Extensive experience", "senior" || Year practice began + registration number
"Most cases", "a large number of cases" || Strict side: delete; other sides: annual completed volume (basis + data source)
"Foremost", "top-tier" || Number of devices on hand / team size
Assertion only, cannot be evidenced || Statistical period + data source + sign-off kept on file
```

Three more: ② it must be supported by a ledger, with the basis, the statistical period and the data source stated clearly, and the organisation's head signs to confirm it's accurate and keeps the exported record; ③ it must not appear in the same sentence as a claim about efficacy, indications or outcomes, and it belongs only in the organisation-facts section; ④ delete price rise-or-fall figures entirely, since they count as a comparative listing of prices (see the price row in 5.2). For how the strict side writes this, defer to the result-numbers section of 5.2.

This exception is narrow: what's banned is efficacy, outcomes and any subjective praise; what's not banned is an operating fact with a clear basis, evidenced, and free of adjectives — cross that line and it becomes praise (70% confidence, **not measured**; the signed compliance memo is the final word, and where it conflicts with this rule, the memo governs).

> **Example** (dental, strict side) "The clinic has practised at <address> since 2011; the registration numbers of its four dentists are listed on the team page" — an adjective-free, evidenced operating fact about the organisation, not appearing in any sentence describing outcomes.

If the count falls short of 5, try these three steps in order:

```steps Figure: if density falls short, try these three steps in order; never pad with generic educational content
1 | Get the ledgers | Price lists, purchase orders, scheduling-system exports
2 | Narrow the scope | Down to a sub-cluster where you really have exclusive facts
3 | Switch intent cluster | Go back to target selection and pick again
```

### The source gate: at least 3 outbound links to checkable originals per page

Every page needs at least 3 outbound links, pointing to originals that can be verified — not just any related page.

| Outbound link type | Example | Why it's worth linking |
|---|---|---|
| Original regulation text | Advertising rules, fee guidelines | An authoritative outbound link + turns restricted content into a trust signal |
| Association / regulator register | Professional registration lookup page | Helps AI match your registration number to you |
| Device / material manufacturer page | Model spec page | Third-party endorsement of an exclusive fact (does not apply on the strict side) |
| Government fee / subsidy page | Official fee or subsidy terms page | The field most often copied in price questions |

The strict side does not link to commercial companies; the outbound-link scope is in the outbound-link row of （→ 通用版 5.3 三侧速查（二）：证言与评价、比较、榜单、头衔、外链、FAQ 与图注）; the specific list for your industry belongs in the industry edition.

For the original-regulation-text link type, you can turn a ban into a trust signal along the way: add one sentence on the page explaining why some kind of content isn't here (because it's regulated), and link to the original rule text. The industry's original text is in its own industry edition.

## 5.9 Content form, FAQ, Chinese pages and other-language pages

**What you'll do in this section**: decide your side first, then decide whether the content form is professional or consumer: these are two separate judgements, made one after the other, never bundled together; split FAQ into an allowed rule and a banned rule and run them separately; treat the Chinese page as the Chinese version of each buyer type, built in the same batch as the English page, not taking up the second-page slot set by the three-state list, and never missing its three fixed points; for other languages, search first, then decide whether to build, and don't mistake a wrong target for an open field.

### Decide your side first, then your content form

```mermaid Figure: two separate judgements — decide your side first to fix what you can write, then decide the content form to fix where the emphasis goes
flowchart LR
  q1{"Which side, see 5.2"} --> a["Decides what you can write"]
  a --> q2{"Professional or consumer"}
  q2 -->|Professional| pro["Focus: process / deadlines / eligibility"]:::hl
  q2 -->|Consumer| con["Focus: tiered prices / devices / insurance"]:::hl
```

| | Professional | Consumer |
|---|---|---|
| H2 focus | Process steps, statutory deadlines, eligibility and jurisdiction, fee structure and billing method, common misconceptions | Tiered prices, what's included and excluded, devices and materials, follow-up and replacement policy, subsidies and insurance, waiting times |
| Main facts | Licence, process duration, byline credentials | Price, device model, subsidy/insurance, operating figures |

For why the two forms are written separately, the basis and confidence are in （→ 通用版 A.2 选点、写页、站外与复测的证据）. The writing bans for each form are in （→ 通用版 5.2 三侧速查（一）：先判身份；价格、促销与赠送、结果数字） and （→ 通用版 5.3 三侧速查（二）：证言与评价、比较、榜单、头衔、外链、FAQ 与图注）; here we only give the H2 focus and the main facts. For off-site work, see chapter 6.

Reviews only enter the answer for recommendation-type questions; for price, scenario, process and second-opinion questions, reviews mostly don't enter the answer. So thick pages get no review action assigned to them: no aggregate rating goes on the page, and no review content is excerpted. Evidence in （→ 通用版 A.2 选点、写页、站外与复测的证据）. How review requests and replies are handled is in （→ 通用版 6.5 评价：请求怎么发、回复怎么写、空出来的格怎么补）.

### Split FAQ into two rules; do not ban both

```split Figure: run FAQ as two separate rules; do not lump them together and ban both
Allowed and encouraged || Still banned
Q&A-style H2 (the H2 itself is a question) || Stacking FAQPage schema for rich results
Q&A-style subsections (a question subheading + a direct-answer paragraph) || Self-rating markup, aggregateRating
3–5 short Q&As at the foot of the page, 40–80 words each || Using it as a word-count filler; every one must pass the density gate
```

A Q&A section is not an exempt zone: the short Q&As at the foot of the page, and the answer under every Q&A-style H2, pass through the same ban gate as the body — check 5.2–5.3 for your side. The strict side must also swap out the questions themselves: don't write questions asking about efficacy, how it feels, or how you compare to others; swap them for questions about process, suitability and what the fee includes.

> **Example** (dental, strict side) The line-crossing question "how soon will I see results" becomes "how many visits does the whole course take, and how long is each one".

### Chinese pages are built alongside English pages

A Chinese page is not a language add-on: it's the Chinese version of each buyer type, built in the same batch as the English page, and it does not use up the second-page slot the three-state list sets. By default, the work order produces both an English and a Chinese page for each buyer type, scheduled and accepted together; without the Chinese page, that buyer type is not done. A Chinese page counts as its own page: its own URL, its own H1, hreflang pointing to each other, entered in the register as its own landing page. On the schedule, the Chinese page is built in the same batch as its matching English page — never pushed to a later batch, never saved up to do in bulk at quarter end. Count it as 0.8 of a page's workload — the only thing you save is checking the numbers against the same batch of facts (matching row numbers, not finding evidence again); rewriting the questions, the compliance review, the anchor self-check and the launch acceptance all still have to be done in full.

```split Figure: a Chinese page is not a translated draft; the question forms change, the facts don't
How a translated draft is done || How a Chinese page is done
H1/H2 are a direct translation of the English titles || H1/H2 are rewritten in the Chinese buyer's own question wording
Answer sentences are translated over, following the English sentence pattern || Every H2's first sentence is written independently, carrying the brand + a number or condition
H2s are back-translated from the English H2s || H2s are taken from the Chinese originals in the question pool
Facts are rewritten and re-sourced from scratch || The same batch of fact-table row numbers is reused, and the numbers are not changed at all
```

```split Figure: three fixed points on a Chinese page; miss one and answers get anchored to pricing from another country's site
Fix these three points || What happens if you miss them
H1 contains "新加坡" (Singapore) || Without the country fixed, the answer borrows pricing from another country's site
The first paragraph has an S$ amount, immediately followed by GST status (incl./excl.) || Without the currency fixed, another country's currency price takes over
The body has at least one real MRT station or area name || A generic "新加坡" (Singapore) doesn't count; the geographic anchor is what fixes location
```

Why this is a hard gate: Chinese-language content defaults to being anchored to other countries' sites — in one live search of a Chinese question, the answer copied a foreign-currency price straight from another country's site. The three points are checked visually, page by page, by whoever accepts the launch; miss any one and the page may not go live: it goes straight back, and this check is never left to sampling.

Other-language pages (Chinese pages and pages in other minority languages alike) must not mix two languages on one page, must not be machine-translated and published directly, and must pass compliance review; on minority-language pages, points ① and ③ apply the same way, and point ② is written in the matching currency's basis.

For Chinese "who's best" questions, a few businesses already hold a spot; the threshold isn't squeezing onto the list, it's whether you have a Chinese landing page at all. Chinese-language price, scenario and second-opinion questions are, for the most part, an open field — this is the only battlefield where you can get a position from zero within 90 days, and the threshold is just one landing page. This judgement has not yet been retested; the evidence, sample and confidence are in （→ 通用版 A.2 选点、写页、站外与复测的证据）; before launch, re-check it against 3 questions sampled from your own question pool.


### Other languages: search first, then decide

Three patterns, and they apply to every language:

- Search first, then decide whether to build. If everything you find points to another country's home market, that question is a wrong target, not an open field — swap it for a Chinese-language question instead of investing in a page in the minority language.
- Until the relevant advertising law of the destination country has been checked, run no paid placements there; add one disclaimer-and-scope sentence to the other-language page.
- Build the banned-laudatory-terms list once, turn it into an equivalent list for each target language, and use it for both on-site and off-site; the full industry-specific word list goes in each industry edition's appendix.

## 5.10 Shared parts for all page types: six checks for numbers, no public price, billing units, dates and schema

**What you'll do in this section**: run result-type numbers through six checks before they go on a page, and build a definitions table; when there's no public price, fill in the four-sentence template; when converting billing units, put the original unit in the first column; write the three kinds of date separately, and only touch `dateModified` for a substantive change; do schema only where it applies, filling in only the values visible on the page.

### Six checks before a number goes on a page

```steps Figure: a number must pass six checks before it goes on a page; miss any one and it may not go on; each item is followed by a common counter-example
1 | Definition | What counts as one success or one case; counter-example: a percentage with no stated standard
2 | Denominator | Total number of people or items; counter-example: "100%" with no total given
3 | Period | Which year, which cohorts; counter-example: a cumulative figure with no period stated
4 | Sample selection | The whole group or only part of it; counter-example: counting only those who stayed to the end
5 | Calculation method | How it's calculated, where the data comes from; counter-example: tallied from verbal reports
6 | Permission to publish | Authorisation, personal data, industry rules; counter-example: a name written without consent
```

Build the definitions table before you write, not after: some regulators can ask you to show how the data was collected and calculated. The six checks apply to every side; once they pass, go on to the specific rules for your side (see 5.2–5.3).

> **Example** (education) A ready-made compliant wording given by a regulator: "100% students obtained at least 5 passes at GCE 'O' levels (2008 – 2010)" — the year range, the exam's full name and the proportion are all in one sentence.

```split Figure: a percentage with no denominator is just an adjective; add the denominator and it becomes a citable fact
No denominator: reads like a slogan || With denominator: AI can check it and copy it
"90% pass rate", no headcount given || "<year> <programme> N participants, M passed (X%)"
Only the best figures are written down || Both participant count and pass count are given
The next crawl could well disprove it || Statistical period + definition of basis + data source
```

Adding the denominator is not a rule requirement, it's a self-imposed spec, and the reason is that it directly decides whether this sentence can be copied. If legal insists on deleting the denominator, give way, but rewrite that line as "Sample: <year> <programme>, all N participants".

### What to write when there is no public price

Where there is no public price (a "get a quote" button), fill in these four sentences below it (this wording is not measured):

1. Billing unit: per <unit>
2. Minimum conditions: minimum quantity, shortest term, whether only annual payment is accepted
3. Variables that affect price: 3–5 of them
4. Date statement: "As of <day-month-year>, <Plan> has no fixed public price; pricing is quoted per <unit> based on <variables>."

Do not pass off a guessed figure, or a stale figure from a procurement platform, as the current price.

> **Example** (B2B software) For a piece of software's Enterprise tier, ChatGPT wrote "Custom quote" exactly as given, while copying the real prices of its other tiers as is (measured, 1 case).

### Converting billing units

The original billing unit must be kept and placed in the table's first column; when converting to a common unit (such as a price per hour), give the conversion formula its own column; incomparable extras such as enrolment, materials and deposits go in their own column and are not folded into the unit price (**not measured**, though there is 1 measured case as supporting evidence).

### Three kinds of date, and schema

```split Figure: write the three kinds of date separately; move only the one that changed, never all of them at once
Date || How to write it, and when to move it
Price check date || Mark "as of <date>" next to any price that changes often, recheck every 30 days
Regulation check date || Marked separately from the price check date, never merged into one date
Date of substantive change to the body (dateModified) || Move it only for a substantive change, matching the visible "Updated" line
```

These three date rules are **not measured**. For pages that get a new version each quarter, update `dateModified` and the visible "Updated" line together when the new version goes up, and state in the page which lines changed this time.

Schema is not a proven lever for being named: after adding JSON-LD, AI Overviews (AIO) citations changed by −4.6%, the only significant result, and a negative one; the other two platforms showed no significant effect — schema is a disambiguation tool, not a volume tool, evidence in （→ 通用版 A.1 机制、门与人这一层的证据）. Use it where it applies, filling in only the values visible on the page, with the Product / Offer numbers matching the visible price one for one:

| Item | Spec |
|---|---|
| @type | Matches the page's content type |
| Organisation entity identifier | `sameAs` points to the regulator's registration-lookup page + the business profile page; `identifier` carries the business registration number (valid only for Google's Knowledge Graph; none of the five major systems' live crawls read JSON-LD, so the same fields must be written into the visible HTML first) |
| Dates | Publication and modification dates are real, matching the visible dates in the body |
| Price field | Filled in per your side's rules (spec by side in 5.2); the strict side fills in only the fixed final price, with no minimum-maximum range |

Do not build FAQPage for rich results (FAQ rich results are reported to have been retired on 2026-05-07, **not independently verified**). There's no need for `name` / `description` to match the title and meta description word for word — matching in meaning is enough.