WORDPRESS SEO / CONTENT / TEMPLATE / E-E-A-T QA-QC
MASTER DISCOVERY AUDIT

SITE:
[DOMAIN BURAYA]

MODE:
READ-ONLY DISCOVERY ONLY

NO LIVE WORDPRESS WRITES
NO CONTENT EDITS
NO TAXONOMY CHANGES
NO STATUS CHANGES
NO SCHEDULE CHANGES
NO REDIRECT WRITES
NO CANONICAL CHANGES
NO SEO META CHANGES
NO PLUGIN INSTALL
NO EXECUTE
NO DELETE

==================================================
0. CORE OBJECTIVE
==================================================

Perform a complete current-state QA/QC audit of this WordPress site before any production changes.

Evaluate:

1. Inventory integrity
2. Duplicate content
3. Search-intent cannibalization
4. Internal linking
5. Taxonomy
6. Content structure
7. Programmatic/template repetition
8. SEO metadata
9. E-E-A-T / trust
10. Sources and factual claims
11. Schedule/status anomalies
12. Technical indexability
13. Safe production opportunities

Do not assume any previous inventory, classification, report, ID list, content count, or SEO decision is still correct.

Build the current state from scratch.

IMPORTANT:

A recommendation is NOT permission to make a change.

This entire task is discovery/read-only.

==================================================
1. INVENTORY LOCK
==================================================

Take the freshest available WordPress snapshot.

Prefer where available:

- current WordPress admin/REST data
- fresh All Content WXR export
- current frontend validation

Record:

- snapshot/export UTC timestamp
- SHA-256 if a file is used
- publish posts
- future/scheduled posts
- draft posts
- pending posts
- private posts
- pages
- attachments/media
- categories
- tags

Separate clearly:

POSTS
PAGES
MEDIA
TAXONOMY

Do not mix attachment/page counts into post counts.

Check for discrepancies between:

- WordPress admin counts
- REST counts
- WXR counts

If counts disagree:

INVENTORY_MISMATCH

and explain the difference before proposing production work.

==================================================
2. COMPLETE POST INVENTORY
==================================================

For every post collect where available:

- post ID
- status
- title
- slug
- permalink
- post_date
- post_date_gmt
- modified date
- modified_gmt
- category IDs/names
- tag IDs/names
- author
- raw content SHA-256
- excerpt
- featured image ID

Also collect SEO data where available:

- SEO title
- meta description
- focus keyword
- canonical
- robots/indexability
- schema type
- redirect metadata if any

If Rank Math is installed, inspect Rank Math fields.

Do NOT automatically populate missing SEO fields.

==================================================
3. EXACT DUPLICATE QA
==================================================

Find:

- exact duplicate titles
- exact duplicate slugs
- exact duplicate focus keywords
- exact duplicate SEO titles
- exact duplicate meta descriptions
- exact duplicate body content
- near-identical body content

Separate:

EXACT_DUPLICATE
LIKELY_DUPLICATE
NO_DUPLICATE
REVIEW_REQUIRED

For every duplicate/near-duplicate group report:

- IDs
- URLs
- titles
- status
- similarity reason
- whether search intent is also duplicated

Do NOT merge, draft, redirect, canonicalize, or delete anything.

==================================================
4. SEARCH-INTENT CANNIBALIZATION QA
==================================================

Detect posts targeting substantially the same search intent.

Do NOT call posts cannibalized merely because they share:

- one keyword
- one category
- one tag
- similar wording
- the same template

For every suspected pair/group report:

- post IDs
- URLs
- titles
- focus keywords
- status
- overlapping search intent
- unique intent differences
- unique useful content
- internal-link dependencies
- current canonical/indexability
- likely primary candidate
- likely secondary candidate

Classify:

CANNIBAL_HIGH_CONFIDENCE
POSSIBLE_CANNIBAL
DISTINCT_INTENT
REVIEW_REQUIRED

Also distinguish:

SAME_TEMPLATE_SAME_INTENT
SAME_TEMPLATE_DIFFERENT_INTENT
DIFFERENT_TEMPLATE_SAME_INTENT

Do not perform:

- merge
- draft
- redirect
- status change
- canonical change

==================================================
5. INTERNAL LINK QA
==================================================

Analyze editorial internal links in post/page bodies.

For every link where practical collect:

- source ID
- source status
- source URL
- anchor text
- destination URL
- destination post ID
- destination status
- HTTP result
- redirect result

Detect:

- broken internal links
- links to deleted content
- links to draft/private posts
- links to redirected URLs
- redirect chains
- links to cannibal secondary URLs
- links to non-indexable pages
- excessive repeated exact-match anchors
- contextually misleading anchor text
- orphan posts
- zero-editorial-link posts

Separate:

MANUAL_BODY_LINK
THEME_GENERATED_LINK
ARCHIVE/CARD_LINK
NAVIGATION_LINK

Do not treat automatic theme cards/archive links as manually authored body links.

For suspected orphan posts, clearly state the scope of the check.

Do not claim a page has no links anywhere on the internet.

Do NOT rewrite links.

==================================================
6. TAXONOMY QA
==================================================

Inspect:

- categories
- tags
- category/tag slug overlap
- category/tag semantic duplication
- empty terms
- unused terms
- single-use tags
- low-value tag archives
- over-fragmented taxonomy
- duplicate archive intent
- categories functioning as tags
- tags functioning as categories

For every issue classify:

SAFE_TAXONOMY_CLEANUP
REVIEW_TAXONOMY
KEEP
DELETE_CANDIDATE

IMPORTANT:

DELETE_CANDIDATE is NOT permission to delete.

For category/tag overlap check whether removal would:

- make a taxonomy archive empty
- reduce useful navigation
- affect internal links
- affect current indexable archives

Do NOT alter taxonomy.

==================================================
7. CONTENT STRUCTURE QA
==================================================

Inspect posts for:

- missing/abnormal H1 usage
- duplicate H2
- duplicate H3
- generic repeated headings
- malformed heading hierarchy
- empty sections
- duplicate paragraphs
- repeated FAQ questions
- repeated FAQ answers
- placeholder content
- obviously unfinished content
- malformed HTML
- broken Gutenberg structures
- excessive boilerplate
- generic conclusions
- generic introductions
- structurally repetitive sections

Classify:

SAFE_HEADING_FIX
SAFE_STRUCTURE_FIX
REVIEW_CONTENT
NO_ACTION

A fix is SAFE only if deterministic.

Examples of potentially SAFE fixes:

- exact duplicated heading
- exact duplicated paragraph
- obvious template placeholder
- heading clearly unrelated to its own section

Editorial rewriting is not automatically SAFE.

==================================================
8. SITE-WIDE TEMPLATE / PROGRAMMATIC CONTENT QA
==================================================

Analyze whether posts are generated from repeated or programmatic templates.

The objective is NOT to penalize a consistent editorial format.

The objective is to detect mechanical repetition that makes pages substantially interchangeable.

For every major content cluster inspect:

- introduction structure
- first paragraph wording
- H2 sequence
- H3 sequence
- heading wording
- paragraph ordering
- conclusion structure
- FAQ structure
- related-guides section
- CTA blocks
- image placement
- image count/order
- internal-link placement
- anchor-text patterns
- transition sentences
- examples
- descriptive phrases
- HTML/Gutenberg block sequences

==================================================
8.1 TEMPLATE SIMILARITY
==================================================

Compare posts within the same cluster.

Measure where practical:

- identical heading sequence
- identical paragraph count
- exact repeated sentences
- near-duplicate paragraphs
- repeated intro wording
- repeated outro wording
- repeated FAQs
- repeated related-guide blocks
- repeated CTA language
- identical internal-link sections
- identical block structure

When evaluating textual similarity, account for expected variable substitutions such as:

- city name
- state
- room name
- product name
- style keyword
- dimensions
- other legitimate variable tokens

Do not classify a page as duplicate merely because these variables differ.

==================================================
8.2 SITE LAYOUT VS CONTENT TEMPLATE
==================================================

Distinguish:

SITE_LAYOUT_TEMPLATE

from:

CONTENT_TEMPLATE

Shared theme/layout elements are not themselves a content-quality problem.

==================================================
8.3 TEMPLATE CLASSIFICATION
==================================================

Classify every cluster/post as:

TEMPLATE_HEALTHY
TEMPLATE_MINOR_REPETITION
TEMPLATE_REVISE_STRUCTURE
TEMPLATE_HIGH_SIMILARITY
TEMPLATE_NEAR_DUPLICATE
REVIEW_REQUIRED

Definitions:

TEMPLATE_HEALTHY
- consistent structure
- substantially unique content
- unique examples/details
- headings genuinely adapted to topic

TEMPLATE_MINOR_REPETITION
- some reusable phrasing
- content remains materially distinct

TEMPLATE_REVISE_STRUCTURE
- content is useful
- structure is excessively mechanical

TEMPLATE_HIGH_SIMILARITY
- substantial section/wording repetition

TEMPLATE_NEAR_DUPLICATE
- page differs mainly through variable substitution or superficial rewriting

==================================================
8.4 TEMPLATE CLUSTER REPORT
==================================================

For each significant template cluster report:

- cluster/topic
- number of posts
- example post IDs
- example URLs
- common heading pattern
- repeated paragraphs/examples
- repeated FAQ structure
- similarity severity
- exact elements causing concern

State whether recommended future action is:

NO_ACTION
HEADING_ONLY
STRUCTURE_REVISION
BODY_EDITORIAL_REWRITE
DUPLICATE/CANNIBAL_REVIEW

Do NOT rewrite templates during discovery.

==================================================
9. SEO META / RANK MATH QA
==================================================

Check:

- missing SEO title
- duplicate SEO title
- missing meta description
- duplicate meta description
- missing focus keyword
- duplicate focus keyword
- unexpected custom canonical
- incorrect canonical
- unexpected noindex
- robots anomalies
- redirect metadata
- schema anomalies where obvious

Do NOT assume that every:

- missing focus keyword
- missing meta description
- missing custom SEO title

must be fixed.

Classify:

SAFE_META_FIX
REVIEW_META
NO_ACTION

Rank Math fields should not be changed merely to obtain a plugin score.

==================================================
10. E-E-A-T / TRUST QA
==================================================

Evaluate the site and major content clusters for:

Experience
Expertise
Authoritativeness
Trust

IMPORTANT:

Do not treat E-E-A-T as a single numeric ranking factor.

Use it as a quality and trust QA framework.

Do NOT invent:

- credentials
- professional experience
- tests
- certifications
- authorship
- first-hand experience
- sources
- company history

==================================================
10.1 EXPERIENCE
==================================================

Look for topic-appropriate evidence of experience:

- first-hand observations
- practical examples
- real scenarios
- original photos/screenshots where relevant
- measurements
- actual tests
- process descriptions
- lessons learned
- specific reasoning
- practical limitations/tradeoffs
- topic-specific details

Flag content that is:

- generic
- interchangeable
- purely theoretical where experience would matter
- mechanically generated
- unsupported first-person experience

Classify:

EXPERIENCE_STRONG
EXPERIENCE_ADEQUATE
EXPERIENCE_WEAK
EXPERIENCE_NOT_EXPECTED
REVIEW_REQUIRED

==================================================
10.2 EXPERTISE
==================================================

Evaluate:

- terminology
- factual precision
- technical accuracy where verifiable
- reasoning depth
- standards/references where relevant
- specialist claims
- calculations where applicable
- unsupported absolute claims

Classify:

EXPERTISE_STRONG
EXPERTISE_ADEQUATE
EXPERTISE_WEAK
UNSUPPORTED_EXPERT_CLAIM
REVIEW_REQUIRED

==================================================
10.3 AUTHORSHIP
==================================================

Inspect:

- named author
- author page
- author bio
- author expertise
- reviewer information
- editorial responsibility
- consistency of author attribution

Flag:

MISSING_AUTHOR
WEAK_AUTHOR_BIO
IRRELEVANT_CREDENTIAL
AUTHORSHIP_INCONSISTENCY
PASS

Do not invent credentials.

==================================================
10.4 AUTHORITATIVENESS
==================================================

Evaluate:

- topical depth
- consistent subject coverage
- original research/data
- primary-source references
- credible external sources
- internal topical organization
- relevant author/reviewer expertise

Do NOT infer authority only from:

- number of posts
- domain age
- keyword rankings

Classify:

AUTHORITY_STRONG
AUTHORITY_ADEQUATE
AUTHORITY_WEAK
REVIEW_REQUIRED

==================================================
10.5 TRUST
==================================================

Inspect site-wide trust signals:

- About page
- Contact page
- author information
- ownership/business information
- editorial policy
- correction policy
- privacy policy
- terms
- affiliate disclosure
- advertising disclosure
- review methodology
- publication/update dates
- sourcing
- HTTPS
- misleading promises
- unverifiable statistics
- fabricated expertise
- fake-looking testimonials
- exaggerated claims

Classify:

TRUST_STRONG
TRUST_ADEQUATE
TRUST_WEAK
TRUST_CRITICAL

==================================================
11. SOURCE / CITATION QA
==================================================

For factual claims that reasonably require evidence, inspect whether sources are:

- present
- relevant
- authoritative
- primary where practical
- current enough
- actually supportive of the claim

Classify:

SOURCE_STRONG
SOURCE_MISSING
SOURCE_WEAK
SOURCE_OUTDATED
SOURCE_NOT_SUPPORTING_CLAIM
REVIEW_REQUIRED

Do not require citations for ordinary subjective/editorial statements.

Do not infer that a source supports a claim merely because a link is present.

==================================================
12. CLAIM QA
==================================================

Detect potentially risky claims such as:

- best
- proven
- guaranteed
- 100%
- always
- never
- safe
- certified
- approved
- scientifically proven
- recommended by experts
- clinically proven
- numerical performance claims
- compliance claims
- legal claims
- technical-standard claims

For each material claim classify:

SUPPORTED
NEEDS_SOURCE
OVERSTATED
UNVERIFIABLE
REVIEW_REQUIRED

Do not modify claims.

==================================================
13. YMYL / HIGH-RISK CONTENT QA
==================================================

Determine whether any content could materially affect:

- health
- medical decisions
- physical safety
- financial decisions
- legal decisions
- major purchases
- regulated technical decisions

Classify:

NON_YMYL
YMYL_LOW
YMYL_MODERATE
YMYL_HIGH

For higher-risk content apply stricter standards for:

- expertise
- citations
- accuracy
- disclosures
- update freshness
- author/reviewer credentials

Do NOT invent disclaimers or professional credentials.

==================================================
14. STATUS / SCHEDULE QA
==================================================

For future/scheduled posts inspect:

- future status
- post_date
- post_date_gmt
- chronological order
- past-dated future posts
- suspicious schedule gaps
- duplicated schedule timestamps
- unexpected publication clusters
- scheduling anomalies

Classify:

STATUS_ANOMALY
SCHEDULE_ANOMALY
HOLD
NO_ACTION

Never:

- publish
- unpublish
- reschedule
- revert

during discovery.

==================================================
15. TECHNICAL INDEXABILITY QA
==================================================

For important URLs verify where possible:

- HTTP 200
- redirect
- redirect chain
- canonical
- indexability
- robots
- sitemap inclusion
- status consistency

Flag:

INDEXABILITY_PROBLEM
REDIRECT_PROBLEM
CANONICAL_PROBLEM
ROBOTS_PROBLEM
TECHNICAL_REVIEW
PASS

Separate actual technical problems from intentional configurations.

Do NOT change configuration.

==================================================
16. MEDIA / IMAGE QA
==================================================

Where relevant inspect:

- missing featured images
- duplicate featured-image reuse
- broken image references
- missing alt text
- meaningless alt text
- excessive keyword-stuffed alt text
- duplicate images across near-duplicate posts
- images referenced but missing
- attachment URLs unintentionally indexable where relevant

Classify:

IMAGE_SAFE_FIX
IMAGE_EDITORIAL_REVIEW
NO_ACTION

Do NOT edit media metadata or delete attachments.

==================================================
17. GLOBAL SAFETY CLASSIFICATION
==================================================

Every candidate future action must be classified as:

SAFE
REVIEW
HOLD
NO_ACTION

SAFE means:

- deterministic
- exact affected object known
- reversible
- no material editorial ambiguity
- no semantic uncertainty
- no dependency blocker

REVIEW means:

human/editorial judgment is required.

HOLD means:

dependency, uncertainty, risk, or unresolved conflict exists.

NO_ACTION means:

current state is acceptable.

==================================================
18. SAFE ACTION POOLS
==================================================

Build separate pools.

Do NOT mix different operation types just to create a batch.

Use:

TAXONOMY_SAFE
CONTENT_SAFE
HEADING_SAFE
LINK_SAFE
META_SAFE
IMAGE_SAFE
TEMPLATE_REVIEW
CANNIBAL_REVIEW
EEAT_REVIEW
TECHNICAL_REVIEW
HOLD
NO_ACTION

For each pool report:

- count
- exact candidate IDs
- reason
- proposed future operation type

==================================================
19. BATCH RULE
==================================================

No production changes during this audit.

For later production work:

Preferred batch size:

25–30 posts

Allowed normal range:

25–50 posts

Do NOT add REVIEW or HOLD items merely to reach 25.

If fewer than 25 genuinely SAFE candidates exist in an operation class:

DO_NOT_EXECUTE_BATCH

Exceptions:

A small number of high-confidence special cases may later be handled as separately authorized surgical operations, for example:

- one exact broken link
- one cannibal pair
- one critical canonical error

But these must NOT be silently mixed into standard batch execution.

==================================================
20. CHRONOLOGICAL RULE FOR FUTURE POSTS
==================================================

When working with scheduled/future posts later:

Prefer the chronologically earliest SAFE posts first.

Do not skip an earlier SAFE candidate without documenting why.

If a post changes from future to publish before execution:

STATUS_CHANGED

Exclude it.

Do NOT revert it automatically.

==================================================
21. PRODUCTION SAFETY MODEL
==================================================

Any later WordPress write batch must follow:

1. candidate discovery
2. exact candidate lock
3. exact write manifest
4. fresh prewrite snapshot
5. content/status/schedule/taxonomy/hash validation
6. rollback package
7. temporary executor preparation where needed
8. executor static QA
9. separate install authorization
10. live salt-read-only preflight
11. separate EXECUTE authorization
12. execute exactly once
13. independent post-write QA
14. rollback on critical mismatch
15. remove temporary executor

No production write should bypass these gates.

==================================================
22. PREWRITE GUARDS FOR FUTURE EXECUTION
==================================================

For any future write batch, capture appropriate guards such as:

- exact post ID
- status
- schedule
- modified_gmt
- content SHA-256
- taxonomy state
- Rank Math state
- canonical
- robots
- exact href occurrence count
- exact anchor text
- exact affected fragment

Only the intended field should change.

==================================================
23. ROLLBACK PRINCIPLE
==================================================

Every future write batch must have a rollback design BEFORE execution.

Rollback must be limited to the actual operation class.

Examples:

CONTENT_ONLY
TAXONOMY_ONLY
HREF_ONLY
META_ONLY
STATUS_ONLY
REDIRECT_ONLY

Do not use broad rollback operations that could overwrite unrelated changes.

==================================================
24. REQUIRED FINAL REPORT
==================================================

Return a concise but complete report.

------------------------------------------
A. INVENTORY
------------------------------------------

Report:

- publish
- future
- draft
- pending/private
- pages
- attachments
- categories
- tags

State whether:

INVENTORY_LOCK_PASS
or
INVENTORY_MISMATCH

------------------------------------------
B. DUPLICATES
------------------------------------------

Report:

- exact duplicate title groups
- exact duplicate slug groups
- duplicate focus keywords
- duplicate metadata
- near-duplicate content groups

------------------------------------------
C. CANNIBALIZATION
------------------------------------------

Report:

- high-confidence groups
- possible groups
- distinct-intent cases reviewed
- major dependency blockers

Show exact IDs.

------------------------------------------
D. INTERNAL LINKS
------------------------------------------

Report:

- broken internal links
- redirects
- links to draft/private
- links to cannibal secondaries
- orphan/zero-editorial-link candidates
- misleading anchors

------------------------------------------
E. TAXONOMY
------------------------------------------

Report:

- SAFE_TAXONOMY_CLEANUP count
- REVIEW_TAXONOMY count
- DELETE_CANDIDATE count
- major category/tag overlap patterns

Do NOT delete anything.

------------------------------------------
F. CONTENT STRUCTURE
------------------------------------------

Report:

- SAFE_HEADING_FIX
- SAFE_STRUCTURE_FIX
- REVIEW_CONTENT
- NO_ACTION

------------------------------------------
G. TEMPLATE QA
------------------------------------------

Report:

- TEMPLATE_HEALTHY count
- TEMPLATE_MINOR_REPETITION count
- TEMPLATE_REVISE_STRUCTURE count
- TEMPLATE_HIGH_SIMILARITY count
- TEMPLATE_NEAR_DUPLICATE count
- REVIEW_REQUIRED count

List highest-risk clusters.

Include example IDs.

State recommended action:

NO_ACTION
HEADING_ONLY
STRUCTURE_REVISION
BODY_EDITORIAL_REWRITE
DUPLICATE/CANNIBAL_REVIEW

------------------------------------------
H. SEO META
------------------------------------------

Report:

- missing SEO titles
- missing descriptions
- duplicate titles/descriptions
- duplicate focus keywords
- canonical anomalies
- robots/noindex anomalies

------------------------------------------
I. E-E-A-T
------------------------------------------

Overall report:

Experience:
STRONG / ADEQUATE / WEAK

Expertise:
STRONG / ADEQUATE / WEAK

Authoritativeness:
STRONG / ADEQUATE / WEAK

Trust:
STRONG / ADEQUATE / WEAK / CRITICAL

Also list:

- weak/missing author profiles
- unsupported expertise
- citation weaknesses
- trust-page gaps
- disclosure gaps
- source-quality issues
- high-risk claims
- YMYL-sensitive content
- highest-risk post clusters

Recommended actions:

EEAT_SAFE_FIX
EEAT_EDITORIAL_REVIEW
EEAT_SITEWIDE_FIX
EEAT_HOLD
NO_ACTION

------------------------------------------
J. SCHEDULE
------------------------------------------

Report:

- status anomalies
- past-dated future posts
- schedule anomalies
- suspicious clusters/gaps

------------------------------------------
K. TECHNICAL
------------------------------------------

Report:

- HTTP problems
- redirects
- canonical problems
- robots/indexability problems
- sitemap concerns

------------------------------------------
L. SAFE ACTION POOLS
------------------------------------------

Create a summary table:

POOL | COUNT | EXAMPLE IDs | RISK

Include at least:

TAXONOMY_SAFE
CONTENT_SAFE
HEADING_SAFE
LINK_SAFE
META_SAFE
IMAGE_SAFE
TEMPLATE_REVIEW
CANNIBAL_REVIEW
EEAT_REVIEW
TECHNICAL_REVIEW
HOLD
NO_ACTION

------------------------------------------
M. FIRST RECOMMENDED BATCH
------------------------------------------

Recommend ONE next operation only.

Specify:

- operation type
- number of posts
- exact candidate IDs
- why each is SAFE
- whether the 25–50 rule is satisfied

Prefer approximately 25–30 posts.

If no operation class has at least 25 genuinely SAFE candidates:

DO_NOT_EXECUTE

Then recommend the next READ-ONLY investigation instead.

Do NOT create an executor yet.

==================================================
25. HARD STOP RULES
==================================================

During this discovery:

- Do not write to WordPress.
- Do not install plugins.
- Do not edit posts.
- Do not edit pages.
- Do not alter taxonomy.
- Do not change SEO metadata.
- Do not change canonical.
- Do not change robots.
- Do not change status.
- Do not change schedules.
- Do not create redirects.
- Do not merge cannibal pages.
- Do not delete tags.
- Do not delete posts.
- Do not delete media.
- Do not rewrite templates.
- Do not fabricate E-E-A-T signals.
- Do not create fake experience.
- Do not invent credentials.
- Do not automatically proceed to another phase.
- Do not treat this audit as EXECUTE permission.

==================================================
26. FINAL REQUIRED CONCLUSION
==================================================

Finish with exactly:

"QA/QC discovery complete. No live WordPress changes applied. Awaiting user approval for the next gated step."