Use this section to determine whether technical content can be traced to appropriate expertise and whether the information matches the firm's actual capabilities. E-E-A-T is useful here as an editorial quality lens; it is not a special markup field or a single ranking switch.
Verify author and technical-review accountability
Evidence required: visible bylines or reviewer information where appropriate, staff biography pages, role descriptions, and an internal record showing who reviewed safety-critical or engineering-specific claims.
Pass/fail condition: pass when readers can understand who prepared or reviewed material that depends on technical expertise and the stated role is accurate. Fail when technical guidance is attributed only to a generic account, credentials are unclear, or the named reviewer did not review the published material.
Severity: Critical for safety-sensitive or technically consequential guidance; High for core engineering explainers. Owner: Editorial lead with the relevant engineering or subject-matter owner. Corrective action: assign an appropriate reviewer, correct the attribution, update the biography with verifiable role information, and remove claims that cannot be supported.
Validation: compare the live page, biography, and internal approval record after publication. Tools: Internal Interviews, LinkedIn.
Audit project case studies for evidence and disclosure boundaries
Evidence required: approved project records, client permissions where needed, technical scope notes, outcome evidence that can be disclosed, and review by the team responsible for the project.
Pass/fail condition: pass when the case study clearly separates documented scope, observed outcomes, and interpretation, and omits confidential or unsupported claims. Fail when savings, performance, safety, or operational claims cannot be traced to approved records.
Severity: High because unsupported project claims can damage credibility and create commercial or compliance risk. Owner: Content lead with project management, legal, commercial, or client-approval input as appropriate.
Corrective action: replace unsupported statements with documented facts, add context needed to interpret the project, and remove details that are not approved for publication. Validation: obtain final sign-off against the source project record before republication.
This review supports the existing oil and gas decision-making context. Tools: Project Management Logs, Client Interviews.
Map content to real procurement questions
Evidence required: search-query data, sales or CRM themes, product and service documentation, and interviews with commercial or technical teams about questions received during evaluation.
Pass/fail condition: pass when each important page has a distinct job, such as explaining an application, comparing relevant options, documenting technical requirements, or supporting a procurement decision.
Fail when multiple pages chase the same broad phrase while leaving important buyer questions unanswered. Severity: High for cannibalized or missing commercial topics; Medium for supporting educational gaps.
Owner: SEO strategist with sales, commercial, and technical input. Corrective action: assign one primary intent to each page, merge redundant coverage where appropriate, and create missing content only when the firm has useful information to add.
Validation: review the updated content map against live URLs and confirm that overlapping pages have distinct purposes. Tools: Keyword Gap Analysis, CRM Data.
Check regulatory and standards references for current accuracy
Evidence required: the live claim, the underlying regulatory or standards reference available to the business, the publication or revision information used by the subject-matter reviewer, and approval from the responsible reviewer.
Pass/fail condition: pass when every consequential standards or regulatory reference can be matched to the source the firm is relying on and the page clearly reflects the relevant scope. Fail when a reference is outdated, copied without context, or presented more broadly than the source supports.
Severity: Critical for safety, compliance, or specification content. Owner: Subject-matter expert with legal or regulatory review where required. Corrective action: update or qualify the claim, remove obsolete statements, and record the source used during review.
A page mentioning API 5CT should be checked against the version and scope actually relevant to the firm's published information. Validation: have the responsible reviewer compare the corrected page with the underlying standard or regulatory source before sign-off. Tools: Regulatory Databases, Legal Review.
Build and maintain a technical terminology resource only where it helps users
Evidence required: query evidence, internal terminology lists, customer questions, and a subject-matter review of proposed definitions.
Pass/fail condition: pass when definitions are accurate, useful, linked to deeper relevant service or technical pages, and do not oversimplify terms in ways that change their meaning. Fail when the glossary is generated as thin keyword inventory or duplicates existing pages without additional value.
Severity: Medium. Owner: Content strategist with subject-matter review. Corrective action: remove thin entries, expand definitions that need operational context, and connect terms to the firm's actual capabilities only when the relationship is accurate.
Validation: review a sample with technical staff and verify that internal links lead to genuinely relevant destinations. Tools: Google Keyword Planner, Industry Handbooks.
