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

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.

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:

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)

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)

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)

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

Entity and product facts family (8 types)

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

Primary sources family (7 types)

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)

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

"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 → General Edition 5.3 Quick reference by side (2): testimonials and reviews, comparisons, lists, titles, outbound links, FAQ and captions, 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.

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 → General Edition 0.2 Decide which side you are on first. For how a stop-and-escalate item goes to sign-off, see → General Edition 0.4 The three labels for compliance sentences, and the stop-and-escalate rule: 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:

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

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 → General Edition 5.6 Two legs, two kinds of sentence); 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

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

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 → General Edition 5.10 Shared parts for all page types: six checks for numbers, no public price, billing units, dates and schema. Once all six are filled in, run the number through the by-side gate below.

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

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 → General Edition 5.1 The page-type map: 46 types, six families, three evidence tiers, availability by side and these two sections, instead of rewriting the rules.

Testimonials and reviews

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 → General Edition 6.5 Reviews: how to ask, how to reply, how to fill the empty slot.

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

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 → General Edition 5.8 The conclusion block, the density gate and the source gate.

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 → General Edition 3.4 Third-party credential tiers, Wikidata and the five business profiles). 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

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 → General Edition 0.4 The three labels for compliance sentences, and the stop-and-escalate rule). 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.

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 → General Edition A.2 Evidence for picking targets, writing pages, off-site and retests. How to calculate annual opportunity value and produce the ranking is in → General Edition 4.5 Buyer types, annual opportunity value and the three checks.

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 → General Edition 4.4 The web control leg and the frozen baseline (the book's only full spec). 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

• 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 → General Edition 2.8 The launch gate for every page.

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

How to build the three-state list: take the top 10 intent-level URLs for this buyer type, judge the four states per → General Edition 4.6 Four states, two denominators and the abstain line, assign a disposition per → General Edition 4.7 Actions by state, the ten question types and this quarter's slots, 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

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.

"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.

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

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 → General Edition 7.3 Not-moved triage and next month's three points); or a thin page in the same cluster needs to be merged in.

How to divide a page: by who makes the decision

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 → General Edition 8.4 The ten axes (2): decision-makers, capacity, attribution, half-life, language.

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 → General Edition 6.3 Six dispositions, bylined contributions and outreach letters. Write the page without pushing it off-site, and its output stays stuck inside that small owned-content share (basis in → General Edition 1.1 How buyers ask, and what AI reads).

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.

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 → General Edition 1.2 Two legs: ChatGPT looks for the source, AI Mode for second-hand summaries, the measured results in → General Edition A.3 Page-type measurements (1): two legs, seven rules, the nine tier-A types.

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 → General Edition 5.2 Quick reference by side (1): identify the advertiser first; prices, promotions and freebies, result numbers — 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

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

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 → General Edition 5.3 Quick reference by side (2): testimonials and reviews, comparisons, lists, titles, outbound links, FAQ and captions, 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.

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.

1. 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.

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.

1. 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.

1. 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 → General Edition 5.14 Official pricing page (pt03); a one-question-one-page page only adds a year if the answer changes over time (not measured).

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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 → General Edition A.3 Page-type measurements (1): two legs, seven rules, the nine tier-A types; 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 → General Edition 2.9 Door-layer troubleshooting and this chapter's acceptance checks.

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 → General Edition 5.19 Remedy and second-opinion page (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

The reasoning for putting the conclusion block here is the same as rule 2 in 5.7; the evidence is in → General Edition A.3 Page-type measurements (1): two legs, seven rules, the nine tier-A types, 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 → General Edition 5.15 Comparison page (pt04), or the key-value strip + ≤80 words in → General Edition 5.18 Eligibility and process page (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.

The table below lists 8 categories of qualifying facts; whether and how fully each can be written on your side follows → General Edition 5.2 Quick reference by side (1): identify the advertiser first; prices, promotions and freebies, result numbers and → General Edition 5.3 Quick reference by side (2): testimonials and reviews, comparisons, lists, titles, outbound links, FAQ and captions — this table only gives the writing points themselves.

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:

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:

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.

The strict side does not link to commercial companies; the outbound-link scope is in the outbound-link row of → General Edition 5.3 Quick reference by side (2): testimonials and reviews, comparisons, lists, titles, outbound links, FAQ and captions; 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

For why the two forms are written separately, the basis and confidence are in → General Edition A.2 Evidence for picking targets, writing pages, off-site and retests. The writing bans for each form are in → General Edition 5.2 Quick reference by side (1): identify the advertiser first; prices, promotions and freebies, result numbers and → General Edition 5.3 Quick reference by side (2): testimonials and reviews, comparisons, lists, titles, outbound links, FAQ and captions; 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 → General Edition A.2 Evidence for picking targets, writing pages, off-site and retests. How review requests and replies are handled is in → General Edition 6.5 Reviews: how to ask, how to reply, how to fill the empty slot.

Split FAQ into two rules; do not ban both

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.

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 → General Edition A.2 Evidence for picking targets, writing pages, off-site and retests; 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

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.

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

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 → General Edition A.1 Evidence for mechanics, the door and identity. 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:

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.