Visibility work starts with what can be checked: the facts a business can stand behind, the questions buyers need answered, the evidence that supports important claims and the pages that make all of this usable.
The five steps sit within the same three stages used in a Foundation Sprint: Discover covers steps 1 and 2, Build covers steps 3 and 4, and Review covers step 5. Each stage produces material you can inspect and discuss, with scope agreed in advance.
01 – Establish facts
Stage: Discover
Collect the material the business can stand behind: service scope, product information, expert knowledge and permissions. Identify the person responsible for each claim. Record conflicting or missing information rather than smoothing it into confident copy.
Outputs
- A fact map with confirmation and evidence status
- A source register with scope, ownership and review dates
- Open questions for review
02 – Map buyer questions
Stage: Discover
Work from the decisions people actually face. Separate the questions of a technical evaluator, a budget holder and a delivery owner. Identify what each person needs before they can enquire, compare options or involve a colleague. Prioritise questions that block a useful next step, not just broad topics with search demand.
Outputs
- An audience and buyer-question map
- A priority page list
- A discovery-path map connecting questions, pages and next steps
03 – Build decision pages and evidence
Stage: Build
Turn supported information into useful pages. Give each priority page a clear audience, a direct answer, relevant evidence and honest fit conditions. Choose a case, FAQ, expert resource or service page because it helps a decision, not because every site needs more content. Agree what will actually be delivered before work begins.
Outputs
- Page architecture
- Content briefs with evidence and review requirements
- Agreed priority pages or evidence assets
04 – Check technical discoverability
Stage: Build
Review whether intended public pages can be reached and understood. The review covers crawlability, indexation, sitemap coverage, canonical signals, internal links, page titles, useful text and update paths. Separate a technical obstacle from a deliberate exclusion. A page can be eligible for search without being indexed or selected.
Outputs
- A technical review with observed evidence and limits
- Priority fixes with responsible owners
- A change record
05 – Record changes and review signals
Stage: Review
Record what changed, which evidence informed it, what was approved for publication and what remains uncertain. Review whether buyers can find clearer answers and whether intended pages are accessible. Treat search observations and enquiries as signals to investigate, not proof that one edit caused a commercial result.
Outputs
- A change log
- A review record with unresolved questions
- A 90-day roadmap of priorities, not a promise to deliver every item within the Sprint
How we describe evidence
| Label | What it means |
|---|---|
| Client-confirmed | A responsible client representative has confirmed the statement and its scope. Record who, when and on what basis. This is an attributed confirmation, not independent verification. |
| Source-supported | An identified source supports this particular statement within its stated scope and date. Check the original material, relevance and limitations; a source can be incomplete or wrong. |
| Pending verification | The statement lacks sufficient confirmation or supporting evidence, or sources conflict. Keep it out of public claims until resolved, or describe the uncertainty explicitly. |
| Interpretation | A professional reading of evidence, not a fact. Identify the evidence and explain the reasoning and limitations. |
| Hypothesis | An idea to test, not a fact or a promised outcome. State what observation would support or challenge it. |
| Open question | A specific gap that still needs an answer. Assign a responsible person and a next review point. |
Confirmation and source support can coexist. Keep evidence status separate from statement type: an interpretation or hypothesis does not become a fact when someone approves it. Approval is not proof of truth; permission to publish is a separate decision.
AI assistance, human responsibility
AI can assist research, organisation, first drafts and gap identification. Facts, commercial claims, client approval and public publication remain subject to human review. Fluent text is not evidence. A responsible person must check the source, scope and permission behind important claims.
This method does not promise indexing, rankings, AI citations or revenue. It makes the work and its limits easier to inspect.
Continue exploring
A Foundation Sprint starts with an agreed scope, responsibilities and review points. Bring the page or buyer question that is hardest to explain today.