Turn note broker SEO work into evidence you can verify

This checklist is for note brokers, note buyers, and investment-firm teams reviewing whether a public website gives note sellers clear, crawlable, accurate information before they make contact. It is useful for an owner managing the site directly, a marketing lead briefing an agency, or a reviewer checking whether completed SEO work is supported by evidence rather than screenshots or promises.

Start with access to Google Search Console, analytics, the content management system, and any business profile that genuinely represents a staffed or customer-facing location. If you are auditing an existing site for technical debt, use the technical section to separate indexing, performance, and architecture problems from content problems.

The checklist is designed around note-seller intent such as note buying, note valuation, mortgage-note sales, and the firm's actual transaction process. It does not assume that a keyword, markup type, directory listing, review pattern, or publishing routine is an official ranking factor. A pass means the required evidence is present and accurate; a fail means an owner has a specific corrective action and a validation step.

This checklist cannot guarantee compliance, and responsible legal and regulatory reviewers remain required for applicable financial advertising, disclosures, licensing, privacy, and communications obligations.

Phase 1: Quick Wins (Weeks 1-2)

• Evidence: Export the current title tags and meta descriptions for every note-buying, valuation, process, and note-type service page. Pass: Each important page has distinct search-result copy that accurately describes its purpose and seller intent. Fail: Important pages reuse generic copy or imply services the firm does not provide. Severity: High. Owner: SEO or content lead. Correction: Rewrite the affected fields around the page's actual purpose rather than forcing repeated keywords. Validate: Re-crawl the site and confirm the rendered tags match the approved copy.
• Evidence: Test priority templates on representative phones, tablets, and narrow browser widths; retain the legacy Google Mobile-Friendly Test reference only as historical source context, not as a current tool requirement. Pass: Primary content, forms, disclosures, and calls to action remain usable without horizontal scrolling or hidden controls. Fail: A seller cannot read, navigate, or submit the intended form on a supported mobile layout. Severity: Critical. Owner: Front-end or web team. Correction: Fix responsive layout, tap targets, form behavior, and viewport issues. Validate: Repeat device and browser tests on the deployed page.
• Evidence: Compare the website's business name, address, phone, hours, and service description with the Google Business Profile for a genuine physical office, if one exists. Pass: The profile represents a real eligible location and its factual business details agree with the site. Fail: The profile is inaccurate, duplicated, or represents a nominal market rather than an eligible location. Severity: High. Owner: Local marketing or operations. Correction: Correct factual discrepancies and remove unsupported location claims. Validate: Recheck the live profile and corresponding location information.
• Evidence: Review 5-10 candidate note-investor networks and financial directories for real editorial or business relevance. Pass: The shortlist contains legitimate sources where an accurate listing or editorial mention would help users verify the firm. Fail: Targets exist only to manufacture links or have no meaningful note-market relevance. Severity: Medium. Owner: Outreach lead. Correction: Remove low-quality targets and document why each retained source is relevant. Validate: Approve the shortlist before outreach or profile creation.

Phase 2: Foundational Work (Weeks 3-6)

• Evidence: Inspect any Organization and LocalBusiness structured data against the visible page and current Google-supported documentation. Pass: Markup describes the real entity and location accurately, uses applicable properties, and validates without material errors. Fail: Markup invents a location, service, review, price, or other fact not supported on the page. Severity: High. Owner: Technical SEO or developer. Correction: Remove unsupported properties and align remaining markup with visible content. Validate: Run a current structured-data validation check and inspect rendered source.
• Evidence: Record PageSpeed Insights diagnostics and representative field data where available; use a score below 50 only as this source checklist's triage trigger. Pass: Major performance bottlenecks are identified, prioritized, and connected to reproducible page evidence. Fail: The team treats a single score as a ranking guarantee or ignores material loading problems. Severity: High. Owner: Developer or performance owner. Correction: Address image delivery, caching, script cost, rendering, and server bottlenecks supported by the diagnostics. Validate: Retest the same templates after deployment.
• Evidence: Create an internal-link map between seller-intent pages, valuation explanations, process pages, note-type pages, and supporting education. Pass: Links are contextually useful, crawlable, and point users to the next relevant question without misleading anchor text. Fail: Important pages are isolated or links are inserted only to manipulate keywords. Severity: High. Owner: SEO and content lead. Correction: Add or revise contextual links where a user would reasonably need the destination. Validate: Crawl the site and manually test representative journeys.
• Evidence: Build and review a 50+ source prospect list covering note-investing publications, real-estate resources, relevant associations, and legitimate directories. Pass: Every prospect has a documented relevance reason and no paid-link or link-scheme requirement. Fail: The list is dominated by generic submission sites, private networks, or sources selected only for authority scores. Severity: Medium. Owner: Digital PR or outreach. Correction: Replace weak prospects with sources that have a real audience and editorial fit. Validate: Audit the approved list before contact begins.

Phase 3: Scaling (Weeks 7-12)

• Evidence: Prepare 2-3 cornerstone resources that answer distinct seller decisions, such as mortgage-note basics, note types the firm actually evaluates, and valuation inputs. Pass: Each resource has a unique purpose, qualified review where needed, source support for factual financial claims, and clear links to related service information. Fail: The pieces duplicate one another or make unsupported financial promises. Severity: High. Owner: Content lead with subject-matter review. Correction: Consolidate overlap and strengthen unsupported sections before publication. Validate: Complete editorial and required review checks on the final rendered pages.
• Evidence: Maintain a log of personalized outreach to 10-15 high-relevance targets per week, including the reason each target's audience may find the resource useful. Pass: Outreach is selective, truthful, and does not condition publication on manipulative link terms. Fail: Messages are mass-sent or request paid, hidden, or otherwise deceptive links. Severity: Medium. Owner: Outreach lead. Correction: Narrow the list and rewrite outreach around audience relevance. Validate: Review the outreach log and any resulting placements for editorial legitimacy.
• Evidence: Use Search Console to review query and page movement, including pages historically observed at positions 6-10, without treating rank position as a guaranteed outcome. Pass: Changes are tied to page-level evidence such as query relevance, indexing, internal links, or search-result presentation. Fail: The team changes titles or links solely because a rank tracker fluctuated. Severity: Medium. Owner: SEO lead. Correction: Diagnose the page and query before altering copy or architecture. Validate: Compare subsequent Search Console data with the documented hypothesis.

Title Tags

• Evidence: Crawl all seller-facing service pages and export their title tags. Pass: Each page has a unique, accurate title aligned with its note-buying, valuation, mortgage-note, or promissory-note purpose. Fail: Titles are duplicated, generic, or promise a transaction outcome the page cannot support. Severity: High. Owner: SEO lead. Correction: Rewrite titles around the page's primary decision and actual service scope. Validate: Re-crawl after deployment.
• Evidence: Check where the primary phrase appears within the first 60 characters of the source title while also reviewing readability. Pass: Important wording is visible and natural without sacrificing accuracy. Fail: The title front-loads keywords at the expense of meaning or truncates the distinguishing information. Severity: Medium. Owner: SEO or content lead. Correction: Reorder wording for clarity, not mechanical density. Validate: Inspect the final tag and search-result preview.
• Evidence: Compare title modifiers with the actual offer and transaction process. Pass: Modifiers such as note buyer, valuation, process, or geographic relevance are factual. Fail: Copy uses urgency, speed, or professional-status language that the firm cannot substantiate. Severity: High. Owner: Content lead and required reviewer. Correction: Replace unsupported promotional wording with precise service language. Validate: Confirm the approved title matches the page.
• Evidence: Review titles for repeated note-selling phrases. Pass: Each title reads naturally and distinguishes the page. Fail: Multiple keyword variants are stacked without added meaning. Severity: Medium. Owner: SEO lead. Correction: Keep the most descriptive phrasing and remove repetition. Validate: Re-run the title audit.

Meta Descriptions

• Evidence: Export the meta description for each indexable priority page and compare it with the visible offer. Pass: Descriptions are unique and the source checklist's 150-155 characters is treated as an editorial length reference, not a guaranteed display limit. Fail: Descriptions are duplicated, misleading, or written only to hit a character count. Severity: Medium. Owner: Content lead. Correction: Rewrite for accurate search-result context. Validate: Re-crawl and inspect representative snippets.
• Evidence: Check whether the page's primary topic appears naturally at least once in the description. Pass: The description communicates note-seller relevance without repetition. Fail: Keyword inclusion distorts the meaning. Severity: Low. Owner: SEO lead. Correction: Replace forced wording with a clear statement of page value. Validate: Review the final tag in context.
• Evidence: Compare every timing or valuation statement in search-result copy with the actual page and approved business process, including any existing claim such as 48 hours. Pass: The description does not promise a valuation, price, timing, or nationwide service that the firm cannot substantiate. Fail: Search-result copy contains unsupported commitments. Severity: Critical. Owner: Content lead and required reviewer. Correction: Remove or qualify unsupported claims. Validate: Confirm final copy against the approved service terms.

H1 Tags

• Evidence: Inspect the rendered main heading on each priority page. Pass: The page has one clear H1 that states its main purpose and aligns with visible content. Fail: The main heading is missing, duplicated in a confusing template, or mismatched with the page. Severity: Medium. Owner: Content or web team. Correction: Make the main heading explicit and descriptive. Validate: Inspect the rendered page and document outline.
• Evidence: Review the heading structure from H2 and H3 through supporting sections, including any H1 and H3 relationships created by templates. Pass: Heading levels communicate a logical content hierarchy to readers. Fail: Heading levels are used primarily for styling or create an incoherent outline. Severity: Low. Owner: Content and front-end teams. Correction: Reassign semantic headings without changing the underlying meaning. Validate: Reinspect the rendered document outline.
• Evidence: Compare subheadings with seller questions such as note types, valuation inputs, documentation, timing, and process. Pass: Subheadings help readers find distinct answers. Fail: They repeat keywords without adding navigational value. Severity: Medium. Owner: Content lead. Correction: Rewrite subheadings as descriptive reader questions or task labels. Validate: Scan the page using headings alone.

Content Depth

• Evidence: Review whether an important service page reaches the source checklist's 800+ words because it answers necessary seller questions, not because copy was padded. Pass: The page covers scope, process, valuation factors, documentation, material limitations, and next steps as applicable. Fail: Length is achieved through repetition or unsupported financial commentary. Severity: High. Owner: Content lead with subject-matter review. Correction: Add missing decision information or remove filler. Validate: Re-review against actual seller questions.
• Evidence: Inspect high-intent pages for clear process explanations and reader-facing FAQs. Pass: The page addresses objections and uncertainties without promising a sale price or transaction outcome. Fail: It hides material conditions or uses generic FAQ copy unrelated to note sellers. Severity: High. Owner: Content lead. Correction: Add specific, accurate answers supported by the firm's process. Validate: Compare the page with actual inquiry themes and approved procedures.
• Evidence: Crawl internal links from seller-intent pages. Pass: Links lead to genuinely related valuation, process, note-type, or supporting resources using descriptive anchors. Fail: Important supporting pages are orphaned or links are inserted solely for keyword manipulation. Severity: High. Owner: SEO lead. Correction: Add contextual links where they help the reader continue a decision. Validate: Re-crawl and manually test the main journeys.

Site Speed & Performance

• Evidence: Record desktop and mobile PageSpeed diagnostics for representative note-broker templates. Pass: Use the source checklist's desktop 50+ and mobile 50+ only as internal triage references while prioritizing reproducible user-impact issues. Fail: A team treats those scores as official ranking thresholds or ignores severe loading defects. Severity: High. Owner: Developer. Correction: Address the largest evidenced bottlenecks. Validate: Retest the same templates after deployment.
• Evidence: Record First Contentful Paint and related loading diagnostics. Pass: The source target under 2.5 seconds is used as an internal observation point, not a guarantee of search performance. Fail: Slow rendering prevents users from seeing useful content promptly. Severity: Medium. Owner: Developer. Correction: Reduce blocking resources and improve delivery where diagnostics support the change. Validate: Repeat lab and available field checks.
• Evidence: Measure Largest Contentful Paint on representative templates. Pass: Treat the source ceiling under 4 seconds as a diagnostic trigger requiring context rather than as Google's good-performance definition. Fail: Main content loads slowly enough to impair use or field data indicates a persistent problem. Severity: High. Owner: Developer. Correction: Optimize the identified LCP resource, server response, rendering path, or image delivery. Validate: Recheck lab and field data.
• Evidence: Inspect image formats, dimensions, responsive sources, and loading behavior. Pass: Images are appropriately sized and deferred where doing so does not delay critical content. Fail: Oversized media or careless lazy loading harms rendering. Severity: Medium. Owner: Developer. Correction: Resize, compress, and load images according to page priority. Validate: Compare transfer size and rendering after deployment.
• Evidence: Review CSS and JavaScript payloads and execution cost. Pass: Production assets avoid unnecessary weight and preserve functionality. Fail: Minification or bundling is absent where it would materially reduce overhead, or optimization breaks forms and disclosures. Severity: Medium. Owner: Developer. Correction: Remove unused code and optimize delivery cautiously. Validate: Regression-test the site and rerun performance diagnostics.

Mobile & Responsive Design

• Evidence: Test current mobile rendering directly in supported browsers and devices; do not rely on the retired Google Mobile-Friendly Test as a current requirement. Pass: Content, navigation, forms, and disclosures work on mobile. Fail: Responsive defects block reading or completion. Severity: Critical. Owner: Front-end developer. Correction: Fix responsive layout and interaction defects. Validate: Repeat device and browser testing.
• Evidence: Inspect body copy at the source reference of 16px and assess actual readability across devices. Pass: Text is comfortably readable without zooming. Fail: Key content or disclosures are difficult to read. Severity: Medium. Owner: Design and front-end teams. Correction: Adjust typography and spacing. Validate: Recheck representative mobile pages.
• Evidence: Measure primary tap targets against the source reference of 44x44 pixels and test them with real touch interaction. Pass: Calls to action can be tapped reliably without accidental adjacent activation. Fail: Controls are cramped or overlap. Severity: High. Owner: Front-end developer. Correction: Increase target size or spacing as needed. Validate: Retest on touch devices.
• Evidence: Complete seller inquiry forms on mobile using representative inputs. Pass: Labels, validation, autofill behavior, privacy context, and multi-step progression are understandable. Fail: Users cannot complete or correct the form reliably. Severity: Critical. Owner: Product or web team. Correction: Fix form semantics, validation, input types, and progression. Validate: Run end-to-end form tests.

Core Web Vitals

• Evidence: Review Cumulative Layout Shift in current field and lab reporting. Pass: Compare the page with the source checklist threshold below 0.1 while recognizing that current Google documentation should govern formal interpretation. Fail: Unexpected layout movement disrupts reading or interaction. Severity: High. Owner: Developer. Correction: Reserve space for media and dynamic elements and stabilize layout. Validate: Recheck the affected templates.
• Evidence: Review Interaction to Next Paint using current field data where available. Pass: The source checklist reference under 200ms is met or the team has a documented remediation plan for slower interaction. Fail: Interaction delay is persistent and material. Severity: High. Owner: Developer. Correction: Reduce main-thread work and long tasks supported by profiling evidence. Validate: Recheck field and lab diagnostics.
• Evidence: Review Search Console's Core Web Vitals reporting monthly as the source operating cadence, while treating that frequency as an internal practice rather than an official ranking requirement. Pass: Regressions are assigned and investigated. Fail: Known poor page groups remain unowned. Severity: Medium. Owner: Technical SEO. Correction: Create tickets tied to affected templates and evidence. Validate: Confirm status after fixes are crawled and measured.

Site Architecture & Crawlability

• Evidence: Inspect robots.txt and compare directives with the intended public index. Pass: Public note-seller pages are crawlable unless an intentional policy says otherwise. Fail: Important pages are unintentionally blocked or sensitive areas are exposed contrary to policy. Severity: Critical. Owner: Technical SEO and developer. Correction: Change directives only after confirming intent. Validate: Re-test affected URLs with current inspection tools.
• Evidence: Render priority pages with JavaScript enabled and compare visible content with crawlable HTML. Pass: Important content and links are available to users and search engines without relying on obsolete Fetch as Google workflows. Fail: Rendering hides or omits critical content. Severity: High. Owner: Developer. Correction: Fix rendering, hydration, or blocked-resource issues. Validate: Use current URL inspection and rendered-page checks.
• Evidence: Compare the XML sitemap with the canonical, indexable public page set. Pass: The sitemap includes intended indexable service and resource pages and excludes redirects, errors, and intentionally non-indexable pages. Fail: Sitemap membership conflicts with indexation intent. Severity: High. Owner: Technical SEO. Correction: Regenerate or clean the sitemap. Validate: Resubmit if appropriate and inspect sitemap reporting.
• Evidence: Crawl redirect paths and identify chains exceeding the source reference of fewer than 2 hops. Pass: Internal links generally point directly to the final canonical destination. Fail: Avoidable chains create unnecessary requests or conflicting signals. Severity: Medium. Owner: Developer or technical SEO. Correction: Update internal links and consolidate redirects. Validate: Re-crawl redirect paths.
• Evidence: Export 404 responses and existing 301 mappings. Pass: Deleted pages either remain intentionally gone or redirect only when a genuinely relevant replacement exists. Fail: Errors break important journeys or unrelated destinations are used merely to suppress errors. Severity: Medium. Owner: Technical SEO. Correction: Restore, remove internal links, or redirect based on true replacement intent. Validate: Re-crawl and test representative paths.

HTTPS & Security

• Evidence: Inspect canonical public pages and certificate status. Pass: Pages load over HTTPS with a valid certificate and consistent secure canonicalization. Fail: Certificate or protocol issues interrupt access or create duplicate insecure versions. Severity: Critical. Owner: Infrastructure or web team. Correction: Repair certificate, redirect, and canonical configuration. Validate: Retest affected hosts and templates.
• Evidence: Review browser console and network requests for mixed content. Pass: Secure pages do not request insecure active or display resources. Fail: Mixed content causes warnings or blocked resources. Severity: High. Owner: Developer. Correction: Update resource URLs or delivery configuration. Validate: Recheck console and network logs.

Structured data should describe information that is already accurate and visible where appropriate. Do not treat markup as an authority shortcut, a direct ranking lever, or a guarantee of an enhanced search display. Use only schema types and properties that truthfully fit the note brokerage entity and current search documentation.

Organization Schema

• Evidence: Compare organization markup with the firm's visible legal or public business identity, logo, contact details, and official profiles. Pass: The markup matches the real entity and visible page information. Fail: It contains invented credentials, locations, services, ratings, or contact data. Severity: High. Owner: Technical SEO and business owner. Correction: Remove unsupported properties and align remaining values with the site. Validate: Run current structured-data validation and inspect rendered source.
• Evidence: Review sameAs references against profiles the firm actually controls or that unambiguously represent it. Pass: References resolve to the same entity. Fail: They point to unrelated, duplicate, or unverified profiles. Severity: Medium. Owner: Technical SEO. Correction: Remove or replace unsupported references. Validate: Open each destination and confirm entity match.
• Evidence: Validate markup with Google's current supported tools rather than relying on the retired Structured Data Testing Tool as an operational dependency. Pass: No material syntax or eligibility errors remain for supported features the site actually uses. Fail: Validation errors or unsupported properties are ignored. Severity: Medium. Owner: Technical SEO. Correction: Fix syntax and remove unsupported markup. Validate: Re-run validation after deployment.

LocalBusiness Schema if a Genuine Physical Office Exists

• Evidence: Confirm that LocalBusiness or a more appropriate subtype accurately represents a real eligible office and visible business information. Pass: Markup reflects the genuine location and business type. Fail: A nominal market, mailbox, or unsupported service area is marked as a physical business location. Severity: High. Owner: Technical SEO and operations. Correction: Remove unsupported local markup or use accurate organization-level information. Validate: Compare markup, page content, and business profile data.
• Evidence: Compare areaServed claims with the firm's actual service capability and any required licensing or business limitations. Pass: Geography is factual and useful. Fail: The page claims markets the firm does not actually serve. Severity: High. Owner: Operations and content lead. Correction: Narrow unsupported service-area claims. Validate: Confirm against approved operating scope.
• Evidence: Review any priceRange property against visible, meaningful pricing context. Pass: The property is omitted when it would be misleading or not applicable. Fail: A symbol implies a standardized note price or fee that does not reflect the transaction model. Severity: Medium. Owner: Technical SEO and business owner. Correction: Remove misleading price markup. Validate: Reinspect structured data and visible pricing statements.

Service Schema Where Applicable

• Evidence: Compare each marked service with the actual note-buying or valuation service described on the page. Pass: ServiceArea and ServiceType values, if used, are accurate and supported by page content. Fail: Markup invents a service, market, or transaction capability. Severity: High. Owner: Technical SEO and content lead. Correction: Align or remove unsupported values. Validate: Compare markup with rendered page copy.
• Evidence: Review structured-data descriptions for natural, factual language. Pass: Descriptions identify the service without keyword stuffing or unsupported claims. Fail: Hidden markup contains promotional language absent from the page. Severity: Medium. Owner: Technical SEO. Correction: Rewrite to match visible content. Validate: Inspect rendered source and page copy together.

FAQ Content and Markup

• Evidence: Review reader-facing FAQ content for actual note-seller questions and current, accurate answers. Pass: FAQs help users understand valuation, process, documentation, timing, or eligibility without promising a rich result. Fail: FAQPage markup is added solely to pursue Google FAQ rich-result visibility or answers make unsupported financial claims. Severity: Medium. Owner: Content and technical SEO leads. Correction: Keep useful visible FAQs, remove unsupported claims, and do not rely on FAQPage markup as a search-display entitlement. Validate: Review the live FAQ against the approved source content and current search documentation.
• Evidence: Compare FAQ questions with actual user language from inquiries, search data, or support records. Pass: Questions represent genuine seller decisions. Fail: Questions exist only to repeat target keywords. Severity: Low. Owner: Content lead. Correction: Replace manufactured questions with useful ones. Validate: Recheck against documented inquiry themes.

Article Schema for Resource Pages Where Applicable

• Evidence: Compare headline, publication dates, modification dates, and author information with the visible article. Pass: Markup matches the page and names the responsible author or organization accurately. Fail: Dates or authorship are fabricated or inconsistent. Severity: High. Owner: Technical SEO and editorial lead. Correction: Align markup with visible editorial facts. Validate: Run structured-data validation and inspect the rendered article.
• Evidence: Separately audit internal links between resource and service pages. Pass: Links help users navigate related note topics; Article markup is not credited with creating topical authority by itself. Fail: The team substitutes markup for useful information architecture. Severity: Medium. Owner: SEO lead. Correction: Improve contextual internal links independently of schema. Validate: Crawl the site and manually test topic journeys.

Citations and Industry Listings

• Evidence: Review each proposed note-investor, real-estate, or financial directory for a real audience, accurate category fit, and legitimate business-listing purpose. Pass: Listings help users verify the firm and are not created solely to manufacture links. Fail: The source is irrelevant, deceptive, or part of a link scheme. Severity: Medium. Owner: Outreach or local marketing lead. Correction: Remove weak targets and keep only defensible listings. Validate: Audit live profiles for factual consistency.
• Evidence: Compare business name, address, and phone across the site and legitimate listings. Pass: Core business details are factually consistent for the same entity and genuine location. Fail: Conflicting details could confuse users or represent unsupported locations. Severity: High. Owner: Operations or local marketing. Correction: Update inaccurate records. Validate: Recheck the primary profiles after changes propagate.
• Evidence: Apply the source example that Five strong, relevant citations can be more useful than 20 low-quality ones as an editorial principle, not a ranking formula. Pass: Source selection is based on relevance, legitimacy, and user value. Fail: Quantity alone drives submissions. Severity: Medium. Owner: Outreach lead. Correction: Prune low-value listings and prioritize defensible sources. Validate: Review the final source list and live citations.

Backlink Strategy

• Evidence: Maintain 5-10 'tier-1' prospects from note-investor publications, relevant financial education sites, and industry associations, while treating any authority score such as 30+ only as a third-party screening input rather than proof of quality. Pass: Each prospect has topical relevance, a real audience, and a plausible editorial reason to reference the firm's resource. Fail: Selection is based only on a proprietary score. Severity: Medium. Owner: Digital PR or outreach. Correction: Add relevance and editorial-quality checks. Validate: Approve the prospect rationale before outreach.
• Evidence: Review outreach messages and placement terms. Pass: Messages explain audience relevance and do not conceal sponsorship or request manipulative treatment. Fail: Outreach is mass-produced, deceptive, or conditioned on artificial link placement. Severity: High. Owner: Outreach lead. Correction: Personalize around real editorial fit and remove manipulative terms. Validate: Sample sent messages and resulting placements.
• Evidence: Inspect any contributed article and its 1-2 contextual links for relevance, disclosure, and editorial legitimacy. Pass: Links are useful to readers and the contribution follows the publisher's genuine editorial process. Fail: Links are inserted to pass signals rather than serve the audience. Severity: High. Owner: Editorial and outreach leads. Correction: Remove manipulative links or decline the placement. Validate: Review the live article and disclosure context.
• Evidence: Audit acquired links for paid-link, private-network, or link-farm patterns. Pass: Placements are editorially defensible and relevant to note sellers, note investors, real estate, or finance. Fail: The program buys ranking-oriented links or uses private networks. Severity: Critical. Owner: SEO lead. Correction: Stop the tactic and document remediation appropriate to the actual link pattern. Validate: Re-audit the backlink profile and outreach process.

Review Generation & Reputation Signals

• Evidence: Review the firm's feedback-request process. Pass: Eligible customers are asked consistently for honest feedback without incentives, discouraging negative feedback, or selecting only satisfied customers. Fail: Requests are gated, selectively sent, or conditioned on sentiment. Severity: Critical. Owner: Operations or customer experience. Correction: Standardize a neutral request process. Validate: Sample recent request records and templates.
• Evidence: Review the source operating practice of responding within 48 hours as a service workflow, not an official ranking requirement. Pass: Responses are accurate, respectful, privacy-aware, and handled within the firm's documented service standard. Fail: Responses disclose sensitive information, pressure reviewers, or are left unmanaged contrary to policy. Severity: High. Owner: Customer experience or compliance-aware communications lead. Correction: Use an approved response workflow and escalation path. Validate: Audit a sample of recent responses.
• Evidence: Treat the source cadence of 2-4 per month only as a historical operating example, not as an official local ranking factor or target. Pass: Review requests follow a consistent eligibility rule and never manipulate sentiment or timing to create artificial velocity. Fail: The team chases a quota or suppresses negative feedback. Severity: Critical. Owner: Operations. Correction: Remove quota-driven or gated practices and use neutral requests. Validate: Compare policy with actual request records.

Social Presence

• Evidence: If the source operating practice of posting 1-2x per week on LinkedIn is retained, review each post for audience usefulness, factual support, and required approvals. Pass: Social activity supports communication and distribution without being represented as a direct Google ranking factor. Fail: Posting cadence is sold as a search-ranking mechanism or content contains unsupported client-success claims. Severity: Medium. Owner: Communications lead. Correction: Reframe social work around audience communication and approved distribution. Validate: Review published posts and claims.
• Evidence: Compare social claims with site content and approved firm information. Pass: Profiles reinforce consistent entity information and direct users to accurate resources. Fail: Profiles contain outdated services, unsupported credentials, or conflicting contact data. Severity: Medium. Owner: Communications or operations. Correction: Update factual discrepancies. Validate: Recheck live profiles after edits.