E-E-A-T and trust audit for founders who value discretion

A ledger of claims and visible proof

An E-E-A-T and trust audit examines whether visitors can trace important claims to clear, relevant evidence. It reviews the experience, expertise, authority and trust signals your organisation presents, without assigning a credibility score.

For a SaaS or Web3 business, the review may consider author responsibilities, product documentation, company information, support routes and risk explanations. We compare what a page asserts with what a reader can verify there or through the public material it cites. The purpose is to distinguish substantiated information from details that are unclear, inconsistent or absent.

The audit is a discreet working record, not a public assessment. Your named point of contact receives the findings, and any factual uncertainty is marked for confirmation rather than presented as settled. For a broader view of adjacent AI search work, the AI search visibility overview explains how this review can sit alongside other services.

The review arranged around your decision

The review is arranged around the questions your buyers need answered, rather than a standard checklist. The table shows the usual choices; the final selection is agreed privately before materials are collected.

Each format keeps observations tied to a visible page, claim or public signal. A technical concern, such as how documentation is presented, can be separated for a later discussion through technical AEO support. That distinction keeps the audit focused on evidence and avoids mixing content judgments with implementation work.

What can the review establish about Google and AI answers?

The review can establish what appears in a defined set of searches and answer checks at the time they are carried out. It records whether your business or relevant sources are visible, how the information is expressed, and which public evidence supports or conflicts with that description.

This creates a useful baseline for work around Perplexity optimization or Google AI Overviews, without treating either as a promised outcome. The audit records the questions and observations in scope. Ongoing checks can be considered separately through AI visibility monitoring.

Questions come from your priority audience and commercial context. For example, a SaaS team may want to understand how its product is described. Meanwhile, a Web3 company may focus on whether public documentation and risk information are easy to find. We keep the observed result separate from our interpretation, so your team can see where a conclusion needs confirmation.

The arrangement in four considered stages

The audit proceeds through 4 stages, with one named contact coordinating questions and approvals. A factual review takes place before the findings are finalised, while the conclusions remain independent of unverified assumptions.

1. Set the review boundary. We agree the audience, business priorities, pages and questions. You approve the material to be examined and identify any internal reviewer.
2. Gather the record. You share public URLs and relevant context for product, author or company claims. Sensitive background stays confidential and is used only to validate the agreed review.
3. Examine and clarify. We document visible strengths, gaps and inconsistencies. The named contact receives factual questions and can correct context before the report is completed.
4. Present the action order. You receive annotated findings, priority recommendations and suggested owners. We discuss what is most useful to address first, by arrangement.

This sequence gives your team two clear approval moments: confirming the review boundary and checking factual context. The final recommendations remain measured, specific to the evidence examined, and ready for your internal decision-making.

A composed view of what the audit can establish

The report is designed to help your team improve the clarity and verifiability of public information. Before acting, the relevant product, legal or compliance lead should confirm each claim and decide whether its supporting detail is suitable for publication. We can identify a gap without asking you to disclose sensitive operational information.

When recommendations call for new or revised material, content for AI answers may be a useful next consideration. If the issue concerns how your organisation is represented across public sources, entity and knowledge graph work addresses a different part of the picture.

Boundaries

Google and AI answer services independently choose what to display, cite or recommend, and their presentation can change; this audit cannot promise a particular ranking, inclusion or citation. It delivers the agreed review, documented observations and prioritised recommendations within the confirmed scope. A finding about public evidence is not a certification of your business or its claims.

A private starting point for the review

A useful first conversation can remain narrow: the priority audience, the pages that matter to its decision, and the questions your team wants answered. You need not prepare a complete evidence library before the initial scope is discussed. A named contact can clarify what is relevant and keep the exchange discreet.

The first item you will see is a written scope outline listing the proposed pages, questions and reviewers, before the audit begins. It gives you a composed basis for deciding what should be included and who should validate factual details. Nothing is treated as approved for wider circulation without your sign-off.

If you would like that outline, a note with one priority buyer question is enough for the named contact at our contact desk to prepare the next step.

How it works

1. Set the review boundaryAgree the audience, business priorities, pages and questions. You approve the material to be examined.
2. Gather the recordShare public URLs and context needed to validate important product, author or company claims.
3. Examine and clarifyWe record visible strengths and gaps, then give your nominated contact a factual review.
4. Present the action orderReceive annotated findings, prioritised recommendations and suggested owners for follow-up.